To carb or not to carb?

Don't cut carbs it makes your immune system
Weaker periods messed up memory loss exhustion hairloss
I've done it a few times always ended up yoyoing

You can lose weight earring carbs I lost 71lbs in 2012 and didn't watch my macros 100%

Going to tag to listen later.

Hello_its_Dan wrote: »

sebedina wrote: »

Thank you sharing. I watched something on you tube ("low carb explained") so it would be interesting to see what this one says.

https://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/staff-directory/intramural/kevin-hall/Pages/research-summary.aspx

Here's Kevin Halls bio on NIH. He's one of the top researchers in the field. Definitely someone to listen to when it comes to healthy eating and weight management.

And not overly liked in the LC community... ha!

dragon_girl26 wrote: »

Carbs make me happy, and keep me satiated better. All of the carbs are belong to me!

Hahahahaha..

Thanks for posting! I have been trying to figure out whether I should go low carb or not.

Also #teamcarb. Eat #allthefood.

I ate half a loaf of bread today. Nothing else seemed appetizing.

Hello_its_Dan wrote: »

This is an excellent podcast interview for anyone wondering if they should cut carbs or not.

Enjoy!

https://sigmanutrition.com/episode165/

SNR #165: Kevin Hall, PhD – Testing the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model & a Response to Gary Taubes

Nice to see you. Will watch!

Balance carbs with exercise. That was Atkins' advice.

psuLemon wrote: »

Hello_its_Dan wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

Just listened to this.. And man that is some really good stuff. I think some of the content will go against a lot of what people conventionally think.

He's been known to go round for round with Gary Taubes just like Alan Aragon.

Here's the thing we need to remember: Nutritional science is still in its infancy.
100 years from now people are going to look back and think "I can't believe they used to think that about _______!"

I found it fascinating that KH doesn't believe a calorie is a calorie in the conventional sense that different macro's drive different energenic responses.

I mean, that is true, but unless one or other of those pathways is grossly inefficient, the body is still going to extract most of the energy avaliable regardless of which macro it came from - so the effect on the body (in terms of activity sustained or fat burned or stored) of 200 calories of carbs or 200 calories of fat is not going to be much different.

It's like running a hybrid on all-petrol or all-electricity - the power needed to drive the car is the same, regardless of the very different methods used to produce that power. And 200kW of electricity is equivalent to 200kW of output from a combustion engine. The only difference in practice is efficency - and the human body is extremely efficient at converting energy from any source.

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

Hello_its_Dan wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

Just listened to this.. And man that is some really good stuff. I think some of the content will go against a lot of what people conventionally think.

He's been known to go round for round with Gary Taubes just like Alan Aragon.

Here's the thing we need to remember: Nutritional science is still in its infancy.
100 years from now people are going to look back and think "I can't believe they used to think that about _______!"

I found it fascinating that KH doesn't believe a calorie is a calorie in the conventional sense that different macro's drive different energenic responses.

I mean, that is true, but unless one or other of those pathways is grossly inefficient, the body is still going to extract most of the energy avaliable regardless of which macro it came from - so the effect on the body (in terms of activity sustained or fat burned or stored) of 200 calories of carbs or 200 calories of fat is not going to be much different.

It's like running a hybrid on all-petrol or all-electricity - the power needed to drive the car is the same, regardless of the very different methods used to produce that power. And 200kW of electricity is equivalent to 200kW of output from a combustion engine. The only difference in practice is efficency - and the human body is extremely efficient at converting energy from any source.

I know. It's not highly different between fat and carbs... protein though....

Hello_its_Dan wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

Hello_its_Dan wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

Just listened to this.. And man that is some really good stuff. I think some of the content will go against a lot of what people conventionally think.

He's been known to go round for round with Gary Taubes just like Alan Aragon.

Here's the thing we need to remember: Nutritional science is still in its infancy.
100 years from now people are going to look back and think "I can't believe they used to think that about _______!"

I found it fascinating that KH doesn't believe a calorie is a calorie in the conventional sense that different macro's drive different energenic responses.

Elaborate

He mentioned that he agreed with Taubes on a lot of points. In some regard, that a calorie is not really calorie in the conventional sense, that if you had isocaloric studies, that macros would have no impact on weight and/fat loss, as it's been shown that higher protein studies tend to be superior. So while a calorie is a calories in terms of unit of measure (my words), not all macros splits would produce the same results (especially short term). He also noted that LCHF studies tend to show (at least in free living conditions) greater fat and weight loss short term.

I think this was around the 40th min. I do plan on listening again, to ensure I understood that correctly.