What's the deal with low carb diets?
Replies
-
Carbs are bad if they make you insulin resistant. Insulin resistance is very bad.
If your relationship with insulin is working, you have no reason to avoid carbs. Talk to your doctor if you would like more information.
But EXCESS carbs are not the biggest contributors to insulin resistance - the two biggest contributors to insulin resistance are:
"Acquired causes of insulin resistance
Acquired causes, meaning you’re not born with the cause, of insulin resistance include:
Excess body fat: Scientists believe obesity, especially excess fat in your belly and around your organs (visceral fat), is a primary cause of insulin resistance. A waist measurement of 40 inches or more for men and people assigned male at birth and 35 inches or more for women and people assigned female at birth is linked to insulin resistance. Studies have shown that belly fat makes hormones and other substances that can contribute to long-term inflammation in your body. This inflammation may play a role in insulin resistance
Physical inactivity: Physical activity makes your body more sensitive to insulin and builds muscle that can absorb blood glucose. A lack of physical activity can have opposite effects and cause insulin resistance. In addition, a lack of physical activity and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with weight gain, which can also contribute to insulin resistance."
from the following article:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22206-insulin-resistance
Eating carbs in a reasonable diet DOES NOT cause insulin resistance.
I applaud you on the five minutes it took you to find this article and copy and paste it here. But I have to say it's horrifically wrong. Insulin resistance is caused by carbohydrate intolerance, full stop.
It's 100% about the carbs. To say that it's not about the carbs, it's about the consequence of eating the carbs, is a silly distinction. But it was pop science on a google search, so you get what you pay for.
Let's take it further though: how does one become overweight? How does one get visceral fat?
Well let's see.
Let's say I want to fatten my pigs. I give them fanta to drink so they will eat more. That's established science. And I will feed them grains/bread. They fatten up real well on carbs.
Or I want to make some pate de foie gras. So I'm going to force feed my goose grains. No point feeding it fat. It won't get visceral fat on fat. It won't get fat at all.
So.. are we genetically similar to farm animals.
Most of us grew up in the 80s, 90s, noughties - on low fat, high carb diets. Can you see a problem?
Low fat foods had added sugar to make them still taste okay.
I quit an almost zero fat lifestyle in about 2017 after forty odd years of desperate dieting. At which time I was 100kg. And I'd given myself gallstones, not by being obese. No. By not using bile - by not eating any fat. Supersaturated solutions precipitate crystals! We all learned that in high school. Hey. We all made them in high school. I supersaturated my gallbladder bile and precipitated cholesteral balls. Well played.
Everyone with type 2 diabetes has 'acquired' it. That's not news. What is type 2 diabetes? It's an intolerance of carbs. If you cannot process milk, you are called milk intolerant. Well, a diabetic can't process carbs. He is intolerant of carbs.
Therefore talking about 'too many' changes meaning. Too many is over 50g a day. Too many for you might be 150.
So which come first? The carbs or the diabetes? The carbs or the obesity?
For me now, with a glucometer in my arm, I can tell you quite definitively what kicks my blood sugar off the charts, and it's any carb at all. slow release, fast release. don't matter. And sugar in the blood is poison. So in that regard, carbs are most assuredly toxic to someone with insulin resistance.
5 -
From: Manabe Y, Matsumura S, Fushiki T. Preference for High-Fat Food in Animals. In: Montmayeur JP, le Coutre J, editors. Fat Detection: Taste, Texture, and Post Ingestive Effects. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2010. Chapter 10.
Full chapter at this link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53543/The phenomenon of animals preferring high-fat foods has been accepted as natural behavior. Animals are equipped with fat not only for energy storage, but also for regulation of body temperature and as a source of many hormones. It is reasonable that animals eat and store fat based on physiological demands. On the other hand, eating an excessive amount of fat causes many metabolic diseases such as type II diabetes, atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular disease. Reflecting the current health situation in industrialized nations, fat studies are focused on why we overeat high-fat foods and how we can cope with accumulating body fat.
Reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, article on a small study, in humans, using measurements in a whole-room calorimeter, title "Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage"
Abstract here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7598063/Carbohydrate overfeeding produced progressive increases in carbohydrate oxidation and total energy expenditure resulting in 75-85% of excess energy being stored. Alternatively, fat overfeeding had minimal effects on fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of 90-95% of excess energy. Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate, and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period.
There are others.
By the way, Cleveland Clinic is not a "pop science" source. It's a a major US academic medical center, involved in teaching and research, regarded as one of the top handful of such institutions in the world.
Does eating fat make people (or other animals) fat? Per se, no. Does eating carbohydrates make people (or other animals) fat? Per se, no. Does consuming excess energy (calories) make people fat? Yes.
In a state of consuming excess energy from mixed macronutrients, which macronutrient is preferentially stored as fat? Fat.
Does eating carbohydrates cause insulin resistance? Per se, no. Does eating fat cause insulin resistance? Per se, no. Is excess body fat, however accumulated, correlated with insulin resistance? Strongly. Is a lifestyle (diet and exercise) that creates frequent large insulin spikes a pancreatic stressor that may contribute to developing insulin resistance? Likely (. . . says that very same Cleveland Clinic so-called "pop science" article, down the list of potential causes of IR, below excess bodyweight and under-exercise).14 -
@Bridgie3
I agree with sijomial, Bridgie - you are way off-base.
I just don't have the energy to dispute every one of your points, but they are all wrong.12 -
My opinion: the low-carb thing has been waaaayyy oversold. Obviously, you should avoid sugar, sweets, white flour and other white carbs with basically no nutrition (rice, potatoes pasta). Not only do these things give you a bunch of calories with minimal nutrition, they also get digested quickly, giving you a sugar spike and then a low and leave you feeling hungry. Also, simple carbs are not good from a diabetes perspective. They tend to promote insulin spikes, insulin resistance, and more likelyhood of diabetes in the long-run. Though unless you are already diabetic or pre-diabetic, that is more of a concern with the standard American diet than with your weight loss diet. Any diet that is semi-healthy and helping you to loose weight is also likely to lower your diabetes risk. But all that mostly pertains to the simple carbs. When carbs are complex, and combined with fiber, protein, and vitamins, they can be a very healthy part of a good diet; especially if you want to lean toward plant-based, whole-food, and/or Mediterranean. Beans, whole grains, legumes, pseudo-grains (quinoa, amaranth), nuts, all have carbs and can be a very healthy part of a weight loss diet. Minimally processed whole grains, legumes, etc have a fairly low glycemic index (i.e. don't produce sugar or insulin spikes), and should not be a problem unless you are seriously diabetic). If you are doing significant athletic activity, carbs are the most natural energy source for you muscles. Ultra low-carb (i.e. keto) can detract from your athletic performance or progress.
You should go look at the nutritional profile of a potato. It's actually packed with nutrition and about as close as you can get to one food being a complete food. In particular they are high in vitamin C and an exceptional source of potassium (way more than a banana). They are also a very good source of iron and a decent source of vegetarian protein and a good source of dietary fiber. They are also a whole food.13 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »My opinion: the low-carb thing has been waaaayyy oversold. Obviously, you should avoid sugar, sweets, white flour and other white carbs with basically no nutrition (rice, potatoes pasta). Not only do these things give you a bunch of calories with minimal nutrition, they also get digested quickly, giving you a sugar spike and then a low and leave you feeling hungry. Also, simple carbs are not good from a diabetes perspective. They tend to promote insulin spikes, insulin resistance, and more likelyhood of diabetes in the long-run. Though unless you are already diabetic or pre-diabetic, that is more of a concern with the standard American diet than with your weight loss diet. Any diet that is semi-healthy and helping you to loose weight is also likely to lower your diabetes risk. But all that mostly pertains to the simple carbs. When carbs are complex, and combined with fiber, protein, and vitamins, they can be a very healthy part of a good diet; especially if you want to lean toward plant-based, whole-food, and/or Mediterranean. Beans, whole grains, legumes, pseudo-grains (quinoa, amaranth), nuts, all have carbs and can be a very healthy part of a weight loss diet. Minimally processed whole grains, legumes, etc have a fairly low glycemic index (i.e. don't produce sugar or insulin spikes), and should not be a problem unless you are seriously diabetic). If you are doing significant athletic activity, carbs are the most natural energy source for you muscles. Ultra low-carb (i.e. keto) can detract from your athletic performance or progress.
