High carb

Is 55% carbs high? I eat "high" carb because it's sustainable for me.

When I'm food logging the only limit on my carbs is my overall daily calorie allowance once minimums for protein and fat have been met. I like carbs and carbs like me.

As a long distance cyclist I have some extraordinary high carb days, 645g I think was my highest day (and still in a large deficit).

I eat around 300-350 grams per day. High or low. I dunno.

high carb all the way here, I burn 1000 calories or more a day seven days a week, I need that fuel!

midwesterner85 wrote: »

For non-endurance athletes, the debate is different. Obviously there are some of us with medical issues who benefit greatly from a low carb diet. But for the otherwise healthy person eating a SAD (high carb) diet, the question is about satiety. While everyone is different, 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese. This statistic makes me think that many Americans are still hungry after maintenance when eating SAD, thus leading to consumption of excess calories. So for the otherwise healthy person who is tracking and restricting calorie consumption to avoid over-consumption, high carb works.

The definition of SAD is not high carb. The typical HCLF diet that OP seems to be asking about isn't anything like SAD (which is normally defined as involving high intakes of red meat and processed meat, refined grains, sugar, and fat, and tends to be, if anything, about average carbs -- 50%, so consistent with the usual recommendations AND many healthy traditional diets -- and high fat (not compared to keto, obviously, but versus what is normally recommended and again many traditional diets). I'd personally say that macros don't seem to matter much -- countries that have weight problems have a range of macro mixes, whereas traditional healthful diets are all over, but the SAD and blue zones don't really differ based on carb percentage.

Now, do those eating the so called SAD (which is actually a problematic term, since obviously what people eat in the US vary and the SAD is not recommended by anyone) choose DIFFERENT carbs on average and different fats than in blue zones, and have other differences in their diet? Yeah, but it's not carb percentage.

I think Americans overeat because social constraints that used to restrain eating (eat at prescribed times, eat a balanced meat including vegetables, cook your own food, etc.) no longer really exist and people have an opportunity to eat all the time, high cal stuff they find tasty (and also stuff that isn't all that filling to many, that contains about half of its calories from carbs, half from fat, as well as high cal drinks), and stuff that is extremely available and involves no time or much cost to acquire. I've been honestly shocked at the number of MFPers who claim to not have experience eating regular meals or vegetables or cooking or the like, which I think is a change even from when I was a kid.

If it really was that we are hungry and there are obvious foods that fill us up and foods that don't, I think people would have to be idiots not to eat something that fills them up. (I'm starving, I'll have a yogurt.) I think much more likely people want to eat when they have foods around them that they perceive as highly palatable or get into habits of mindlessly eating or the like. (This even makes sense evolutionarily, as in times of scarcity it was important to be able to eat when food was around and we can easily adapt to eating less frequently no matter what we are eating when necessary.)

Of course, if one has a health issue where you have to eat more frequently or a certain balance of foods, that's not always the case.

trigden1991 wrote: »

Not sure if this is really a debate so may be better suited to the general Diet section.

I agree with this, but find it possibly an interesting discussion, even though misplaced. (A debate about one being better than the other would not be interesting to me.)

OP, I kind of accidentally did a LFHC way of eating for a period of time (Lent a few years ago) because I decided to do plant-based, and I actually found it a really satisfying way to eat in terms of enjoying my food and never being hungry. I think I would have gotten more tired of it for a longer period of time, and I found no animal products much more difficult than the low fat aspect (I wasn't logging so not sure how low the fat was -- I didn't make a hugh effort to cut fat as that wasn't the point, so I'm guessing more like 20% rather than 10%--I did cut out a lot of my normal sources of fat as they tend to be animal-based). That I was satiated on fewer calories than I normally ate (I dropped weight even though I was not trying to) was something I noticed, which in retrospect is despite likely not getting enough protein vs. what I now like (and I find protein satiating, fat isn't at all for me, though).

I don't try to hit any particular amount of fat or carbs now, although I find I range from 40-50% carbs when logging, depending on whether I am cutting down on meat and how many calories I am eating (I tend to eat more carbs when eating more overall since my protein percentage is less). This is more preference than for any particular reason (I don't find fat satiating, but I do find it tasty, so like to leave room for it), and I focus on choosing nutrient dense foods in general, not percentage of fat or carbs (I do generally try to eat in a way that will result in around 100 g of protein). I expect that if I chose the right foods I could be fine on a high carb diet, but it's not what I naturally seem to gravitate to.

peter2100 wrote: »

I've seen a few threads on low carb, but I'm wondering if there's anyone here who prefers high carb. And if you are low carb, what convinced you to go low carb? And have you considered high carb?

I actually do prefer high carb on certain days. It depends on how much activity I do or what I am training for. It seems that if I do a higher Carb Day I have more energy.

zyxst wrote: »

Is 55% carbs high? I eat "high" carb because it's sustainable for me.

This^

Changing the way I eat to lose weight and then getting to goal assuming I can go back to my "normal" routine doesn't work. My normal routine = fat person. Losing weight should help me fix problems.

peter2100 wrote: »

I've seen a few threads on low carb, but I'm wondering if there's anyone here who prefers high carb. And if you are low carb, what convinced you to go low carb? And have you considered high carb?

Higher carb, yes...but I'd call my carbs moderate....just higher than what you typically see around here. I eat vegetarian 3-4 days per week and vegetarian diets tend to be a bit higher carb. You don't want to cut out too much fat...dietary fat is essential to many functions of the human body and cutting out too much fat can be a health detriment.

Pretty much I think balance is where it's at...I don't see any need to go to any extreme...a balance of nutrients.

midwesterner85 wrote: »

It used to be believed (and still is by many) that the only possible way to complete a long endurance competition (Ironman, ultra-marathon, and even marathons) is to constantly gobble down carbs throughout the competition. An industry was created (or perhaps the industry created this notion, I'm not sure) to make gel packs, energy bars, and sports drinks for quick and high carb snacks and drinks to consume during such activity. That does work, and there is a clear scientific reason why it works.

On the other hand, low carbers who have become fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than high carbers. It takes time to adapt to being very efficient using fat, but those people don't have to constantly eat gels and high-carb energy bars because they can get a lot of energy from fat (more than the high carber, and enough to complete the event). Low carbers need more electrolytes / sodium, which both groups need.

As a cyclist, I stay the hell away from gels and energy bars and all of that. They're unpleasant to get down.

Everybody who does regular cardiovascular exercise adapts to burn fat more efficiently as a fuel source. It's a pretty common rule of thumb for cyclists not to eat on rides unless they're longer than three hours.

Traveler120 wrote: »

midwesterner85 wrote: »

For non-endurance athletes, the debate is different. Obviously there are some of us with medical issues who benefit greatly from a low carb diet. But for the otherwise healthy person eating a SAD (high carb) diet, the question is about satiety. While everyone is different, 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese. This statistic makes me think that many Americans are still hungry after maintenance when eating SAD, thus leading to consumption of excess calories. So for the otherwise healthy person who is tracking and restricting calorie consumption to avoid over-consumption, high carb works.

This is a common misconception that SAD is high carb and that's what's responsible for US obesity (rather than overconsumption). Interestingly, the US is one of the lowest carb countries. Many countries in the "under 50%" carbs category, like US, UK, Australia, also have the highest levels of overweight and obesity compared to the truly high carb countries.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1154

Perhaps that point is valid as a percentage of total diet. However, quantity is a different story.

Same website: http://chartsbin.com/view/1160

U.S. kcal per person per day: 3,770 And 49% carbs
3,770 X 49% = 1,847 calories from carbs per day / 4 calories per gram = 462g of carbs per day

I know it is subjective and some might disagree, but 462g of carbs per day is high carb.

Compare that to the Democratic Republic of the Congo with 80% carbs (Wow! That is tied with Bangladesh for the highest carb consumer on the chart you shared):
1,590 kcal per person per day X 80% = 1,272 / 4 calories per gram = 318g of carbs per day

This is also high carb, but the percentage of total diet makes it appear to be lower because we eat a lot of everything. Americans eat 45% more carbs than people of the Congo, who appear to be the highest carb consumers from the chart you first shared. So yes, SAD is high carb. The fact that SAD is high in everything else doesn't change that it is high in carbs.

Traveler120 wrote: »

midwesterner85 wrote: »

It used to be believed (and still is by many) that the only possible way to complete a long endurance competition (Ironman, ultra-marathon, and even marathons) is to constantly gobble down carbs throughout the competition. ..........

On the other hand, low carbers who have become fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than high carbers. ..........

Both groups have a way that works to obtain energy for endurance activities. The high carb method has been touted for decades, and the low carb method has not received as much attention... and there is less profit to be made from gel pack, energy bar, and sports drink sales.

I'd simply look at what the most successful elite marathon runners do and have been doing for decades - the Kenyans and Ethiopians. Going by the carbs map link above, these are high carb nations. Kenya is at 68% and Ethiopia at 79%. I've yet to hear about low carbing East African runners winning medals. They don't exist.

And I'm pretty sure they're not training on gel packs, energy bars and sports drinks. They simply eat lots of teff, ugali (corn flour), beans, grains, sugary tea, rice, veg, fruits, etc, just regular, affordable, carby foods that are part of the traditional diet.

Sure, the high carb method works... no question there. My point was that a LCHF method can work for distance runners as well, it just doesn't get the same attention and is not as well known.