avoiding carbs makes you lose weight

1468910

Replies

  • pyro13g
    pyro13g Posts: 1,127 Member
    So much wrong there it makes me sad. You can't be an omnivore. They haven't found a term to classify a modern humans digestive system yet. You can't build the best muscle possible heading towards the vegan side of things. Unless of course you want to supplement from the non vegan side of things. You CANNOT get a complete protein profile from that strategy and you CANNOT get B12, which humans need, from that kind of diet with out supplements.

    Huh? Omnivore at this point simply means eats both animal and plant based food. Real simple, herbavores eat plant stuff only. Carnivores eat meat only, omnivores eat both animal and plant based food. I am an omnivore. I am not talking about my digestive system I am talking about what I eat. I never said I was vegan, I said I was an unrepentant omnivore meaning again, I eat animal products along with the plant products. And yeah, I wasn't talking about B12, and no animals are not the only source of B12 you can actually get it from Miso which is a fermented soy product. But again, not a vegan. I may someday veer toward vegetarian but I would never completely become a vegetarian hence the "unrepentant" comment.

    And yeah you actually can get complete proteins through plant sources. For example peanuts are a dicot protein while grains such as wheat, oats, corn ect are monocot proteins. To get a complete protein you can do a simple PB&J and tada you have a complete protein. Just because plant sources aren't complete in and of themselves, does not mean you can't complete them by pairing. You can actually do that just fine.

    What you eat does not classify you as an herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, etc.. your digestive system and biochemical needs do. Humans do not fit any of them.
  • NikkisNewStart
    NikkisNewStart Posts: 1,075 Member
    I think she's coo coo for Co Co Puffs.
  • You're proving the stereotype of drummers.

    A very low tolerance for dietary and nutritional myths? ;-)

    Like your Insulin and fat comment?




    Please quote the comment and point out any errors.
  • Very nice review!


    Just to add...


    The initial higher weight loss shown by the group implementing the Atkins is easily explained by the fact that carbohydrates are water binding, so an extreme restriction in the "induction phase" would result in a large loss of muscle and liver glycogen, along with overall body water weight.

    You mean this study?

    http://jama.highwire.org/content/297/9/969.full

    It's important to look at the data tables when you evaluate a study, not just the abstract or conclusion.

    After 12 months, the group that lost the most weight out of women averaging 189 pounds at start lost...10 pounds? (Atkins.) That's less than 1 pound a month. Further, if you look at the data table that tracked weight, ALL groups regained some weight:

    http://jama.highwire.org/content/297/9/969/F2.expansion.html

    The Atkins group did lose the most by the 2 month mark. But if you calculate what they should be losing based on their average weights (86kg/189 pounds) and average calorie intake (1381), they lose exactly what they should be from plain old calorie restriction - about 10 pounds in two months (at that weight they would need about 1950 cal/day to maintain at sedentary activity levels, at a caloric deficit of 569/day, that's 34,140 calorie deficit or about 9.75 pounds.) Not sure what happened to the other groups. It's possible that Aktins was easier to adhere to, at least initially.

    But, in the later part of the study - they all gained! Even if you adjusted for their modest weight loss, each group should have continued to lose slowly on their reported caloric intake, rather than gain. The women in the Aktins group purportedly put on weight while eating 50g/carb a day AND reduced calories in the Atkins "continued weight loss phase" of their plan, and gained the most back out of all the groups. Not good.

    This is indicative of problems with reported data. It's disappointing that it wasn't addressed.

    If carbs were an factor, then you would expect the ZONE group which restricted carbs to 40% to out-lose the LEARN group who ate a whopping 55-60% carbs. They didn't, at any point.

    Weight loss tends to correlate with metabolic profile so that's not unusual that the group that lost the most had the best profile.

    I still think it's possible that there is some benefit to carb restriction independent of calorie restriction, but, I wouldn't hang my hat on this one. The only thing that you could conclude is that all of the diets failed by 12 months.

