Carbs & Sugars :(

I think the biggest thing to take from all this is none of the above even remotely applies to those with chronic elevated blood glucose levels (i.e. pre-diabetics, T2 diabetics, T1 diabetics, or ANYONE with a metabolic disorder or condition).

Common sense would also dictate eating a diet high in sugar isn't going to do much in terms of satiety and nutrient provision. And not pulling studies, it's generally also not very beneficial to your teeth.

And back to the OP - the "high sugar" consumption for the day was due namely to the consumption of fruit, which again, common sense - eating portions of fruit or lactose-containing dairy will elevate sugar levels, but is not harmful to the average person.

Then your professor is right and wrong.

Biochemistry is incredibly important in the realm of nutrition, but it's not THE most important means of determining the PRACTICAL application of those understandings. Yes insulin is incredibly important. But when is it incredibly important? It sounds like your professor spoke in universal terms where insulin is always bad, and whenever its levels are elevated, bad things are happening. And furthermore: keeping insulin levels from going up, even on a temporary basis, is ALWAYS optimal.

That is what is false. Your professor is right in the fact that CHRONICALLY raised insulin levels ought to be avoided. That's where you run into trouble. However, the TEMPORARY spikes from insulin that arise from eating a meal are not something to be feared.

No, he didn't say anything like this. You're reading more into what I said than what was there. He never said insulin is bad, he said it is large and in charge as far as metabolic regulation goes. We've evolved for that to be the case because it was beneficial in our previous environment.

The typical American diet which is rich in highly processed carbs does lead to chronically raised insulin levels which may not cause problems for years - or not at all for some people. But for those of us who it does cause a problem for can definitely benefit from limiting carbs. Especially pure sugar which exacerbates the problem. This is exactly what Taubes says if you actually read the books.

And I don't think he is right about everything. I don't agree with some of his conclusions and what I consider over-simplified logic, but I do agree that the American obesity epidemic is a direct result of the processed carbs we have started eating in the last 30 years.

Let me remind you of what you did say since you seem to have forgotten:
"it doesn't do any harm for those who don't have some sort of clinical condition. "
"then you have no reason to worry about carb consumption unless you are diabetic or insulin resistant. "
"If you are at a caloric deficit and do not have a clinical condition such as diabetes, then "excess sugar" is an impossible term."

Your words, not mine.

Let me remind you of what I did say BEFORE I said any of that, in fact, the VERY FIRST THING I SAID ON THIS THREAD:

-"Stop fearing carbs and start fearing a caloric surplus as that is what matters in terms of weight loss."

"IN TERMS OF WEIGHT LOSS."

Can't make it any more clear for you. My entire stance has been solely relevant to weight loss. If someone said, "untz, would you suggest someone take on this diet, or would it be comparable to a diet more rich in micronutrients for general health?" I would have laughed.

I even explicitly stated that I did not promote such a diet.

Suck up your pride and admit you are wrong. Just say you didn't read my initial posts and responded later in the thread without seeing the basis of my argument, which has been speaking solely in regards to body composition and weight loss. Considering the OP said, "I'm worried this will affect my goal of dropping my last few pounds, and toning up."

I have to disagree. If most of the carbs are simple carbs, it's important to exclude that from our daily diet. I also find it hard to believe that she is getting enough protein if she's this far over on carbs, because it's quite apparent the majority of her calories are coming from carbs.

To original poster: Eat more protein! Eat nuts for snacks, or boiled egg whites, or even switch some of the fruit to veggies, and eat lots of lean meats. Make a tuna salad. Those are some ideas to get you more protein and less carbs.

I have done my research and agree 100% with this post. I'm just too busy today to go into detail. Invest in the books Why We Get Fat and Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. You will be shocked and fascinated and enlightened.

Simple carbs don't defy the law of thermodynamics, sorry. If you are at a caloric deficit, it is impossible to gain weight. Period. If you are at a caloric deficit, it is impossible to not LOSE weight. Law of thermodynamics applied to weight loss is relevant. Sugar does not change that physical law of nature.

If she's eating 1,600 calories and 100g protein, then that leaves 1,200 calories for fat/carbs, meaning she could eat 300g carbs per day. Just to illustrate that you have no idea if she's THAT far over her carbs for the day.

