Cars/Sugars and weight loss

Options
nelson6500
nelson6500 Posts: 33
in Food and Nutrition
I have a co-worker that doesn't understand carbs/sugars etc. She is a very opinionated woman that knows 'everything'. We got in a very heated discussion yesterday about carbs/sugars especially in fruits and vegetables. She is insistent that she can loose weight and be healthy on 15-30 a day. What's your opinion?

I am a diabetic and live by carbs/sugars etc. Don't mess with a diabetic when it comes to that stuff. lol
«1

Replies

  • nanodot
    nanodot Posts: 154 Member
    Options
    Sure she can. The Inuit do it their whole lives. Plus, you can eat a huge heap of green salad for 30 carbs.
  • Gigi_licious
    Gigi_licious Posts: 1,185 Member
    Options
    I make it a general rule to not eat cars. They taste a little to metallic for my liking.
  • april_beth
    april_beth Posts: 617 Member
    Options
    each person is different...getting inot pissing matches about food/weight is not worth it - people take that very seriously :)
  • Thomasm198
    Thomasm198 Posts: 3,189 Member
    Options
    I make it a general rule to not eat cars. They taste a little to metallic for my liking.

    They're also rather filling. I think there's something like 10,000,000 calories in an SUV. :smile:
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    Here's a better question for you... why do you think she wouldn't be able to lose weight and maintain health eating this trace amount of carbohydrates?

    Keep in mind that there's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
  • jamielise2
    jamielise2 Posts: 432 Member
    Options
    I met with a dietitian who said that you should keep your carbs under 150gm per day but I think it truly is individual. She also said that it doesn't particularly matter what the source of the carbs is (i.e. sugar, grain, fruit, etc). And that you can add 1 gram of carbs to your "allowance" for every 2 grams of fiber in the meal (so if you have 10 grams of carbs and 2 grams of fiber you can count it as 9 grams of carbs). I don't know what I think of that. My body doesn't seem to care...except I have to watch my fat grams.
  • chubbychristianchick
    chubbychristianchick Posts: 217 Member
    Options
    I make it a general rule to not eat cars. They taste a little to metallic for my liking.
    I was so thinking this.....
  • Sarah0866
    Sarah0866 Posts: 291 Member
    Options
    While carbs are not an essential macronutrient, and you could survive off of a high protein and high fat diet with little to no carbs (except from veggies), I've read a lot of nutrition books and articles that advise against cutting them. Yes, your body turns to its fat stores for energy when you don't supply it with glucose, so there is some trurth to what she said. HOWEVER, not only can that leave you feeling less energetic, but it can cause irritability, and according to a few different books (I would research this), places undue stress on the liver (not sure about this but I've read it a few times).

    I've tried an extremely low-carb diet before, and while I did lose weight, I'm still losing weight now with a ratio of 40/40/20 (protein/carbs/fat), and I feel a lot better this way, both energy and mood wise. I hope this helps some :)
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    Yes, your body turns to its fat stores for energy when you don't supply it with glucose, so there is some trurth to what she said. HOWEVER, not only can that leave you feeling less energetic, but it can cause irritability,

    Can being the operative word here.

    In some, it will. Others, not so much.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Options
    OP:

    To lose weight you require a calorie deficit under your calorie maintenance level (TDEE).

    To be healthy is subjective, and you require:
    - Not be overweight
    - Not smoke
    - Not do drugs
    - Not have anger management issues
    - Not beat up co-workers (inside joke)

    On a more serious note, you can eat your calorie deficit to lose weight if you are overweight, do some exercise, eat plenty of micronutrient rich foods (fruits and veggies), and eat a well balanced macronutrient plan that has the minimum required protein and fat content.

    Like Steve Troutman said above, Carbs are NOT an essential macronutrient.
  • vim_n_vigor
    vim_n_vigor Posts: 4,089 Member
    Options
    Yes, your body turns to its fat stores for energy when you don't supply it with glucose, so there is some trurth to what she said. HOWEVER, not only can that leave you feeling less energetic, but it can cause irritability,

    Can being the operative word here.

    In some, it will. Others, not so much.

    I had great energy and no irritability when I was low-carbing it. In fact, I had the best energy ever, best blood test results ever, and quickest weight loss ever. If it weren't for some very unrelated issues I am having now, I would be back on that diet in a heart beat.
  • slbeutler
    slbeutler Posts: 205
    Options
    You have to find what works for you, but it actually has to work and not just be a theory, so in other words you are getting results. Low carb works best for me, because I hate counting calories and it always makes me feel deprived and frustrated, so when I go low carb I feel like if I am hungry, I can eat and I never seem to go over my calories when I log it all. It is because I have pretty much cut out a food group, so it goes back to a previous comment, weight loss comes down to calories in and calories out. I do seem to lose weight faster and in my trouble areas when I cut out refined carbs and sugar. I also avoid gluten and most dairy.
  • scarletfever2005
    scarletfever2005 Posts: 141 Member
    Options
    I'm confused by your post. As you know I'm also diabetic, and control it by limiting my carbs and sugars. Those are what make my glucose go up, do they not yours?
  • MikeSEA
    MikeSEA Posts: 1,074 Member
    Options
    not to hijack things too much, but I'd like to take a moment to discuss this "carbs aren't essential" business. First, you're talking about carbs being essential in a rather clinical sense, I assume. I'm not disagreeing, mind you, I just want the context made clear. Second, is there really a point to bringing it up? Even if someone is saying, as we often do, "Your body needs carbs", then the more appropriate response would seem to be, "It's more that your body is probably fine eating carbs or not, more than dietary carbs are essential."

    Sometimes when people bring this fact up there seems to be an underlying idea that carbs being not essential is enough justification for not eating them. It's that underlying idea that's kind of debatable for me.

    I guess my point is one shouldn't avoid carbs simply because they aren't essential. Absent some other reason to avoid or restrict them, there's literally no reason not to include dietary carbs, generally speaking. I'm not saying anyone here has said that right now, but it seems to be some sort of default fallback position for people who have a holy war against carbs.

    "Carbs aren't essential!"

    "So? Air conditioning isn't essential; it's still beneficial."
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Options
    Mike a few were simply trying to argue a point that carbs aren't essential to the human body. Of course they can be beneficial. My ex girlfriend can be beneficial but she isn't essential to exist in this universe either. ;)

    (ok that was a bad joke)
  • MikeSEA
    MikeSEA Posts: 1,074 Member
    Options
    Mike a few were simply trying to argue a point that carbs aren't essential to the human body. Of course they can be beneficial. My ex girlfriend can be beneficial but she isn't essential to exist in this universe either. ;)

    (ok that was a bad joke)

    Yeah, I get that. And technically your ex-girlfriend comment is an entirely true statement :)--unless the world is going to end when she does, which would be highly annoying. I just think the initial statement needs some careful deployment. Personal opinion: it's one of those facts that gets used for "evil" more often than not. The real question is whether or not an individual's body is having a negative (in whatever terms that may be) response to the carbs they're eating. It's a little more on-point most of the time from what I can see. It's also highly debatable and personal by nature, which makes making generalizations about it infinitely less fun on fitness forums :smile:
  • nelson6500
    nelson6500 Posts: 33
    Options
    Yes, I guess I didn't put this in quite the right words. I have a diet given to me by the dietician that keeps me at 150 carbs. I most often stay below.

    In order to keep blood sugars from roller coastering I must maintain a healthy level of carbs/sugars.

    The discussion I had with particular co-worker was about the carbs in fruits and vegetables. She is claiming they do not count as a carb and you can eat as much as you want as she is trying to do a no carb diet.

    I let her know the only way to do a no carb diet is to eat only meats and that is plain with little seasons. She sat across from me eating a 1/3 lb burger with swiss cheese, romain lettuce, red onions, and tomato. Telling everyone no carbs.

    She is trying to eat only 15 carbs a day. Good for her but it is not a health well balanced way to eat. What about getting the fruits and vegetables she needs? Grains and some proteins (nuts beans etc.)

    Then she argued about cholesterol and the effects of red meats on it. She is wacko.

    Reading some of the comments have made me giggle.:laugh:
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    Options
    Mike a few were simply trying to argue a point that carbs aren't essential to the human body. Of course they can be beneficial. My ex girlfriend can be beneficial but she isn't essential to exist in this universe either. ;)

    (ok that was a bad joke)

    I disagree, it was a good joke.
  • sugarbone
    sugarbone Posts: 454 Member
    Options
    15-30g carbs a day is called keto, it's pretty common and excellent for weight loss. Your body doesn't really need carbs.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    not to hijack things too much, but I'd like to take a moment to discuss this "carbs aren't essential" business. First, you're talking about carbs being essential in a rather clinical sense, I assume. I'm not disagreeing, mind you, I just want the context made clear. Second, is there really a point to bringing it up? Even if someone is saying, as we often do, "Your body needs carbs", then the more appropriate response would seem to be, "It's more that your body is probably fine eating carbs or not, more than dietary carbs are essential."

    Sometimes when people bring this fact up there seems to be an underlying idea that carbs being not essential is enough justification for not eating them. It's that underlying idea that's kind of debatable for me.

    I guess my point is one shouldn't avoid carbs simply because they aren't essential. Absent some other reason to avoid or restrict them, there's literally no reason not to include dietary carbs, generally speaking. I'm not saying anyone here has said that right now, but it seems to be some sort of default fallback position for people who have a holy war against carbs.

    "Carbs aren't essential!"

    "So? Air conditioning isn't essential; it's still beneficial."

    Haha, what's comical is the fact that I'm the one who said "carbs aren't essential" (which they're most certainly not) and I'm probably one of the loudest voices around these parts against low carb zealotry. But your post is a bit of a straw man as my position was never that you should avoid carbs because they're nonessential. I was simply answering the original question about weight loss and health maintenance being possible while eating very low carbs.

    Which is very possible.

    But I get where you're coming from. So many folks fear carbs nowadays simply because our media and culture has demonized them over the last decade or so. And before that it was fats. So we have a large group of people who avoid them for no good reason. Which wouldn't be such an issue. Except, for many, it creates too much rigidity and people wind up cycling between being "on" and "off" the diet. They always feel like they're walking the nutritional tight rope.

    However, you mentioned "Absent some other reason to avoid or restrict them, there's literally no reason not to include dietary carbs, generally speaking." And I want to stress that in some cases... and I could argue many cases given the prevalence of obesity and it's impact on glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity... a lower carb approach is justifiable. Not necessary. But justifiable. Which is why we really can't generalize the "appropriateness" of carbs one way or the other outside the context of specific, individual cases.

    I think you'll appreciate what I typed out in another thread on MFP that was centered on demonizing carbs:
    And this is really the crux of things in my opinion. Anyone saying that building a better body and better health is solely about calories is very misguided. Obviously a calorie deficit comprising nothing but gum drops and jujubes isn't going to promote leanness and health as well as a diet comprising lean meats, abundant veggies and fruits, a balance of saturated, mono and polyunsaturated fats, etc.

    At the end of the day though, I think you'd be hard pressed to show me sufficient peer-reviewed academic research that shows people losing weight in a calorie surplus or gaining weight in a calorie deficit, assuming we're talking about tissue weight and non-diseased people. But who cares about that since we're not here solely for weight loss. People, knowingly or not, are more interested in health and body composition.

    And this latter focus requires calorie control AND nutrient control. One without the other is a pointless proposition. Anyone who's arguing that there aren't nutrient needs that need to be accounted for independently of calorie intake is sorely mistaken.

    The people claiming that "all calories aren't the same" aren't grasping the specifics. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... just as a meter is a meter. A calorie is merely a unit of measurement. You're confusing nutrients with calories... they aren't interchangeable. Nutrients provide our bodies energy that, for the time being, we quantify with an outdated metric known as the atwater system and calories. Yes, nutrients are not created equal in the "body's eye" which should be obvious to anyone. But that's not the same as saying, "all calories are not equal."

    When you delve into the research pertaining to nutrient manipulation, if there are any clear trends, it's that there is no One Way that's right for everyone. People who espouse high carb diets to everyone are misguided just as people who espouse low carb diets to everyone are misguided. Individually tailoring a diet to the individual in question is a must if lasting change is going to be realized.

    We've data out there supporting the idea that low carbohydrate approaches are better for some while higher carbohydrate approaches are better for others, further exemplifying why any blanket recommendations are sort of silly. Anyone who works with a wide array of folks in the fat loss setting can vouch that a myriad of diets work depending on the person and the situation. I can say this... in my experience, lower carb approaches tend to work best for my obese clients and by and large, moderate carb approaches tend to work best for my leaner clients. This most likely has something to do with insulin resistance/sensitivity issues which has already been mentioned in this thread.

    And if you're truly trying to show that there is some sort of metabolic advantage for anyone eating low carb, you need to wait for sufficient research to be conducted comparing low vs. moderate or high carb approaches THAT MATCH protein and calories. The research simply isn't there yet though. James Krieger, an author and published researcher whom I highly respect and communicate with, put it perfectly when he said:

    1. The proposed metabolic advantage (MA) for low carb diets is a hypothesis, not a fact
    2. There is inadequate data to support the MA hypothesis
    3. There is inadequate data to reject the MA hypothesis
    4. The MA hypothesis does not trump the concept of energy balance. It postulates inefficiencies in energy metabolism, which would translate to an increase in measured energy expenditure (due to heat loss) in a living organism. Thus, if the MA was true, "calories out" would increase for a given "calories in".
    5. A definitive study examining 24-hour energy expenditure (using room calorimetry), comparing a ketogenic diet to a traditional diet (with matched protein intake) for subjects in an energy deficit, has not been performed. This is the only study that will adequately test the MA hypothesis in humans
    6. Weight loss still requires an energy deficit. If a MA exists, it still cannot make up for an energy surplus or energy balance. To assert otherwise is to assert that energy can be created or destroyed out of thin air, or that human tissue can be created in the absence of any energy input.

    Mind you, his published paper on MA actually supports the MA hypothesis.

    And what about insulin? Yea, it's true that having elevated insulin levels blocks fat oxidation and lipolysis on a meal by meal basis. But what happens if, say, you eat one huge meal and spike insulin to the moon, store fat, shut off lipolysis, etc. and then don't eat again for the rest of the day?

    If that one meal was only 1,000 calories and you need 2,500 a day to cover your total daily energy expenditure, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?

    And this doesn't even begin to factor in things like rate of digestion... eating even a high-carb diet does not necessarily imply chronically elevated insulin. And low carb zealots (not suggesting you're a zealot) tend to look at things in a vacuum... insulin promotes fat storage, carbs spike insulin, therefore carbs make us fat. They leave out, as already mentioned, the myriad factors that also play a role in fat metabolism such as acylation stimulation protein, catecholamines, HSL, etc.

    As I noted above, in the game of weight loss it is about thermodynamics before anything else. In the game of body composition and health, it's much more complex however.

    For anyone interested in learning more about insulin and its relation to lipogenesis, I can't recommend Jame Krieger's series on it which you can find here:

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

    That's part 1 and you can continue on to the other parts from it.

    Cheers!

Categories