    Got anything else?
  • evonday
    evonday Posts: 141 Member
    "Our bodies were not designed to eat carbs and can do very well without them."

    That right there made me completely disregard the legitimacy of your guru. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. But there's a reason carbs are the biggest part of the food triangle. Our body needs them.

    Your body stores carbs in muscles. Carbs are necessary for your Retinas to work, your central nervous system, your immune system and your muscles, it goes on. You need carbs.

    The reason people lose weight by keeping out carbs is that your body will cannibalize your muscle to get the carbs needed for other systems. It cannot make them with other things, unlike proteins. Muscle weighs more then fat, so you'll lose weight, and fast, but when you're done your metabolism will be lower then when you started.

    Moderation is the key. Limit your carbs, but don't completely cut them out.
  • Your body doesn't "need" carbs, it all comes down to preference. I personally find that I function better while ingesting carbs, BUT, if you choose to limit your carbohydrates, your body will adapt just fine.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Humans really aren't a true anything in terms of digestive system. More like a garbage disposal. Some need to understand how insulin results in fat. Saying it doesn't is flat out ridiculous. That's it's job when glycogen stores are full.

    Any food, including protein, can result in fat if you eat more than you burn off.
  • Humans really aren't a true anything in terms of digestive system. More like a garbage disposal. Some need to understand how insulin results in fat. Saying it doesn't is flat out ridiculous. That's it's job when glycogen stores are full.

    Any food, including protein, can result in fat if you eat more than you burn off.


    Yeppers.
  • icerose137
    icerose137 Posts: 318 Member

    What you eat does not classify you as an herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, etc.. your digestive system and biochemical needs do. Humans do not fit any of them.

    The term "real simple" must simply escape you or you're trying to be difficult on purpose. Until they find the proper term for our digestive system I'm going with what fits us the closest and that would be omnivore. Thank you very much.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member

    What you eat does not classify you as an herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, etc.. your digestive system and biochemical needs do. Humans do not fit any of them.

    The term "real simple" must simply escape you or you're trying to be difficult on purpose. Until they find the proper term for our digestive system I'm going with what fits us the closest and that would be omnivore. Thank you very much.

    Really? I've read that the human digestive tract most closely resembles animals that are herbivorous.
  • LaJauna
    LaJauna Posts: 336 Member
    "Our bodies were not designed to eat carbs and can do very well without them."

    That right there made me completely disregard the legitimacy of your guru. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. But there's a reason carbs are the biggest part of the food triangle. Our body needs them.

    Your body stores carbs in muscles. Carbs are necessary for your Retinas to work, your central nervous system, your immune system and your muscles, it goes on. You need carbs.

    The reason people lose weight by keeping out carbs is that your body will cannibalize your muscle to get the carbs needed for other systems. It cannot make them with other things, unlike proteins. Muscle weighs more then fat, so you'll lose weight, and fast, but when you're done your metabolism will be lower then when you started.

    Moderation is the key. Limit your carbs, but don't completely cut them out.

    Go and rent the video FATHEAD and then we can talk. The food pyramid reflects the governments need to promote grain consumption to lift the economy. It is politics, pure and simple. It has nothing, what so ever to do with nutrition.
  • BR1986FB
    BR1986FB Posts: 1,515 Member
    Not specifically related to this topic (because people lost weight with higher carbs too, just at a slower pace), but I thought it was interesting...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/low-carb-diets-hurt-arteries/story?id=13728382
  • runnerdad
    runnerdad Posts: 2,081 Member

    What you eat does not classify you as an herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, etc.. your digestive system and biochemical needs do. Humans do not fit any of them.

    The term "real simple" must simply escape you or you're trying to be difficult on purpose. Until they find the proper term for our digestive system I'm going with what fits us the closest and that would be omnivore. Thank you very much.

    Really? I've read that the human digestive tract most closely resembles animals that are herbivorous.

    No way. It does not resemble a herbivourous g.i. tract at all. It is actually very comparable to a carnivore's system
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member

    What you eat does not classify you as an herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, etc.. your digestive system and biochemical needs do. Humans do not fit any of them.

    The term "real simple" must simply escape you or you're trying to be difficult on purpose. Until they find the proper term for our digestive system I'm going with what fits us the closest and that would be omnivore. Thank you very much.

    Really? I've read that the human digestive tract most closely resembles animals that are herbivorous.

    No way. It does not resemble a herbivourous g.i. tract at all. It is actually very comparable to a carnivore's system

    No, I know that's not true. Carnivores have a very short digestive tract because they don't have to break down all the fiber in vegetation. My question was about the difference between herbivore and omnivore. Obviously we can and do eat meat so that makes sense. But I'll just Google it.
  • lizzil0
    lizzil0 Posts: 181 Member
    Thought this a great article that might help with the discussion-
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member

    What you eat does not classify you as an herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, etc.. your digestive system and biochemical needs do. Humans do not fit any of them.

    The term "real simple" must simply escape you or you're trying to be difficult on purpose. Until they find the proper term for our digestive system I'm going with what fits us the closest and that would be omnivore. Thank you very much.

    Really? I've read that the human digestive tract most closely resembles animals that are herbivorous.

    No way. It does not resemble a herbivourous g.i. tract at all. It is actually very comparable to a carnivore's system

    No, I know that's not true. Carnivores have a very short digestive tract because they don't have to break down all the fiber in vegetation. My question was about the difference between herbivore and omnivore. Obviously we can and do eat meat so that makes sense. But I'll just Google it.

    Wow, there is just a whole lot of crap information out there. :huh: But someone on either this thread or another (I can't remember said that the human digestive tract was more like a big garbage disposal. I think that poster was probably correct given the information below. And it makes sense given all the garbage people eat.

    http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/dce/ans312/one/gi_classify_trans.htm
    "Swine are classified as nonruminant omnivores. Note the relatively small cecum, located post-gastric and post-absorptive. The GI tract of swine, compared to other domestic animals, most closely resembles the human GI tract."
  • BabyRaven
    BabyRaven Posts: 10 Member
    I've been reading all of these posts and I am beginning to cut back on carbs to help shake things up a bit. I was wondering if anyone knows of a website that has a good list of low or no carb foods? I did a google search but it was a little overwhelming. I just had scrambled eggs for breakfast - dairy - is this OK? I think they are low on carbs but what about dairy? What about cottage cheese? I know - I need to read some labels but a list would be so helpful!
    Thank you.
  • TK421NotAtPost
    TK421NotAtPost Posts: 512 Member
    A good first step toward reducing your carb intake would be to based your meals on fresh, lean meats and cruciferous vegetables.

    Eggs are obviously fine..cottage cheese (unflavored) is fine. Milk is OK too, depending on just how low you want to go with your carb intake.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    I've been reading all of these posts and I am beginning to cut back on carbs to help shake things up a bit. I was wondering if anyone knows of a website that has a good list of low or no carb foods? I did a google search but it was a little overwhelming. I just had scrambled eggs for breakfast - dairy - is this OK? I think they are low on carbs but what about dairy? What about cottage cheese? I know - I need to read some labels but a list would be so helpful!
    Thank you.

    www.diabetes.org Go to the experts. The site is focused on controlling and preventing diabetes so it's all about healthy low carb living. It's a great resource even if you don't have a metabolic disorder.
  • runnerdad
    runnerdad Posts: 2,081 Member
    Really? I've read that the human digestive tract most closely resembles animals that are herbivorous.

    No way. It does not resemble a herbivourous g.i. tract at all. It is actually very comparable to a carnivore's system

    No, I know that's not true. Carnivores have a very short digestive tract because they don't have to break down all the fiber in vegetation. My question was about the difference between herbivore and omnivore. Obviously we can and do eat meat so that makes sense. But I'll just Google it.

    You are misinformed. Herbivores are either fore-gut fermentors, like sheep and cows, and have huge four-compartment stomachs (nothing like humans), or hind-gut fermentors like horses or rabbits, where they have huge colons, where the bulk of the digestion occurs. Human digestive tracts are much more comparable to something like a cat (obligate carnivore) or dogs ( Carnivore / omnivore).
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Really? I've read that the human digestive tract most closely resembles animals that are herbivorous.

    No way. It does not resemble a herbivourous g.i. tract at all. It is actually very comparable to a carnivore's system

    No, I know that's not true. Carnivores have a very short digestive tract because they don't have to break down all the fiber in vegetation. My question was about the difference between herbivore and omnivore. Obviously we can and do eat meat so that makes sense. But I'll just Google it.

    You are misinformed. Herbivores are either fore-gut fermentors, like sheep and cows, and have huge four-compartment stomachs (nothing like humans), or hind-gut fermentors like horses or rabbits, where they have huge colons, where the bulk of the digestion occurs. Human digestive tracts are much more comparable to something like a cat (obligate carnivore) or dogs ( Carnivore / omnivore).

    Actually based on their guts both cats and dogs are carnivore, which I found a little startling since so many are fed a diet of primary corn. But we don't closely match them. We're pigs. No surprise there.
  • hpsnickers1
    hpsnickers1 Posts: 2,783 Member
    But wait – what about our eight times body length small intestine? Carnivores’ small intestines are around three times their body length, while herbivores have much longer ones, right?

    Actually, when measured from *kitten* to mouth (the real distance that matters), our 8 to 1 ratio lies roughly in the middle of the pack between obligate carnivores like dogs (3.5 to 1) and cats (3 to 1), and herbivores like cows (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1). How perfect is that? The obligate omnivore is nestled right in between the carnivore and the herbivore.

    Besides, intestinal length isn’t even the best way to determine dietary need. An animal’s particular arsenal of digestive organs is. Actual herbivores have special organs designated for breaking down cellulose – multi-compartmental stomachs, for example. We have but one, and it absolutely cannot break down cellulose to any significant degree. If we were herbivores, we might even have rabbit-like cecums, highly developed digestive sacs that do the brunt of the digestive work for hindgut digesters. I almost wish we had that capability, if only for the advantage of cecotropes – fecal pellets high in vitamins, nutrients, and proteins that rabbits expel for later consumption. Delicious.

    Our measly little stomachs can’t handle all that fiber. If a person really wanted to be a true herbivore, he or she’d have to chew cud for hours (that’s why cows are known for chewing cud – it’s a way to predigest all that tough stuff), vomit it up after a little digestive work in the stomach, and repeat the process. Thanks, but I’ll just take some steak with my salad.

    And, like clockwork, they interrupt with:

    Okay, maybe we did eat some meat, but we were scavengers fighting over scraps. Meat wasn’t a big part of our diet!

    Not if you believe the fossil evidence that shows hominids actually manipulated bones “on which flesh was abundant… rather than defleshed from field kills.” We weren’t just starving opportunists. We actively hunted animals, large and small, to obtain large amounts of meat and fat. The only way to get your hands on an intact carcass loaded with delicious flesh – as the evidence clearly shows our ancestors did so on a regular basis – is to kill it yourself. Waiting around for the lions to have their share is hyena territory, scavenger stuff. You don’t become the ultimate predator and propagate your species across the entire globe by solely scavenging for bone scraps – although we did plenty of that, too, as fossil records show evidence of bone marrow extraction from two million years ago using complex stone tools.

    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/meat-eating-human-evolution/
  • runnerdad
    runnerdad Posts: 2,081 Member
    Really? I've read that the human digestive tract most closely resembles animals that are herbivorous.

    No way. It does not resemble a herbivourous g.i. tract at all. It is actually very comparable to a carnivore's system

    No, I know that's not true. Carnivores have a very short digestive tract because they don't have to break down all the fiber in vegetation. My question was about the difference between herbivore and omnivore. Obviously we can and do eat meat so that makes sense. But I'll just Google it.

    You are misinformed. Herbivores are either fore-gut fermentors, like sheep and cows, and have huge four-compartment stomachs (nothing like humans), or hind-gut fermentors like horses or rabbits, where they have huge colons, where the bulk of the digestion occurs. Human digestive tracts are much more comparable to something like a cat (obligate carnivore) or dogs ( Carnivore / omnivore).

    Actually based on their guts both cats and dogs are carnivore, which I found a little startling since so many are fed a diet of primary corn. But we don't closely match them. We're pigs. No surprise there.

    Whatever.


    Thank you HPSnickers for weighing in. We (humans) are actually in the middle in the spectrum of things. My point was if you look at overall 'design', our g.i. tract is much more carnivore than herbivore in nature.
  • Two questions, in the context of the OP.


    1. In what way does the length and structure of our GI tracts translate to weight loss?
    2. More specifically, how does it translate to CHO restriction for weight loss?
  • dumb_blondes_rock
    dumb_blondes_rock Posts: 1,568 Member
    i didn't read anyone else's response....but dairy is so uneccisary for our bodies....we don't need it to survive....its just one of those enjoyments we get....we can get vitamin d from the sun and calcium from other sources....but wheat is from the ground and was made for us to eat. Everything is good in moderation, and the body does need carbs to function, it just doesn't need 900 carbs a day. Thats my two cents

    ps. there is carbs in vegetables, so if we don't "need" carbs, what in the hell would we eat? meat all day long? no thanks, ill eat my carb filled salad and have enjoyments in life
  • runnerdad
    runnerdad Posts: 2,081 Member
    Two questions, in the context of the OP.


    1. In what way does the length and structure of our GI tracts translate to weight loss?
    2. More specifically, how does it translate to CHO restriction for weight loss?

    It doesn't. I just couldn't resist pointing out the error in argument, even though it didn't have any bearing on the actual discussion, and now it has taken on a whole life of its own. I am done with the digression.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    "Our bodies were not designed to eat carbs and can do very well without them."

    That right there made me completely disregard the legitimacy of your guru. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. But there's a reason carbs are the biggest part of the food triangle. Our body needs them.

    Your body stores carbs in muscles. Carbs are necessary for your Retinas to work, your central nervous system, your immune system and your muscles, it goes on. You need carbs.

    The reason people lose weight by keeping out carbs is that your body will cannibalize your muscle to get the carbs needed for other systems. It cannot make them with other things, unlike proteins. Muscle weighs more then fat, so you'll lose weight, and fast, but when you're done your metabolism will be lower then when you started.

    Moderation is the key. Limit your carbs, but don't completely cut them out.

    Go and rent the video FATHEAD and then we can talk. The food pyramid reflects the governments need to promote grain consumption to lift the economy. It is politics, pure and simple. It has nothing, what so ever to do with nutrition.

    Yes, by all means don't listen to the government. They are all about money!! ...unlike the move industry. :laugh:
  • Two questions, in the context of the OP.


    1. In what way does the length and structure of our GI tracts translate to weight loss?
    2. More specifically, how does it translate to CHO restriction for weight loss?

    It doesn't. I just couldn't resist pointing out the error in argument, even though it didn't have any bearing on the actual discussion, and now it has taken on a whole life of its own. I am done with the digression.



    No problem:-) I just didn't feel like reading the entire posts and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything in the context of the OP.

    Thanks!
  • Quoted from last page:



    Your body doesn't "need" carbs, it all comes down to preference. I personally find that I function better while ingesting carbs, BUT, if you choose to limit your carbohydrates, your body will adapt just fine.
  • dumb_blondes_rock
    dumb_blondes_rock Posts: 1,568 Member

    Yes, by all means don't listen to the government. They are all about money!! ...unlike the move industry. :laugh:

    Ok this made me laugh....even though i like my documentaries....
This discussion has been closed.