Reading a data cherry-picker like Taubes is not doing research. He bases pretty much all of his claims off correlations and biochemical studies; neither of which look at the practicality of nutrition. Making decisions on what is permitted in a diet or how our bodies function when eating "X" or "Y" is best done by looking at clinical trials - comparing one group to another - controlling all variables except for that which is in question (in this case, sugar consumption), and measuring differences.

Zero clinical trials exist that show hindered weight loss by eating sugar so long as macronutrients are maintained AND the people in question are not insulin resistant/diabetic.

This.

Conservation of Energy: No matter can be created nor destroyed.

Always get lulz from the carbophobes and their insulin fairy who completely ignore the body's state of energy insufficiency (AMP, ADP, etc) where the appropriate enzymes are phosphorylated, specifically ACP, which curtails lipid biosynthesis. Furthermore, malonyl-coa is inhibited allowing the carnitine shuttle to transport long-chain fatty acids into the mitochondria for beta-oxidation.

brb enjoying Chipotle for lunch with the white rice, tortilla,and sour cream. Slid perfectly in my macros today

Ah, but whereas my macros are low in carbohydrate, I stay within my suggested caloric deficit and feel full, happy, and content. I do targeted refeeds on weekends. If being full and satisfied from my choice of foods makes me a carbophobe, then I relish the title. But I am at peace knowing what combination of foods enables me to stay within my caloric limits for the day. When I do a targeted re-feed or plan to do a high level of activity, I compensate with eating more fruits and some rice.

Not everyone eating low carb preaches Taubes.

As long as it works for you, great I say. I lift heavy 4 times per week and jog, and need my carbs. I feel full as long as I get my protein and fats; we are all different and the important thing is you still maintain a calorie deficit. My problem comes is when the carbophobes preach that it is somehow superior or the only thing that will help you lose weight (which I don't think you are doing) - this is simply not the case.

Nah, the deficit STILL matters. I lift heavy 3X per week - compound lifts, my cardio is all lo/slo - hiking, walking. I haven't had energy problems but did have them when I tried a foray into half marathon training. Carbed up, felt like crap, hungry all the time, blew my caloric deficit by loading on sugary crap, gained weight. Lesson learned - running is NOT for me. I feel like a champ being in keto with heavy lifting, tho.

I've also lost weight in the past eating higher carb, but again, it was the deficit, not the macros that spurred the weight loss. At that time I wasn't doing any running or training, just very novice fitness - walking, light lifting. I simply found the macros hard to sustain in the long run and felt limited.

Very well - sorry for making assumptions.

Highly processed carbs will not lead to chronically raised insulin levels if calories are moderated, though. Do you disagree? If you eat a high level of processed carbs while remaining in a caloric deficit - where fat loss will be achieved and general markers of health subsequently improve - do you believe that will lead to insulin resistance?

From a body compositional standpoint, including hormonal issues associated with weight gain, the main culprit above all else is an irresponsible caloric surplus. That is the NECESSARY factor for any of these bad things to occur (outside of those with clinical issues, like diabetes). "Too many carbs" can only be "too many carbs" if you're in a caloric surplus, and for that reason, eating a high amount of carbs alone is not worthy of blame for all our obesity issues; too many calories still remains the problem.

This.

Conservation of Energy: No matter can be created nor destroyed.

Always get lulz from the carbophobes and their insulin fairy who completely ignore the body's state of energy insufficiency (AMP, ADP, etc) where the appropriate enzymes are phosphorylated, specifically ACP, which curtails lipid biosynthesis. Furthermore, malonyl-coa is inhibited which allows the carnitine shuttle to transport long-chain fatty acids into the mitochondria for beta-oxidation.

Moral of story: Calories in versus Calories out. The more complicated an individual makes it, the worse it is for them and they usually end up overweight.

brb enjoying Chipotle for lunch with the white rice, tortilla,and sour cream. Slid perfectly in my macros today

I have no idea which metabolic pathway you're referring to there but when I took biochemistry my professor hammered home over and over that insulin is the big boy, the bully, the boss of metabolic regulation. We weren't even talking about diets, just in general. Insulin is incredibly important to the way our bodies process what we eat. Our bodies are complicated, it isn't us making them out to be complicated. The pathway you just described only illustrates that. I'll say it again: calories in/calories out is important, but it's not the whole story.

I hope you enjoyed your Chipotle as much as I enjoyed my spicy thai chicken lettuce wraps. Yum.

Furthermore, not only are carbs protein sparring, the brains much preferred fuel is glucose. If you enjoy brain fog and fatigue to lose weight, by all means go for it.

After 1.5 years of eating under 100g daily I haven't had that yet, but I'll sure let you know when I do.

I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss

Excess weight lost in a low carb diet in the short term is due to water loss. A single carb carries 3-5g water, so naturally a low carb diet results in quicker weight loss, but not quicker FAT loss. Any additional weight lost was nothing more than water, which comes right back on upon assuming a more "normal" level of carbs again.

Any additional fat you lost came from a reduction in calories rather than a reduction in carbs assuming you are not insulin resistant.

I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss

Excess weight lost in a low carb diet in the short term is due to water loss. A single carb carries 3-5g water, so naturally a low carb diet results in quicker weight loss, but not quicker FAT loss. Any additional weight lost was nothing more than water, which comes right back on upon assuming a more "normal" level of carbs again.

Any additional fat you lost came from a reduction in calories rather than a reduction in carbs assuming you are not insulin resistant.

I noticed that you often quote the site http://www.bodyrecomposition.com by Lyle McDonald to prove you're statements. Here is what Lyle has to say regarding low carb dieting...

"And the commonality in all of those conditions is not the presence or absence of dietary fat (diets 1 and 3 have little or no dietary fat, diet 2 has quite a bit). Rather, it’s the lack of dietary carbohydrates. Which, based on what we know about how the body determines fuel usage makes sense. As I discussed in the linked articles above, when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs (and less fat); eat fewer carbs and you burn fewer carbs (and more fat). Which means that in all three conditions above it’s the absence of dietary carbohydrates driving the increase in fat burning, not the presence of dietary fat.

Which isn’t to say that increasing dietary fat intake under some conditions can’t have benefits (such as increased fullness, food enjoyment or flexibility, limiting the daily deficit to moderate levels if that’s the goal, etc.) which are discussed in other articles on the site (I’d suggest the Comparing the Diets series for an overview of different dietary approaches). It’s simply that increasing fat burning per se simply isn’t one of them; rather, that’s accomplished by reducing carbohydrates and total caloric intake."

Granted, he is talking specifically about fat loss here and not overall weight loss. I know you have said you are only talking about weight loss but the OP did say they were interested in dropping pounds AND toning up. I'm sure the majority of us, when we say we want to lose weight are talking about fat, so this is relevant.

The correlations you are referring to - you can't draw up cause/effect from them. You can't say the diet is causing the lack of health, because for all you know they could simply be genetically predisposed due to previous generations. Look no further than the grandchildren of the generation that endured the Great Depression when famine and starvation was everywhere. There was a major increase in diabetes (and I'd imagine insulin resistance, though I don't know how well understood that was back then) for those grand children. It's no surprise to me that populations in countries that have been famished for generations upon generations experience abnormally high rates of insulin resistance. To say it's the refined carbs that cause that, however, is not a proper approach.

You're wrong. Taubes has page after page of citing in "Good Calories, Bad Calories". He is an award winning science writer, not a researcher. Therefore, he is using cause/effect to bring up questions that need to be answered. He isn't claiming it is a replacement for research. He goes through all of your concerns in both books. Maybe you should actually read them if you're going to be so outspokenly against them?

I feel you may have some potential misinterpretations about insulin (not saying that to pick on you). Consider reading the following, which is an article based on the peer-reviewed, empirical research surrounding insulin: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Respectfully, I don't think I do have misinterpretations about insulin. I think that this topic is not well understood and I don't claim expertise. I actually met a diabetes researcher last night who is studying the effects of insulin on epithelial cells. It was a really interesting conversation and what I got from it most of all is that scientists are still struggling to really understand what insulin does throughout the body.

Too many calories isn't the only piece of the puzzle - but it is the NECESSARY piece of the puzzle. A hypercaloric diet with excess carbs will be different than one that has excess dietary fat. The thing is, and this is most important, is that for either one of these diets to have a negative impact, it MUST be hypercaloric UNLESS you have a clinical condition to begin with that somehow removes the necessity for a hypercaloric diet.

I never told people who are insulin resistant that calories are calories, in fact I think I've made it perfectly clear that my stance regarding a diet is not applicable to those with clinical conditions such as insulin resistance.

What you're saying just isn't true. You don't need to have a condition for insulin to be a concern. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I'll leave you with this:

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html

The graphic showing the growing numbers of obese Americans (that's obese not overweight) is startling. It isn't due to growing increases in caloric intake and chronic lazyness. It's due to the way we are eating, which is different from the way any humans have ever eaten. Not to go all conspiracy-theorist, but Michael Pollen's excellent book "Omnivore's Dilemma" tracks the history of replacing real food with processed food in this country, how our laws have changed and how it is directly tied to our surplus production of grains, specifically corn. I really can't recommend this book enough.

I think if you grow up eating whole foods, including carbs, then you will probably be fine. But for those of us who grew up in the 70s and beyond, we have been on a steady diet of refined, processed carbs with higher calories and the obesity epidemic is the result.

I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss

Excess weight lost in a low carb diet in the short term is due to water loss. A single carb carries 3-5g water, so naturally a low carb diet results in quicker weight loss, but not quicker FAT loss. Any additional weight lost was nothing more than water, which comes right back on upon assuming a more "normal" level of carbs again.

Any additional fat you lost came from a reduction in calories rather than a reduction in carbs assuming you are not insulin resistant.

I noticed that you often quote the site http://www.bodyrecomposition.com by Lyle McDonald to prove you're statements. Here is what Lyle has to say regarding low carb dieting...

"And the commonality in all of those conditions is not the presence or absence of dietary fat (diets 1 and 3 have little or no dietary fat, diet 2 has quite a bit). Rather, it’s the lack of dietary carbohydrates. Which, based on what we know about how the body determines fuel usage makes sense. As I discussed in the linked articles above, when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs (and less fat); eat fewer carbs and you burn fewer carbs (and more fat). Which means that in all three conditions above it’s the absence of dietary carbohydrates driving the increase in fat burning, not the presence of dietary fat.

Which isn’t to say that increasing dietary fat intake under some conditions can’t have benefits (such as increased fullness, food enjoyment or flexibility, limiting the daily deficit to moderate levels if that’s the goal, etc.) which are discussed in other articles on the site (I’d suggest the Comparing the Diets series for an overview of different dietary approaches). It’s simply that increasing fat burning per se simply isn’t one of them; rather, that’s accomplished by reducing carbohydrates and total caloric intake."

Granted, he is talking specifically about fat loss here and not overall weight loss. I know you have said you are only talking about weight loss but the OP did say they were interested in dropping pounds AND toning up. I'm sure the majority of us, when we say we want to lose weight are talking about fat, so this is relevant.

I think there's some misunderstanding on basic physiology regarding nutrition. Here's a basic understanding of what our bodies would do if we ate a diet SOLELY in a single macronutrient. Let's assume that these are hypocaloric diets (a caloric deficit), so weight loss is the end goal - the person's maintenance is 2,500 calories, so they are eating 2,000 calories for a 500 calorie deficit:

-Diet in pure carbs = less instances of fat gain throughout the day as carbs are stored as glycogen = less direct fat burn as the body has to burn through the dietary carbs first. Eat 2,000 calories of carbs, burn those 2,000 calories of carbs over the course of the day, THEN fat burn will occur as your body has no more glucose to use as energy, which will result in 500 calories from stored fat being used as energy.
-Diet in pure protein = very similar to carbs except for amino acids rather than glucose/fructose/etc.
-Diet in pure dietary fat = more instances of fat gain throughout the day as dietary fat is stored as body fat = more fat burn as the body has no dietary glucose/amino acids to burn. Eat 2,000 calories in fat, store 2,000 calories in fat, burn those 2,000 calories in fat throughout the day, compensate the additional 500 calories from stored fat as you are under maintenance.

In all instances, regardless of the macronutrient composition, the body will still burn 500 calories of previously stored body fat throughout the day.

Lyle talks about this, actually. I'll try and find the link as he can explain it better than I. Give me some time to peruse the site.