question about carbs

According to your BB.com profile you are 19 so I'm curious as to what, exactly, makes you the expert? P.S......loved the thread on there where you're bragging about trolling!! I also love it when people rob banks and hand the teller their I.D.

Because he has the mental capacity to read and absorb scientific literature.

The basis of our understanding of the natural world, including nutrition, is scientific research. Where do you think doctors, dieticians, nutritionists, etc. are *supposedly* getting their information from? You think there's a giant textbook with the answers to all questions?

You can read a bunch of scientific research that looks at the efficacy of low-carb diets, and be AS EDUCATED AS YOUR DOCTOR when it comes to such matters.

Mind-blowing, isn't it?

For the majority of people that are overweight yes OVERWEIGHT DOES = Insulin Resistance.

Need to see data to support that claim. And if that's the case, then why does almost every long-term study done on dieting show that low carb is not inherently better to low fat?

I'll make a big post with a bunch of peer-reviewed research later. Even research done on obese participants showing that long-term weight loss is not better with a low carb diet.

This is true. Research has shown that for the majority low carb diets do not provide long term weight loss any more than low fat diets do. And the reason is the same. Most people (not ALL, most) don't stick to it long term. Without an underlying medical condition prompting it people simply don't want to deprive themselves. A sensible diet of moderate carbs, protein, fat, and calories along with regular exercise is usually most successful for healthy people.

Depending on how you define LOW, I actually think that one of the advantages of low carb diets is that they're easier to stick to. In this case when I say low I mean 50-100g of carbs per day. What I've found personally is that eating in this carb range has forced me to eat a lot more vegetables, which allows me to feel less deprived under restricted caloric intake. Eating calorie dense high-carb foods that don't make you full when you're restricting calories, means you have to hardly eat anything. I've done that. The approach I have now allows me to feel full (often stuffed) after meals, and I also stay full longer. For me this has been the biggest benefit to restricting my carbs, or more specifically, restricting my grain intake.

that's great that that works FOR YOU. All micro- & macronutrients play a part in the human diet. Some people's diet and training calls for it at certain times while others don't.

For the majority of people that are overweight yes OVERWEIGHT DOES = Insulin Resistance.

Need to see data to support that claim. And if that's the case, then why does almost every long-term study done on dieting show that low carb is not inherently better to low fat?

I'll make a big post with a bunch of peer-reviewed research later. Even research done on obese participants showing that long-term weight loss is not better with a low carb diet.

This is true. Research has shown that for the majority low carb diets do not provide long term weight loss any more than low fat diets do. And the reason is the same. Most people (not ALL, most) don't stick to it long term. Without an underlying medical condition prompting it people simply don't want to deprive themselves. A sensible diet of moderate carbs, protein, fat, and calories along with regular exercise is usually most successful for healthy people.

Depending on how you define LOW, I actually think that one of the advantages of low carb diets is that they're easier to stick to. In this case when I say low I mean 50-100g of carbs per day. What I've found personally is that eating in this carb range has forced me to eat a lot more vegetables, which allows me to feel less deprived under restricted caloric intake. Eating calorie dense high-carb foods that don't make you full when you're restricting calories, means you have to hardly eat anything. I've done that. The approach I have now allows me to feel full (often stuffed) after meals, and I also stay full longer. For me this has been the biggest benefit to restricting my carbs, or more specifically, restricting my grain intake.

I think it's great that you've found something that works for you, but it's very off topic as to what research has shown to work best for healthy people long term.

Personally, what works for me to worry more about whether my food is healthy and I'm getting a good variety. I don't pick foods based on the carb, protein or fat content but I make sure to get each of these things. I ran reports the other day and found that I average 76 g protein and 146 g carbs per day over the past 30 days, but the range was pretty wide. But that is still off topic and fairly meaningless when talking about the majority.

With consideration to the Laws of Thermodynamics and the biochemical metabolic pathways of carbohydrate oxidation and storage; can you please explain to me in detail how carbohydrate intake can effect body weight/composition in a way that negates basic energy balance?

Please respond.

Well since you were so rude about it, I guess I'll have to.

Do you actually know how insulin works? I'm going to try and explain this as simple (and as short) as I can for the benefit of everyone.

When you eat carbohydrates they get broken down into glucose molecules. When you body senses glucose, insulin is secreted to help you either use those glucose molecules or to store them later. The more carbohydrates you eat, the more insulin is secreted. Okay, insulin signals your cells that glucose is available and ready to use and then through those fancy biochemical pathways, the glucose gets transferred into the cell for use. When all of your cells have had enough glucose, those insulin cells signal your liver to turn the glucose molecules in to fatty acids to be stored in, that's right, fat cells.

Okay, great right? You eat too many carbohydrates, your body stores the access as fat. We all knew that. But there is more to the story...

At the fat cell wall, there is an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase (LPL). LPL tells the fatty acids to enter the fat cell to be stored as fat. Inside the fat cell there is another enzyme called hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) which releases the fatty acids from the fat cells to be used as energy. OKAY - both of these enzymes are sensitive to the presence (or absence) of insulin. When insulin is present, LPL is signaled to start storing fat. When insulin is low/absent, HSL is signaled to start releasing stored fat for energy.

That's a bare bones explanation and it's all from memory. I don't discount that you have to eat less than you burn to lose weight, but I've read at least 5 studies that show people on a low carbohydrate diet lose more weight than people on a low fat diet of the same caloric level.

And I lost weight while still eating over 300g of carbs a day. I mean, yea it's possible. BUT I was ALWAYS hungry. Now that I keep my carbs reasonable (between 50-100g) and have added more fat to my diet, I am in way more control of my hunger and feel very satisfied with 1500 calories a day, and I can live with 1200. I would have chewed off my arm before if I was only eating 1200 calories (plus intense exercise).

Well since you were so rude about it, I guess I'll have to.

Do you actually know how insulin works? I'm going to try and explain this as simple (and as short) as I can for the benefit of everyone.

When you eat carbohydrates they get broken down into glucose molecules. When you body senses glucose, insulin is secreted to help you either use those glucose molecules or to store them later. The more carbohydrates you eat, the more insulin is secreted. Okay, insulin signals your cells that glucose is available and ready to use and then through those fancy biochemical pathways, the glucose gets transferred into the cell for use. When all of your cells have had enough glucose, those insulin cells signal your liver to turn the glucose molecules in to fatty acids to be stored in, that's right, fat cells.

Two questions:

1) Do you know what glycogen is?
2) Can you define de novo lipogenesis?

Well since you were so rude about it, I guess I'll have to.

Do you actually know how insulin works? I'm going to try and explain this as simple (and as short) as I can for the benefit of everyone.

When you eat carbohydrates they get broken down into glucose molecules. When you body senses glucose, insulin is secreted to help you either use those glucose molecules or to store them later. The more carbohydrates you eat, the more insulin is secreted. Okay, insulin signals your cells that glucose is available and ready to use and then through those fancy biochemical pathways, the glucose gets transferred into the cell for use. When all of your cells have had enough glucose, those insulin cells signal your liver to turn the glucose molecules in to fatty acids to be stored in, that's right, fat cells.

Okay, great right? You eat too many carbohydrates, your body stores the access as fat. We all knew that. But there is more to the story...

At the fat cell wall, there is an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase (LPL). LPL tells the fatty acids to enter the fat cell to be stored as fat. Inside the fat cell there is another enzyme called hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) which releases the fatty acids from the fat cells to be used as energy. OKAY - both of these enzymes are sensitive to the presence (or absence) of insulin. When insulin is present, LPL is signaled to start storing fat. When insulin is low/absent, HSL is signaled to start releasing stored fat for energy.

That's a bare bones explanation and it's all from memory. I don't discount that you have to eat less than you burn to lose weight, but I've read at least 5 studies that show people on a low carbohydrate diet lose more weight than people on a low fat diet of the same caloric level.

And I lost weight while still eating over 300g of carbs a day. I mean, yea it's possible. BUT I was ALWAYS hungry. Now that I keep my carbs reasonable (between 50-100g) and have added more fat to my diet, I am in way more control of my hunger and feel very satisfied with 1500 calories a day, and I can live with 1200. I would have chewed off my arm before if I was only eating 1200 calories (plus intense exercise).

Let me educate you real fast. A calorie is a unit of energy. Your body uses calories (energy) for it's basic function and daily processes and tasks. The first Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can never be created or destroyed. What does this mean? Well, it means if you consume 2,000 calories and burn 2,500 calories in a day, the other 500 calories that you did not eat cannot just randomly manifest itself, and therefore is taken from your body. If you over consume calories in a way that there is more calories (over time) that your body can use for energy, it is stored.

Some make the claim that a calorie is not a calorie.. well, yes and no. By definition all things are equal because a calorie is a standardized unit of energy. With relation to food the argument can be made that specific macronutrients undergo different metabolic pathways, some of which are more or less efficient resulting in variances in net caloric expenditure (this is referred to as the thermic effect of feeding in some cases). With that said, these miniscule variances are not enough to overthrow, disregard or demonize any particular macronutrient.

While different macronutrients may, in short term, lead to different oxidation and storage processes by the body; in the long term they balance out.


Please read this for a better understanding: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html


I fear you do not realize the micro-analysis of short term oxidation and storage has no relevance in the content of daily nutrition and energy balance. There are no benefits, and unless you provide accurate scholarly journal articles (without bias and flaws) to your claim - you have nothing but a theory lacking a foundation in science.

Lemme just go eat 5000 calories of steaks and lard instead of my usual moderate carb, fat, and protein diet of 1300 calories. Maybe that'll help my diet. No carbs right?... No?....



/sarcasm

I didn't do so well making my post short, but o-well.

Also interesting to note: My best friend is working for her PHD in Tissue/Biomedical Engineering (we met in undergrad where we both studied Biomedical Engineering). She knows how I eat, which is Primal/Paleo, but she always just gives me that look like "yea whatever, we'll see what she's up to next month."

Yesterday I got a message that said this:

"You know, now that i think about it... I think I remember reading a journal article for my cardio biomechanics class that links atherosclerosis to carb intake, as it can increase the stiffness in the artery by causing smooth muscle cells to migrate to the endothelial layer, in turn causing an inflammatory response and then atherosclerosis eventually."

Which was stuff I was already researching. I was so excited/happy. It's only a matter of time Paleo friends

I didn't do so well making my post short, but o-well.

Also interesting to note: My best friend is working for her PHD in Tissue/Biomedical Engineering (we met in undergrad where we both studied Biomedical Engineering). She knows how I eat, which is Primal/Paleo, but she always just gives me that look like "yea whatever, we'll see what she's up to next month."

Yesterday I got a message that said this:

"You know, now that i think about it... I think I remember reading a journal article for my cardio biomechanics class that links atherosclerosis to carb intake, as it can increase the stiffness in the artery by causing smooth muscle cells to migrate to the endothelial layer, in turn causing an inflammatory response and then atherosclerosis eventually."

Which was stuff I was already researching. I was so excited/happy. It's only a matter of time Paleo friends

Still waiting to see an ounce of data supporting the practical application of paleo which reflects the claims paleo-adherents make.

The one RCT I have seen does not keep calories, macronutrients, OR micronutrients consistent. Yet they tout it as some huge victory.

I'm not exactly sure what the arguement is about.

Eat a calorie deficit = lose weight

Carbs are not a necessary macronutrient. And if you eat high carb but still stay under your TDEE, you will still lose weight.

Did I miss a beat here?

According to some of us: absolutely correct.
According to carbophobes: WRONG!

gawd i love MFP

You're hot! Digits?

You are such a jerk. And you obviously didn't even read my post. I DID NOT discount having to consume less when trying to lose weight, just that it's easier if you go about it by eating fewer carbs.

Plus, everything I wrote about insulin is proven science. Look it up, I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Other than that, I'm over this thread. It's not like I researched a reason to be extra unhealthy. I spend A LOT (probably too much) time researching this stuff because I love it. I started in February, and I didn't discover Paleo until early August. I'm just doing what I honestly think is best for me from EVERYTHING that I've learned thus far. So I give up. I will not be treated like an idiot.

When will it be mine turn for you to answer questions?

1) Glycogen - significance?
2) De novo lipogenesis - definition?

Also, response to this graph? http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Lipolysis-Lipogenesis1.png

I actually don't think that's the case... I think everyone has agreed on that!

Maybe in this thread, but not in the threads I've seen today

Some people believe that a 500 calorie deficit with a 100% carb diet < a 500 calorie surplus with a 0% carb diet in terms of FAT LOSS.

It's mind blowing knowing that people believe that.

You are such a jerk. And you obviously didn't even read my post. I DID NOT discount having to consume less when trying to lose weight, just that it's easier if you go about it by eating fewer carbs.

Plus, everything I wrote about insulin is proven science. Look it up, I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Other than that, I'm over this thread. It's not like I researched a reason to be extra unhealthy. I spend A LOT (probably too much) time researching this stuff because I love it. I started in February, and I didn't discover Paleo until early August. I'm just doing what I honestly think is best for me from EVERYTHING that I've learned thus far. So I give up. I will not be treated like an idiot.

I did read your post. Did you read mine? Did you visit the link I included?

You continue to claim there are advantages when in fact there are not. By your own definition, if energy balance could be manipulated with certain macronutrients.. then the Law of Thermodynamics would not reign true.

If they didn't reign true, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics wouldn't exist, and therefore the scientific property known as entropy would not exist. How are you keeping this amazing secret from the government? I say that because if entropy did not exist, then "Free Energy" devices and perpetual motion would be possible solving the energy crisis.

Do you understand yet?

I trolled the trolls and set the thread on fire!!!! Mission accomplished!!! :bigsmile: