The enemy in weight loss isn’t carbs it’s your lack of k

SO Tom.............the original poster giving HIS view.............Hi Hon.......

I have been stuck for some time and have not added strength training so that my body is a machine....eating up those carbs and protiens and fats............what is your opinion on the types of carbs I should add to make it more efficient (sp)??

Thanks TOM:flowerforyou:

Actually TOM, I would love to know the same thing...

I cant give you personalized instructions without disappointing my certifying body But generally speaking if you are among the 98% percent of the non special adult population you should be focusing most of your carbs on complex carbs. You will receive a more regulated flow of sustained energy and your muscle glycogen will refill nicely for your next anaerobic workout. Simple sugars are idea for breakfast and immediately following a HARD work out session. If you enjoy simple sugars then you've got to work HARD for them. Hell that's the whole reason I work out so hard! So I can enjoy my p90x recovery formula right afterward It's so good it's been dubbed my post workout crack...haha

no talkin bout your crack now......:laugh:

So by complex you mean fruits, oatmeal or whole grain breads? I am addicted to bread and cut out all white-bread, rice and sugar........and saw a real spike in my sustained energy.

Hey don't knock crack now..:laugh:

You can google complex and simple carbs. Here is a link I found, there are tons of them. http://www.howtothinkthin.com/instincts2.htm You can also do a search for glycemic index rating. The lower the rating the more slowly the sugars will be absorbed into your blood and an even more controlled blood glucose and insulin response. There is a time and a place for both low and high glycemic indexed carbs

so when would you eat the simpler carbs as opposed the the higher GI carbs?

Lets say I am going to work out at 5 pm tomorrow.........1/2 banana and peanut butter and hour before?

SO Tom.............the original poster giving HIS view.............Hi Hon.......

I have been stuck for some time and have not added strength training so that my body is a machine....eating up those carbs and protiens and fats............what is your opinion on the types of carbs I should add to make it more efficient (sp)??

Thanks TOM:flowerforyou:

Actually TOM, I would love to know the same thing...

I cant give you personalized instructions without disappointing my certifying body But generally speaking if you are among the 98% percent of the non special adult population you should be focusing most of your carbs on complex carbs. You will receive a more regulated flow of sustained energy and your muscle glycogen will refill nicely for your next anaerobic workout. Simple sugars are idea for breakfast and immediately following a HARD work out session. If you enjoy simple sugars then you've got to work HARD for them. Hell that's the whole reason I work out so hard! So I can enjoy my p90x recovery formula right afterward It's so good it's been dubbed my post workout crack...haha

no talkin bout your crack now......:laugh:

So by complex you mean fruits, oatmeal or whole grain breads? I am addicted to bread and cut out all white-bread, rice and sugar........and saw a real spike in my sustained energy.

Hey don't knock crack now..:laugh:

You can google complex and simple carbs. Here is a link I found, there are tons of them. http://www.howtothinkthin.com/instincts2.htm You can also do a search for glycemic index rating. The lower the rating the more slowly the sugars will be absorbed into your blood and an even more controlled blood glucose and insulin response. There is a time and a place for both low and high glycemic indexed carbs

so when would you eat the simpler carbs as opposed the the higher GI carbs?

Lets say I am going to work out at 5 pm tomorrow.........1/2 banana and peanut butter and hour before?

Let me correctly real quick first... The high GI index are reflecting the simple carbs. Lower GI ratings reflect the complex carbs. More specifically, GI reflects how quickly a carbohydrate will empty into the blood stream.

If your workout is approx 45 minutes to an hour of anaerobic work then an ideal post work out snack would be (reaching for one of my books here)... 1 bagel with peanut butter and 2/3 cup of raisins. One cup lowfat yogurt, one bananaa, and a cup of orange juice. Once turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread with one cup of applesauce. Spaghetti with meat sauce and garlic bread. 8 ounces of skim milk, one apple, one orange, two slices of bread, and three pancakes. 12 ounces of a carbohydrate loading drink and a bagel.

A banana and peanut butter is a great choice if you add some protein. All of those book cited examples have about 4 grams of fast simple carbs to 1 gram of protein. There is also vitamin c in there which promotes the absorption of heme iron from the meat as an added bonus! (iron is a major component of the erythrocytes in red blood cells)

thank you so much! I am tired of peanutbutter and banana, you have given me some great choices. all of which are in my fridge!!:smooched:

Lioness, your real issue is with grains though, not carbs. No doubt, a person could live a healthy life without grains, but who would want to live without carbs in general? Life is boring enough as it is.

Not just grains.............I tried to do vegetarian a few years back and gained a ton of weight. Eating fruits and veggies, beans and lentils...........

So my issue is with carbs.

Okay, this is kind of off topic, but necessary to think about the big picture. Just a side point to consider. Okay, we as an entire species with a population of 6.777 billion NEED carbs. Without carbs to eat more than half of our population would not survive and the world would be having food wars. Why? Well, to produce any type of meat is extremely expensive and energy and resource consuming (esp. water resources). Natural meat production is extremely inefficient compared to the production of plants and taxing on the planet. There would never be any food for the poor and the food would go to the highest bidder. Now I'm not saying that we live in such a world and nor would that be sustainable to do such a thing. We're blessed with CHOICES nowadays. But the reason that cavemen were able to do this: eat meat and a lot of it, was because there were no other humans to compete with. And guess what that led to: animal extinction. And populations stayed small, because there was simply not enough meat to go around. The only reason we have flourished is because of grain production. There's a reason that grains are our STAPLE food. Now maybe if we all ate no carbs, we would be a lot healthier. Of this I cannot say. However, I can say that for the whole population (or even a sizable minority of the population) to only consume meat would be disastrous. How do you get meat? You eat the animals? Where does the animal feed come from? It comes from grains and other plants (hopefully :laugh:). Increase meat consumption, decrease availability of staple foods. And that means human lives.
Again just a look at the bigger picture here guys.

You are correct in what your saying, but the "need" for grains is not based on nutritional data. It is from an this is the way food is raised. We only "need" the carbs from grains and other plant material because it grows quicker than an animal does.............

I try not to eat grain fed animals...............only time is when I eat out. At home, free range raised chickens and eggs, grass fed beef, free grazing pigs too. I cook most meals at home so I know what is in my food. The past couple of weeks have been rough at work, so I have eaten out a bit more than I would like to.

And, I will eat snake, quail, duck, rabbit, deer, bison, squirrel, wild turkey, etc..............wild game is very, very abundant in the rural area where I live. So, we have no shortage of meat here. Lots of farmers too, organic farmers that look to make this area sustainable with organic and local farming.

The debate is someone telling me that I need grains. The human body was not made or built to consume grains. The agricultural revolution was the downfall of man. That is when disease and everything started ravaging humans.

I read a lot of anthropology books and that is how I got interested in the paleolithic style of eating. I have a book called Neanderthin, The Paleolithic Diet and just recently purchased The Primal Blue Print. Primal Blue Print is the BEST book I have read to date on nutrition and what human needs actually are.

Well this is practically off-topic :laugh: , but the agricultural revolution allowed people to settle down in one place and allowed the human population to grow bigger. I have read that is this bigger human population that was able to support the existence of many human-to-human transmissible diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, and smallpox. So I suppose you're correct in a sense, that disease started ravaging humans with the advent of the agricultural revolution. But it wasn't disease caused by nutritional deficiency or poisoning from grain carbs, it was infectious diseases.

The debate is someone telling me that I need grains. The human body was not made or built to consume grains. The agricultural revolution was the downfall of man. That is when disease and everything started ravaging humans.

I read a lot of anthropology books and that is how I got interested in the paleolithic style of eating. I have a book called Neanderthin, The Paleolithic Diet and just recently purchased The Primal Blue Print. Primal Blue Print is the BEST book I have read to date on nutrition and what human needs actually are.

Well this is practically off-topic :laugh: , but the agricultural revolution allowed people to settle down in one place and allowed the human population to grow bigger. I have read that is this bigger human population that was able to support the existence of many human-to-human transmissible diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, and smallpox. So I suppose you're correct in a sense, that disease started ravaging humans with the advent of the agricultural revolution. But it wasn't disease caused by nutritional deficiency or poisoning from grain carbs, it was infectious diseases.

It was partially caused by the drastic change in diet. The fact that populations grew allowed the diseases and illlnesses to be more "communicable".

I thinnk that we can all agree that each and every one of us is different in all ways. So although we have experts and doctors telling us what is good for us, it may not always be right for you as an individual. We need to experiment with our diets till we get it right for us as an individual.:happy:

July24Lioness, I'm fasinated by history and our past. I've read various articles about our diets, I would love to know are we supposed to be Herbivore, carnivore or omnivore?? Different 'experts' have their own take on it. I'm not really sure. We have the remains of carniverous teeth and molars for crushing vegetation, |'ve always been drawn to the theory that we are descended from omnivores. We used to get our exercise by chasing our dinner before we could eat it:laugh: :bigsmile: and I suppose if we were hungry enough we would try anything we see growing on a bush or tree.:bigsmile:
Its a really interesting subject

From what I am reading, we did descend from omnivores. Our past ancestors ate nuts, seeds, berries, other plant material (when it was in season) and YES, burned lots of calories by chasing our dinner. :laugh: :laugh:

So, I am thinking that they ate what plants were available during that growing season, but turned to a mostly carnivorous eating plan during the non-growing months.

*Dons tin foil hat and prepares for a flaming*

Well, animals (meaning the common livestock) weren’t designed to eat grains either, but that’s the normal feed these days. Chickens are genetically disposed to pecking at insects (like most other birds) but I commonly see “vegetarian diet” on a standad pack of eggs. Just like our animal buddies, humans aren’t typically “designed” to eat much of the crap that’s at the market today. Simple fact that most would agree with. As for the balance of macronutrients, well…depends on the person…

There’s really a nice flipside to the grains argument – grains also consume a LOT of resource to produce and can have disastrous consequences on our land if not properly rotated and maintained. Look at the dust bowl. Fantastic example of improper use of land and DIRE consequences. Look at how many rivers have been dammed in the name of flooding / crop damage OR trying to create rice paddies or lowlands. V*gans commonly use the grain argument to support their sustainablility. Unless they’re eating namely vegetables, I don’t buy it one bit. I didn’t even buy that when I was v*gan. I don’t like “big agra.” I’m a fairly libertarian thinker who also hates the massive amount of subsidies we grant to our big grain growers. I don’t blame the farmer – I blame the big corporations on this one. It's not a fluffy, kind industry that trumps meat. Actually it goes hand in hand with the standard factory meats and conveyor belt death chains.

The only reason our population boomed was because of big agriculture. Now excuse my dark cynicism, but were we really meant to? How many honestly think our globe can sustain its current load of population as it’s going? Some answers lie in more efficient use of space (i.e. hydrophonic technology, urban/suburban farming, the return of “victory” gardens, consuming LESS, wasting LESS, alternative energy, etc). I work directly in the energy industry. We can’t stay sustainable in our current state of affairs.

The seriously sad thing that’s happened to our modern society is we don’t have a firm grasp on our “real” food chain. Out of sight, out of mind, pick a pack of meat up at the grocery store and wow! Dinner. We’re so busy and so overstressed that we’ve become removed from real food. I try my darndest to stay local and connected with my food, but hey, I don’t always have time. I’m a working professional like the rest of the yuppie USA crowd who lives in an apartment and hopes to own a small farm someday…but I live in an expensive area. Go figure. I buy local whenever possible. Anyway…If you really think about it, without wasting a bunch of food (HELLO egg yolks…) and reducing your consumption to a sustainable amount, HOW MUCH FOOD does it take to feed a family…or a couple…or a single person over the course of one year? It’s not much different from the “old days” when you think about it. In the “old days” a farm family raised cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, etc. depending on their acreage, resources, etc. Ever purchased a half or quarter beef and a pig? Ever killed a deer or small game? That lasts a LONG time, figuring that you’re eating reasonable portions and utilizing ALL parts (tallow, brain, tongue, etc). Yep, that means eating some animal fat. Up your fat content and you have a smaller volume of food with a higher level of satiety (but I’m sure the AHA vehemently disagrees with me on this one). With modern technology (freezing) and minimal packaging (some wrap and butcher paper) we’ve got a cacophony of dinner in the freezer from the farm animals. Now factor in the garden. Even a small suburban garden can be quite a producer. Again, with our technology of freezing and canning we can prepare quite a load of veggies to last us past harvest. The key of all of this being – we need to get serious about investing some more time in what we put in our mouth and we need to be very conscious of reducing waste. That seems like quite a task, but I find I waste less when buying fresh or local.

Now, as an alternative to raising your own, an awesome thing that’s on the rise are CSA farms and growing cooperatives. If you’ve been to Europe, there are many “rented” greenhouses and small land plots for families to grow a garden – I think this may start to pop up more in the US as we grow a little more savvy and ecologically friendly. The challenge to many is reducing the dependency on heavily imported goods and packaged products. I’ve been trying to do this over the past few years, but I’m still pretty tied to olive oil and almonds. Luckily I buy them in bulk with minimal packaging.

Putting the “Darwin” factor into current human activity and eating, we’ll have a larger percentage of the population die an earlier death than the previous generation with the pattern in a rise of heart disease, T2 diabetes, Alzheimers (Diabetes Type 3? I’ve heard this…), cancer, what have you. Eat drink and be merry and tomorrow you'll die...something like that. Also factor in a growing rate of infertility and rise in those choosing to not reproduce and we may very well reduce the demand load on the planet in a century.

I believe that the generic dietary advice that carbs are the "enemy" is extremely wrong-headed. I'd be interested to hear though what carb intake percentage you would classify as "dangerous" metalpalace and WHY it is dangerous.

I have had success by cutting carbs to as low as 25% total dietary intake for up to 4 weeks for loss of bodyfat, but at that % I wouldn't want to go much longer than 4 weeks. Becomes very difficult to exercise at a high level of intensity. Your body just doesn't have the glycogen stores to get the job done.

I agree that 55% to 65% is what most people should aim for, focusing on complex carbs with a low glycemic load. I keep reading about people who are "carb intolerant" and need to consume a much lower %. I don't know if there is any truth to that. Could be, but I wonder if the real problem is carbs or possibly something else.

Mike

The American college of sports medicine recommends greater than 55% of total daily calories to be carbohydrates. The american council on exercise says 55% to 65% percent. Those two sources are enough for me because they are not regulated by the government. These two entities are comprised of various extremely qualified doctors, researches and scientists interested in improving the quality of life; unfettered by politics. Inherently that earns them browny points from me

I don't know what the upper daily recommended allowance is before you reach levels of toxicity but I am sure it's pretty high. Before you get to that point you would just be swapping out other important nutrients for more carbs which can be dangerous in it's own right.

Someone else in this thread said everything in moderation... GREAT advice.

The 55% to 65% is an expression of optimal amounts with upper and lower limits in addition to that. It's used as a guide, a ball park figure. It doesnt mean that if you do not consume that much you will come down with a disease linked to a nutrient deficiency. Symptoms may be subtle and develop over a long period of time.

You can bring your carb intake downto 25%. Body builders for competition will go even lower than that and supplement to make up for the severe nutrient deficiencies. A supplement isnt as valuble as real food so in essence they are slowly killing themselves for 4 weeks - 8 weeks until the compeition is over and then they go back on a normal eating schedule. Generally speaking you can come down as you did for 4 weeks and be fine but during that four weeks you are slowly killing yourself so you have no choice but to eventually eat normally again or you will pay for it. Body builders do it all the time, that's why I'm not a body builder..LoL

I probably would eat 50% of my content in carbohydrate if I was a triathlete or serious runner.

But I'm not nor do I intend to be one. Nor does the majority of the population. Their energy demands are significantly lower. The majority of people don't need to worry about fueling with glucose gel in the middle of a marathon. I doubt the majority of people need to worry about depleting their glycogen entirely unless they're severly curbing sugar intake. We eat quite enough of it in a typical American diet. If they up their activity level significantly, they can certainly up their carb intake as well as overall caloric intake. I think we may overrate our carb (kindling in the fire) needs more than that of dietary fat (slow burn fuel). We're not carb intolerant, no, we just overuse them via overrating our energy demands.

I used to be a running addict and did just this. I wasn't healthier nor did I have a better BF% than I do at eating at a lower level (typ. 20% carb) and utilizing namely heavy lifting and low to moderate cardio (biking, hiking). Come to think of it, as a runner, I was fairly squishy looking. If I feel like performing HIIT in a week, I'll up my carbohydrate by 5-10% to adjust, if needed. 25% isn't a huge cut nor in most cases will it trigger ketosis. <50g per day may trigger ketosis, but this can also be used as therapy for T2 diabetes, epilepsy, and ADHD/ADD. