Low Carb Eating

These sorts of debates are always amusing to watch unfold. I'm sure this one will go on for a while yet, but I'd just like to interject if I may.

Acg and others DID NOT SAY THAT LOW CARB DIETS WERE BOGUS, so I'm not sure why some of you are getting so defensive. He and others said that they weren't any better than a myriad of other "diets" one could undertake.

Translation: Congratulations on your weight loss! Of course you are losing weight, but low carb is not the ONLY way.

Carry on...

(BTW, I've decreased my carb intake to 100-120g/day with few ill effects. )

I assume this is directed at me. Personally I don't care about what they think about the science of low carb diets because it is largely irrelevant to my reasons for thinking that low carb diets are superior to other diets. The most compelling argument for a low carb diet in my eyes is that they are closer to a natural diet than most higher carb diets.

What exactly constitutes a natural diet?

What a human being would've eaten prior to agriculture.

And that would be?

Not whole grain pasta or bread. Save your energy, I'm done arguing my point.

Hmmm the carb/no carb/low carb debate is so frustrating!

Here's my take on it - everything in moderation.

I don't eat bread, pasta, rice etc (or very rarely do) as it upsets my stomach massively - I'll be in pain and therefore generally not a great person to be around. Making a point of giving these things up for health reasons was a big deal to me, particularly as my other half is Italian (cue much bread and pasta and general yumminess) and to make matters worse, a chef at that!

I don't really have an issue with workouts, I can do them without issue and find that protein fills me up longer. Probably because previously my body wasn't able to absorb food and nutrients properly due to the wheat and gluten issue.

If you're struggling with workouts, add in a few carbs - your body is telling you something! If you're worried about carbs being 'bad' don't - maybe eat them earlier in the day to fuel your workouts.

Keep the body happy and healthy

Not whole grain pasta or bread. Save your energy, I'm done making **** up

FYP.

Normally, I'm happy to lurk. However I love science. I also hate when scientific studies are twisted. I looked at your studies and came up with this:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/20/10/1104.full.pdf 1967 – N=10, freak liquid diet

http://www.ajcn.org/content/21/11/1291.full.pdf 1968 – N=9, freak liquid diet

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/11/4480.full 2007-N=17,

study conclusion - In these obese men, a low-carbohydrate diet reversed the increase in metabolic clearance of cortisol (3), increase in 5α- and 5β-reductase (4), and decrease in hepatic 11β-HSD1 (5, 6) previously described in obesity. Thus, chronic changes in dietary macronutrients may be a primary driver for altered hepatic, but not adipose, cortisol metabolism in obesity. The increase in 11β-HSD1 activity, and hence intrahepatic cortisol concentrations, caused by a ketogenic low carbohydrate diet has implications for the efficacy of different dietary strategies in reversing the metabolic consequences of obesity.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968851 1996-N=68, I could not find the number of carbs given to participants.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057 1996-N=43, “low carb” group ate 150 carbs/day.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2319073 1990-N=around 33, “low carb” group ate 250 carbs/day

I would also like to point out that only the oldest of these studies took place in a “metabolic ward”, and that those participants were given freaky liquid diets that had no potassium and other random stuff. So far away from how normal people eat every day that its almost useless stuff.

Many of the above cited studies say that there are insulin advantages to a low carb diet. But what about metabolic advantages? Here is a study that shows a metabolic advantage to a low carb diet.

Ketogenic diets have been used as an approach to weight loss on the basis of the theoretical advantage of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. To evaluate the physiological and metabolic effects of such diets on weight we studied mice consuming a very-low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet (KD). This diet had profound effects on energy balance and gene expression. C57BL/6 mice animals were fed one of four diets: KD; a commonly used obesogenic high-fat, high-sucrose diet (HF); 66% caloric restriction (CR); and control chow (C). Mice on KD ate the same calories as mice on C and HF, but weight dropped and stabilized at 85% initial weight, similar to CR. This was consistent with increased energy expenditure seen in animals fed KD vs. those on C and CR. Microarray analysis of liver showed a unique pattern of gene expression in KD, with increased expression of genes in fatty acid oxidation pathways and reduction in lipid synthesis pathways. Animals made obese on HF and transitioned to KD lost all excess body weight, improved glucose tolerance, and increased energy expenditure. Analysis of key genes showed similar changes as those seen in lean animals placed directly on KD. Additionally, AMP kinase activity was increased, with a corresponding decrease in ACC activity. These data indicate that KD induces a unique metabolic state congruous with weight loss.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/292/6/E1724.abstract


This is a very controversial subject, folks. Billions of dollars are riding on people continuing to eat high carb, sugary, starchy foods. Do not think that the industries associated with those foods (both foodstuffs and healthcare) are going down without a fight. That's my opinion.

On the factual side we see that:
Many, many studies have proven the efficacy of low carb diets to improve insulin resistence.
A few studies have shown the metabolic advantage of low carb diets
Many, many anecdotal stories show different results of low carb diets.

Many, many people just want to throw dirt in the water to muddy things up. Personally I have lost weight on both a low carb and a "standard weight watchers' diet". My physician prefers my "stats" (less cholesterol, etc) when I eat less carbohydrates. He likes me to keep it lower carb.

If you are considering a low carbohydrate diet, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Recognize that if a study says low carb but gave participants 250 carbs a day, that is dramatically different from low carb and 40 carbs/day. Dramatically different.

In the end you make the call. And in the end, if you have done enough of your own research, you will not be easily swayed by the throngs of people who crazily say "a pound of bacon will kill you!" When most people on a low carb diet ARE NOT eating a pound of bacon, rather a serving of salmon and some green beans.

Peace.

I try generally to eat Lowish carb....but mainly wheat free! Since getting on this diet and counting calories I have eaten more carbs...but within my 1200 cal range and guess what ...in my first week here I have gained 4lbs!!! So what is that all about? Do you think it is an intolerance to carbs, wheat, food???? It hasn't made me a very happy bunny I can tell you!!

Below is pulled from a website that Acg67 has cited previously, so it must be trustworthy right?

Carb-based diets make some people hungry even if they follow all the ‘rules’; so they eat more and don’t lose fat effectively. For many of those people, reducing carb intake allows better calorie control in the long-term.

Fact or fiction?

With regards to fat intake, studies have identified what researches call low and high-fat phenotypes (phenotype is just a technical word for the interaction between your genetics and your environment) (1). Some people appear to be better able to increase fat burning in response to higher fat intakes; they stay lean in the face of such an intake. Others, however, do no such thing. Other aspects of metabolism and appetite were associated with being either a high- or low-fat phenotype.

But the point still stands, biologically, some people seem better able to increase fat oxidation in response to higher fat intakes than others. I think this goes part of the way to explaining the response (good or bad) to high-fat ketogenic diets. People who upregulate fat oxidation well tend to thrive on them; people who don’t just get bloated and don’t lose fat well.

What really? I thought a calorie is a calorie when it comes to intake and fat burning?

One huge confound in all of this, mind you, is that high insulin secretion tends to make people eat more. Studies of diabetics find that decreasing insulin secretion with drugs tends to cause a spontaneously lower food intake (2).

Wow I swore somebody on this forum told me that carbs don't induce hunger.

The results were intriguing: insulin sensitive women on the high carb diet lost nearly double the weight as insulin sensitive women on the low-carb diet. Similarly, insulin resistant women lost twice the weight on the low-carb diet as on the high carb diet. Unfortunately, it’s not clear what caused the divergent results. The researchers mentioned a gene called FOXC2 which is involved in energy expenditure and found that it was upregulated in the individuals who responded best to diet; further research into this topic is needed (3).

...

In that study, subjects were given either a high glycemic load (60% carbs, 20% protein, 20% fat) or a low GL diet (40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fat diet) and weight loss was examined relative to baseline insulin secretion. In that study, subjects with high insulin secretion lost more weight on the low glycemic load diet while subjects in the low insulin secretion group lost slightly more on the high glycemic load diet.

Wow so there is a relationship between insulin resistance/sensitivity and intake of carbs in the diet that actually affects weight loss? Really? How is that possible? A calorie is a calorie. No metabolic advantage whatsoever.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to see if you’re a high or low fat phenotype so I’ll focus on insulin sensitivity. There are a lot of complicated and impractical ways to determine insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion. All involve blood work and looking at either baseline insulin or blood glucose or how insulin changes in response to a meal.

Moral of the story, don't knock what you don't understand. Let's all agree that its no coincidence that some people have amazing results on low carb diets, results they couldn't dream of having on a high-carb diet.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-sensitivity-and-fat-loss.html

generally, i think its best to listen to someone when they offer dieting advice and have a midsection like that.
He isn't trying to hurt you, and clearly, what he does works. If someones in better shape then you listen to them, they might have something to offer........

I'll agree with you on this, and it's admirable that you're defending him- but also consider that I have seen plenty of people on this site with an avatar of someone else (be it for motivational purpose or to remain anonymous). Also- this guy has probably lost that midsection at this point because there's no way he can be spending any time in the gym with all the time he spends on the boards low carb bashing.

I think someone should ask him about his food diary and the crap brands he's eating. Apparently he's not a farm to table advocate, either. But whatever.

Normally, I'm happy to lurk. However I love science. I also hate when scientific studies are twisted. I looked at your studies and came up with this:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/20/10/1104.full.pdf 1967 – N=10, freak liquid diet

http://www.ajcn.org/content/21/11/1291.full.pdf 1968 – N=9, freak liquid diet

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/11/4480.full 2007-N=17,

study conclusion - In these obese men, a low-carbohydrate diet reversed the increase in metabolic clearance of cortisol (3), increase in 5α- and 5β-reductase (4), and decrease in hepatic 11β-HSD1 (5, 6) previously described in obesity. Thus, chronic changes in dietary macronutrients may be a primary driver for altered hepatic, but not adipose, cortisol metabolism in obesity. The increase in 11β-HSD1 activity, and hence intrahepatic cortisol concentrations, caused by a ketogenic low carbohydrate diet has implications for the efficacy of different dietary strategies in reversing the metabolic consequences of obesity.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968851 1996-N=68, I could not find the number of carbs given to participants.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057 1996-N=43, “low carb” group ate 150 carbs/day.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2319073 1990-N=around 33, “low carb” group ate 250 carbs/day

I would also like to point out that only the oldest of these studies took place in a “metabolic ward”, and that those participants were given freaky liquid diets that had no potassium and other random stuff. So far away from how normal people eat every day that its almost useless stuff.

Many of the above cited studies say that there are insulin advantages to a low carb diet. But what about metabolic advantages? Here is a study that shows a metabolic advantage to a low carb diet.

Ketogenic diets have been used as an approach to weight loss on the basis of the theoretical advantage of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. To evaluate the physiological and metabolic effects of such diets on weight we studied mice consuming a very-low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet (KD). This diet had profound effects on energy balance and gene expression. C57BL/6 mice animals were fed one of four diets: KD; a commonly used obesogenic high-fat, high-sucrose diet (HF); 66% caloric restriction (CR); and control chow (C). Mice on KD ate the same calories as mice on C and HF, but weight dropped and stabilized at 85% initial weight, similar to CR. This was consistent with increased energy expenditure seen in animals fed KD vs. those on C and CR. Microarray analysis of liver showed a unique pattern of gene expression in KD, with increased expression of genes in fatty acid oxidation pathways and reduction in lipid synthesis pathways. Animals made obese on HF and transitioned to KD lost all excess body weight, improved glucose tolerance, and increased energy expenditure. Analysis of key genes showed similar changes as those seen in lean animals placed directly on KD. Additionally, AMP kinase activity was increased, with a corresponding decrease in ACC activity. These data indicate that KD induces a unique metabolic state congruous with weight loss.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/292/6/E1724.abstract


This is a very controversial subject, folks. Billions of dollars are riding on people continuing to eat high carb, sugary, starchy foods. Do not think that the industries associated with those foods (both foodstuffs and healthcare) are going down without a fight. That's my opinion.

On the factual side we see that:
Many, many studies have proven the efficacy of low carb diets to improve insulin resistence.
A few studies have shown the metabolic advantage of low carb diets
Many, many anecdotal stories show different results of low carb diets.

Many, many people just want to throw dirt in the water to muddy things up. Personally I have lost weight on both a low carb and a "standard weight watchers' diet". My physician prefers my "stats" (less cholesterol, etc) when I eat less carbohydrates. He likes me to keep it lower carb.

If you are considering a low carbohydrate diet, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Recognize that if a study says low carb but gave participants 250 carbs a day, that is dramatically different from low carb and 40 carbs/day. Dramatically different.

In the end you make the call. And in the end, if you have done enough of your own research, you will not be easily swayed by the throngs of people who crazily say "a pound of bacon will kill you!" When most people on a low carb diet ARE NOT eating a pound of bacon, rather a serving of salmon and some green beans.

Peace.

Thank you for this

I'm not buying the bad press on Low Carb -- read "Why we get fat and what to do about it" by Gary Traube. It is not a diet book - it's a scientific study that discusses what happens when we eat different ratios of food.

There may be some who can eat carbs and still lose weight -- but 45-50% of overweight people have an inability to correctly process and use the carbs as fuel. So, they pile on belly fat despite low calorie and exercise. I am one of these people - ride a bike, walk, run, strength training, etc. and I will not lose weight on so-called "good" carbs like fruit and whole grains.

I totally agree with this ^. I don't feel well or function well above 70g of carbs a day. 100g is my personal limit. When I was younger I did distance sports so I just assumed I had become more efficient at utilizing carbohydrates. My friend, on the other hand, lives on carbs. Literally. Grains for breakfast, grains and fruit for lunch, potatoes for dinner, crackers for a snack. She's thin, healthy, and has lots of energy. She's just completely different from me! I recently tried a 50% carb - 25% fat - 25% protein diet but I was nauseated, uncomfortable, and sweaty most of the time, plus I gained 7 lbs (no, it wasn't water weight)!

Good to know you don't.

trollingpresent participle of troll (Verb)
Verb:

1. Fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat: "we trolled for mackerel".
2. Search for something.

I don't pretend to be perfect- I've had pizza recently to cure a hell of a hangover. I'm an adult, and if I choose to deviate from my diet I suppose that's my business. Just as you should be able to- I'm assuming those girl scout cookies, pound cake, and Olive Garden cake were high enough carb for you, eh?

Ah i've never stated i eat a clean diet at all, nor have i called someone out on their diet besides you after saying i consume crap foods, which i would never deny even though i don't like to label foods good/bad/junk/crap what have you. And the choc mousse hazlenut cake was delectable today

Clearly we all know why were are doing low carb and are not assuming that we are "superior" to any other diet- just as you feel that what you do works for you- we do the same

And yet you will continue to see low carbers say that low carb diets = faster fat loss, i've never condemned low carbers, or said it didn't work. I have contended that there is no metabolic advantage to low carb diets

Clinical Research is performed by large pharma companies with the money to test hypotheses that can potentially make them more money. If people continue to eat processed carbohydrates- they will continue to make more money from illnesses such as complications from obesity. I'm sure you know this. So don't advocate for this any more. It's tiring, and we all know that no diet is superior to another- its how the individual feels on said diet.

You're leaving out context there, simply eating processed carbs will not make one obese or ill, if you were to eat an amount that would put you in a consistent caloric surplus, that would make you obese. And i have a question since you posted the carb curve for weight loss which heavily bases it's assumptions on the insulin response to carbs, why hasn't big pharma created a drug that suppresses insulin, would that not cure obesity since insulin is supposedly the main culprit?

And as far as intermittent fasting and ketosis: http://www.allaboutfasting.com/effects-of-fasting-ketosis.html
This isn't a research trial- just an explanation- so please don't condemn me. Or do it, whatever floats your boat.

Sigh, did you even read that site you just linked to? It is not talking about IF at all, but fasting like water and juice fasting. Ive yet to see an IF protocol that calls for regular 48-72hr fasts, if you are aware of one please do link me to it and i will apologize to you.

"It is said this state is attained at approximately 48 hours of a water fast for women and closer to 72 hours for men. "

Don't take things out of context: "When glucose isn't readily available via the diet (in the form of carbohydrates) and the glycogen stores in the liver become depleted, the body could break down muscle to get it. But ketosis is an adaptation that will spare muscle during times of shortage by instead breaking down fat stores and manufacturing ketones for brain fuel. It is said this state is attained at approximately 48 hours of a water fast for women and closer to 72 hours for men. "

"ketones are an acceptable alternative fuel, produced and used by the body any time glucose is scarce, which can happen even in non-fasting, non-dieting individuals, such as during intense exercise or during sleep. They are considering it a natural metabolic process where ketone production and use fluctuates constantly in response to the body's needs. "

"Fasting methods that include some carbohydrates, like juice or fruit fasting, can produce various degrees of ketosis, and strive to provide enough carbs to prevent any muscle loss. Some juice fasters (as well as low-carbers) adhere to the theory that 400 calories (carbohydrates) will supply enough glucose to prevent muscle loss and aim for that number in their daily diet. "

I could eat nothing but Chicken and be in ketosis. I wouldn't have to "water fast"

And you answered your own question. Why would a pharma company create one drug to help one problem? When they can create multiple drugs to help the multitude of problems resulting from insulin resistance?

I'm done arguing with you.

And you never mentioned where you have obtained your "plethora" of knowledge about what research entails. But whatever- pick and choose what you can manipulate and twist appropriately.