You should go look at the nutritional profile of a potato. It's actually packed with nutrition and about as close as you can get to one food being a complete food. In particular they are high in vitamin C and an exceptional source of potassium (way more than a banana). They are also a very good source of iron and a decent source of vegetarian protein and a good source of dietary fiber. They are also a whole food.
That's so funny because you don't think of potato chips as being nutritionally sound or anything but I was checking out the nutrition label (I tend to only look at calories/sodium/protein if it's generally a proteinish food) on a bag and saw how high the potassium was and was "whoa!" Then I realized...."oh yeah, potatoes".
2 -
Carbs are bad if they make you insulin resistant. Insulin resistance is very bad.
If your relationship with insulin is working, you have no reason to avoid carbs. Talk to your doctor if you would like more information.
But EXCESS carbs are not the biggest contributors to insulin resistance - the two biggest contributors to insulin resistance are:
"Acquired causes of insulin resistance
Acquired causes, meaning you’re not born with the cause, of insulin resistance include:
Excess body fat: Scientists believe obesity, especially excess fat in your belly and around your organs (visceral fat), is a primary cause of insulin resistance. A waist measurement of 40 inches or more for men and people assigned male at birth and 35 inches or more for women and people assigned female at birth is linked to insulin resistance. Studies have shown that belly fat makes hormones and other substances that can contribute to long-term inflammation in your body. This inflammation may play a role in insulin resistance
Physical inactivity: Physical activity makes your body more sensitive to insulin and builds muscle that can absorb blood glucose. A lack of physical activity can have opposite effects and cause insulin resistance. In addition, a lack of physical activity and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with weight gain, which can also contribute to insulin resistance."
from the following article:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22206-insulin-resistance
Eating carbs in a reasonable diet DOES NOT cause insulin resistance.
I applaud you on the five minutes it took you to find this article and copy and paste it here. But I have to say it's horrifically wrong. Insulin resistance is caused by carbohydrate intolerance, full stop.
It's 100% about the carbs. To say that it's not about the carbs, it's about the consequence of eating the carbs, is a silly distinction. But it was pop science on a google search, so you get what you pay for.
Let's take it further though: how does one become overweight? How does one get visceral fat?
Well let's see.
Let's say I want to fatten my pigs. I give them fanta to drink so they will eat more. That's established science. And I will feed them grains/bread. They fatten up real well on carbs.
Or I want to make some pate de foie gras. So I'm going to force feed my goose grains. No point feeding it fat. It won't get visceral fat on fat. It won't get fat at all.
So.. are we genetically similar to farm animals.
Most of us grew up in the 80s, 90s, noughties - on low fat, high carb diets. Can you see a problem?
Low fat foods had added sugar to make them still taste okay.
I quit an almost zero fat lifestyle in about 2017 after forty odd years of desperate dieting. At which time I was 100kg. And I'd given myself gallstones, not by being obese. No. By not using bile - by not eating any fat. Supersaturated solutions precipitate crystals! We all learned that in high school. Hey. We all made them in high school. I supersaturated my gallbladder bile and precipitated cholesteral balls. Well played.
Everyone with type 2 diabetes has 'acquired' it. That's not news. What is type 2 diabetes? It's an intolerance of carbs. If you cannot process milk, you are called milk intolerant. Well, a diabetic can't process carbs. He is intolerant of carbs.
Therefore talking about 'too many' changes meaning. Too many is over 50g a day. Too many for you might be 150.
So which come first? The carbs or the diabetes? The carbs or the obesity?
For me now, with a glucometer in my arm, I can tell you quite definitively what kicks my blood sugar off the charts, and it's any carb at all. slow release, fast release. don't matter. And sugar in the blood is poison. So in that regard, carbs are most assuredly toxic to someone with insulin resistance.
There's a difference between having to restrict your carbs because you have insulin resistance and becoming insulin resistant because you ate carbs.11 -
I have acid reflux from time to time. When it flares up, I have to take Tums roughly once an hour, I feel bloated all the time, and sleeping becomes uncomfortable.
The only thing that has quelled these symptoms is low carb diet. I go low carb for 3-4 weeks, and gradually reintroduce fruits and some sweets (I have a sweet tooth), and the reflux just goes away like magic.
Generally I avoid bread all the time now, because it seems to be the chief instigator. I mean, a little bread now and then seems to be okay, but sadly I just can't go back to eating a bagel every day and so forth.
Your mileage may vary, but that's what I've found. By the way, low carb has also been great for losing weight. Right now, I'm on a myfitnesspal calorie limited diet, not low carb, but I still try to limit grain and starch carbs as much as possible.3 -
From: Manabe Y, Matsumura S, Fushiki T. Preference for High-Fat Food in Animals. In: Montmayeur JP, le Coutre J, editors. Fat Detection: Taste, Texture, and Post Ingestive Effects. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2010. Chapter 10.
Full chapter at this link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53543/The phenomenon of animals preferring high-fat foods has been accepted as natural behavior. Animals are equipped with fat not only for energy storage, but also for regulation of body temperature and as a source of many hormones. It is reasonable that animals eat and store fat based on physiological demands. On the other hand, eating an excessive amount of fat causes many metabolic diseases such as type II diabetes, atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular disease. Reflecting the current health situation in industrialized nations, fat studies are focused on why we overeat high-fat foods and how we can cope with accumulating body fat.
Reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, article on a small study, in humans, using measurements in a whole-room calorimeter, title "Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage"
Abstract here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7598063/Carbohydrate overfeeding produced progressive increases in carbohydrate oxidation and total energy expenditure resulting in 75-85% of excess energy being stored. Alternatively, fat overfeeding had minimal effects on fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of 90-95% of excess energy. Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate, and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period.
There are others.
By the way, Cleveland Clinic is not a "pop science" source. It's a a major US academic medical center, involved in teaching and research, regarded as one of the top handful of such institutions in the world.
Does eating fat make people (or other animals) fat? Per se, no. Does eating carbohydrates make people (or other animals) fat? Per se, no. Does consuming excess energy (calories) make people fat? Yes.
In a state of consuming excess energy from mixed macronutrients, which macronutrient is preferentially stored as fat? Fat.
Does eating carbohydrates cause insulin resistance? Per se, no. Does eating fat cause insulin resistance? Per se, no. Is excess body fat, however accumulated, correlated with insulin resistance? Strongly. Is a lifestyle (diet and exercise) that creates frequent large insulin spikes a pancreatic stressor that may contribute to developing insulin resistance? Likely (. . . says that very same Cleveland Clinic so-called "pop science" article, down the list of potential causes of IR, below excess bodyweight and under-exercise).
how old is this.
You need to update. The universities themselves need to update. The sugar myth is over, it's time for the scientists to catch up.
Beware. I have a GP who in one sentence said fat is fine and in the next said eat lean chicken and remove the fat. She can't see the conflict but it's glaring.
Offload the old science. The internet doesn't date its entries; you have to be more awake.
It has been discovered that eating fructose forces about 80% conversion to fat. That's how your liver do. And if you're converting a percentage of it to fat, you can't use it.
Insulin is the fat storage hormone. That's how insulin do. If you are sending insulin out for your glucose, that is what it are doing.
There's a huge gap in the science at the moment, regarding fat storage and insulin use. And until that gap in the knowledge is locked down, none of you can rely on any of the information you're getting from these american universities. And while you're at it, check their funding.1 -
Wow, getting big time larry vibes (none of you will get that).4
-
Wow, getting big time larry vibes (none of you will get that).
dude. brutal. look it all up. The OP is 'what's the deal with low carb diets.' Those of us who have been forced to look into it have found things. The general population is well behind the play, but you can look up scholarly articles yourself and find out what's going on. Rather than just search old data. Science has done a 180 in the last 10 yrs, and quite a lot of it has not caught up. And yes, science is a political issue in the US where so many university funders have a vested interest. US government is munted. Search from other nations' universities.1 -
Wow, getting big time larry vibes (none of you will get that).
dude. brutal. look it all up. The OP is 'what's the deal with low carb diets.' Those of us who have been forced to look into it have found things. The general population is well behind the play, but you can look up scholarly articles yourself and find out what's going on. Rather than just search old data. Science has done a 180 in the last 10 yrs, and quite a lot of it has not caught up. And yes, science is a political issue in the US where so many university funders have a vested interest. US government is munted. Search from other nations' universities.
You are saying things in these posts that I believe are not well-founded in old or recent science, either one.
Now, you seem to be advancing a "things that don't agree with me are biased" argument.
OK.
Others will come to their own conclusions, I'm sure, about what constitutes well-researched, well-reasoned, or biased.14 -
Wow, getting big time larry vibes (none of you will get that).
dude. brutal. look it all up. The OP is 'what's the deal with low carb diets.' Those of us who have been forced to look into it have found things. The general population is well behind the play, but you can look up scholarly articles yourself and find out what's going on. Rather than just search old data. Science has done a 180 in the last 10 yrs, and quite a lot of it has not caught up. And yes, science is a political issue in the US where so many university funders have a vested interest. US government is munted. Search from other nations' universities.
You make a lot of statements and accusations that just have no backing.
There have been many arguments against your "theories" here on these forums for many years by many professionals and your view is not going to be accepted without a lot more links. Where are you finding this stuff?? You sound like some secret conspiracy theorist, ya know?12 -
Wow, getting big time larry vibes (none of you will get that).
dude. brutal. look it all up. The OP is 'what's the deal with low carb diets.' Those of us who have been forced to look into it have found things. The general population is well behind the play, but you can look up scholarly articles yourself and find out what's going on. Rather than just search old data. Science has done a 180 in the last 10 yrs, and quite a lot of it has not caught up. And yes, science is a political issue in the US where so many university funders have a vested interest. US government is munted. Search from other nations' universities.
Brutal? Maybe. True? Full stop.
12 -
I agree with what several others have said also, but I want to respond to one specific thing:Most of us grew up in the 80s, 90s, noughties - on low fat, high carb diets. Can you see a problem?
I recall low carb diets being pretty common during various portions of that period of time, and low fat being out of vogue, or out of vogue off and on, but even more significantly -- and not merely based on my recollection -- the US never actually ate a low fat diet based on stats. Low fat may have been trendy at times or recommended, but it was not followed. (Similarly, the recommendations to reduce snacky foods and eat at least a certain minimum serving of veg and of fruits were also not followed on a population average.)5 -
I agree with what several others have said also, but I want to respond to one specific thing:Most of us grew up in the 80s, 90s, noughties - on low fat, high carb diets. Can you see a problem?
I recall low carb diets being pretty common during various portions of that period of time, and low fat being out of vogue, or out of vogue off and on, but even more significantly -- and not merely based on my recollection -- the US never actually ate a low fat diet based on stats. Low fat may have been trendy at times or recommended, but it was not followed. (Similarly, the recommendations to reduce snacky foods and eat at least a certain minimum serving of veg and of fruits were also not followed on a population average.)
I'd even go that far to say that substantial amounts of people, from various age groups grew up with high carb diets. Not because of some fad diets but because it's the normal way of eating: lots of bread several times per day, veggies and potatoes for dinner, with some meat or fish, 1-2 pieces of fruit. Oddly, diabetes type II and being overweight is quite a lot lower in large parts of continental Europe (because that's what I'm talking about) than in the US. Wonder why that might be. @Bridgie36 -
I agree with what several others have said also, but I want to respond to one specific thing:Most of us grew up in the 80s, 90s, noughties - on low fat, high carb diets. Can you see a problem?
I recall low carb diets being pretty common during various portions of that period of time, and low fat being out of vogue, or out of vogue off and on, but even more significantly -- and not merely based on my recollection -- the US never actually ate a low fat diet based on stats. Low fat may have been trendy at times or recommended, but it was not followed. (Similarly, the recommendations to reduce snacky foods and eat at least a certain minimum serving of veg and of fruits were also not followed on a population average.)
I'd even go that far to say that substantial amounts of people, from various age groups grew up with high carb diets. Not because of some fad diets but because it's the normal way of eating: lots of bread several times per day, veggies and potatoes for dinner, with some meat or fish, 1-2 pieces of fruit. Oddly, diabetes type II and being overweight is quite a lot lower in large parts of continental Europe (because that's what I'm talking about) than in the US. Wonder why that might be. @Bridgie3
Yes. That's spot on. Most over the last 50 yrs have been high carb low fat. In America anyway; and here in New Zealand the more 'woke' were going very low fat. This has led to a generation of diabetics. Not directly from eating carbs. Indirectly, from eating sugar which was put into low fat foods to make them edible.
Remember weight watchers and their 'scrapings of butter'? The 3 scant tsp of fat you were allowed per day. Everything was 'remove all visible fat'. Cheese was edam or cottage.
And we all starved. Starved and starved.
I remember 'lean beef and lamb' - all the fat cut off before you buy it in the shops. The systematic, 20 or 30 yrs of removal of any fat from everything. Dressings: no fat, but lots of sugar! Cookies: make them with applesauce! That's even worse, that's fructose! 'fat free' foods loaded with sugars and HFCS. But the heart tick? The heart tick was fine for high sugar so long as the food was low fat.
The foundation of eating has spent thirty odd years shifting such that the current generation's 'normal' is so far away from natural eating it's not funny and they have no way of knowing. Look in the 'new foods' thread for all the strange and mutated items people now can eat to avoid the particular food group they fear. I talk in other threads about eating natural food, being 'what would have been available 300 yrs ago' and people argue that. I mean, it's not even arguable but they find a way.
They have no idea what's normal because it was destroyed years before they were born.
So me attempting to say anything is simply failing. I guess I'll just look to my own. Take care of myself and my children. In a family where the women stay very thin but die of dementia, I'm going to die fatter, but hopefully not of dementia. I'll see if avoiding statins and eating high fat will save me. It's already lowered my cholesterol reading, and my fatty liver has gone down, the nausea and exhaustion are going away.
My mother, bless her, all 52kg of her, is wasting away of 'Diabetes type 3' in an old folks' home. Her life spent avoiding all traces of fat, eating fruit like it was going out of style, taking statins to 'lower her cholesterol' Much good it has done her. Much good indeed.
I'll just take care of myself and leave who will to take care of themselves.2 -
Come on hun, take a step back, relax. You're just making it worse.8
-
I agree with what several others have said also, but I want to respond to one specific thing:Most of us grew up in the 80s, 90s, noughties - on low fat, high carb diets. Can you see a problem?
I recall low carb diets being pretty common during various portions of that period of time, and low fat being out of vogue, or out of vogue off and on, but even more significantly -- and not merely based on my recollection -- the US never actually ate a low fat diet based on stats. Low fat may have been trendy at times or recommended, but it was not followed. (Similarly, the recommendations to reduce snacky foods and eat at least a certain minimum serving of veg and of fruits were also not followed on a population average.)
Just to clarify, the investigations done due to I think it was Nixon having a heart attack and wanting answers, involved looking at the eating habits of a number of countries, and seeing what correlations could be viewed. They came upon some direct 1:1 correlations, they thought, between fat consumption and heart disease.
France didn't fit as they weren't dying of heart attacks despite eating a ton of fat.
Japan didn't fit because they ate low fat but they all karked of heart attacks;
These two 'outliers' were removed as they were not fitting the model properly. And once you took those two pesky countries out of the mix, you had a pretty compelling argument that increased fat consumption causes increased heart attack rates.
Interestingly, most western countries had similar stats on sugar consumption as fat consumption. Except of course the France situation (low sugar) and the Japan situation (high sugar). So if they'd left them in they might have been forced to link causality to sugar instead of fat. but no.
There's books on it. There's movies on it. It's like, everywhere.
Anyway, that's it from me.
1 -
...and yet, no links. Just talking in vague geographical references?7
-
Carb is an energy source as is fat and protein. I have never been able to gorge on protein or fat. Perhaps it is a genetic defect but when it comes to carbs I can gorge. Carbs from plants are key for gut microbiome health. In my case low carb does provide some pain management. A high carb high fat can drive inflammation which is not good for longevity.
Getting eating advice from other humans can be dangerous. Ones body offers the best eating advice typically.0 -
I agree with what several others have said also, but I want to respond to one specific thing:Most of us grew up in the 80s, 90s, noughties - on low fat, high carb diets. Can you see a problem?
I recall low carb diets being pretty common during various portions of that period of time, and low fat being out of vogue, or out of vogue off and on, but even more significantly -- and not merely based on my recollection -- the US never actually ate a low fat diet based on stats. Low fat may have been trendy at times or recommended, but it was not followed. (Similarly, the recommendations to reduce snacky foods and eat at least a certain minimum serving of veg and of fruits were also not followed on a population average.)
I'd even go that far to say that substantial amounts of people, from various age groups grew up with high carb diets. Not because of some fad diets but because it's the normal way of eating: lots of bread several times per day, veggies and potatoes for dinner, with some meat or fish, 1-2 pieces of fruit. Oddly, diabetes type II and being overweight is quite a lot lower in large parts of continental Europe (because that's what I'm talking about) than in the US. Wonder why that might be. @Bridgie3
I don't disagree, but the claim is often made that the US focus on low fat recommendations at one point (largely focused on sat fat in reality) led to people eating higher carb/low fat diets and that led to the current issues with obesity. The truth is that the US on average has never eaten a low fat diet, the amount of fat consumed did not go down, and the US's average macro mix is by no means unusual across the world or the reason for the obesity issues here. The specific food sources changed and the ubiquity of easy and high cal snack foods (which were increasingly more like homemade or otherwise tastier than they had been, arguably), and cultural ideas about eating (to some extent). I think it makes more sense to look to those things than the (non existent) shift to low fat eating.2 -
I agree with what several others have said also, but I want to respond to one specific thing:Most of us grew up in the 80s, 90s, noughties - on low fat, high carb diets. Can you see a problem?
I recall low carb diets being pretty common during various portions of that period of time, and low fat being out of vogue, or out of vogue off and on, but even more significantly -- and not merely based on my recollection -- the US never actually ate a low fat diet based on stats. Low fat may have been trendy at times or recommended, but it was not followed. (Similarly, the recommendations to reduce snacky foods and eat at least a certain minimum serving of veg and of fruits were also not followed on a population average.)
I'd even go that far to say that substantial amounts of people, from various age groups grew up with high carb diets. Not because of some fad diets but because it's the normal way of eating: lots of bread several times per day, veggies and potatoes for dinner, with some meat or fish, 1-2 pieces of fruit. Oddly, diabetes type II and being overweight is quite a lot lower in large parts of continental Europe (because that's what I'm talking about) than in the US. Wonder why that might be. @Bridgie3
Yes. That's spot on. Most over the last 50 yrs have been high carb low fat.
Was yirara suggesting it was a recent change (last 50 years only) or that it was bad/led to people overeating as you seem to be reading her post? Because I don't think so.1 -
I agree with what several others have said also, but I want to respond to one specific thing:Most of us grew up in the 80s, 90s, noughties - on low fat, high carb diets. Can you see a problem?
I recall low carb diets being pretty common during various portions of that period of time, and low fat being out of vogue, or out of vogue off and on, but even more significantly -- and not merely based on my recollection -- the US never actually ate a low fat diet based on stats. Low fat may have been trendy at times or recommended, but it was not followed. (Similarly, the recommendations to reduce snacky foods and eat at least a certain minimum serving of veg and of fruits were also not followed on a population average.)
Just to clarify, the investigations done due to I think it was Nixon having a heart attack and wanting answers, involved looking at the eating habits of a number of countries, and seeing what correlations could be viewed. They came upon some direct 1:1 correlations, they thought, between fat consumption and heart disease.
France didn't fit as they weren't dying of heart attacks despite eating a ton of fat.
Japan didn't fit because they ate low fat but they all karked of heart attacks;
These two 'outliers' were removed as they were not fitting the model properly. And once you took those two pesky countries out of the mix, you had a pretty compelling argument that increased fat consumption causes increased heart attack rates.
Interestingly, most western countries had similar stats on sugar consumption as fat consumption. Except of course the France situation (low sugar) and the Japan situation (high sugar). So if they'd left them in they might have been forced to link causality to sugar instead of fat. but no.
There's books on it. There's movies on it. It's like, everywhere.
Anyway, that's it from me.
I can tell what you've been reading from this (it was Eisenhower, not Nixon, btw), and you are wrong re the conspiracy theory stuff about the countries study.
Here's a good discussion: https://deniseminger.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-got-it-wrong/
More significantly, and the point I made that you ignored, in the US at least the diet never became low fat. So claiming low fat diets did this or that makes no sense in how the country, on average, actually ate. Maybe (I doubt it, but I don't care enough to research it) NZ is an outlier to this, but the idea that it was a low fat/high carb shift that drove obesity rates does not fit the facts in the US (whereas some other obvious things make a lot more sense as theories) or various other countries.10 -
I agree with what several others have said also, but I want to respond to one specific thing:Most of us grew up in the 80s, 90s, noughties - on low fat, high carb diets. Can you see a problem?
I recall low carb diets being pretty common during various portions of that period of time, and low fat being out of vogue, or out of vogue off and on, but even more significantly -- and not merely based on my recollection -- the US never actually ate a low fat diet based on stats. Low fat may have been trendy at times or recommended, but it was not followed. (Similarly, the recommendations to reduce snacky foods and eat at least a certain minimum serving of veg and of fruits were also not followed on a population average.)
I'd even go that far to say that substantial amounts of people, from various age groups grew up with high carb diets. Not because of some fad diets but because it's the normal way of eating: lots of bread several times per day, veggies and potatoes for dinner, with some meat or fish, 1-2 pieces of fruit. Oddly, diabetes type II and being overweight is quite a lot lower in large parts of continental Europe (because that's what I'm talking about) than in the US. Wonder why that might be. @Bridgie3
Yes. That's spot on. Most over the last 50 yrs have been high carb low fat.
Was yirara suggesting it was a recent change (last 50 years only) or that it was bad/led to people overeating as you seem to be reading her post? Because I don't think so.
Exactly1 -
Three generations of Americans were encouraged to reduce fat. It was bad science and still is, but there is no denying the pervasive movement. More recently, carbs have become public enemy number one. Also bad science. Also pervasive. And we have bred an entire generation of people with imagined food allergies and intolerances. Also bad science - almost no one is actually allergic to anything in the ordinary diet.
But, each of these phobias has, in its own way, assisted in reducing calorie intake and therefore reducing obesity. That's a good thing.
0 -
Isn't there enough hostility in the world without such a hostile disagreement over carbs? Come on people now. Smile on your brother. Everybody get together and try to Love one another right now.
Over 50 years ago by the Youngbloods 1966. 0 -
Oh I want the disagree button!!12
-
By the way re carbs - a jacket spud slathered in butter? Absolute bliss 😀9
-
claireychn074 wrote: »By the way re carbs - a jacket spud slathered in butter? Absolute bliss 😀
Carbs AND fat?
Fight it out!5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions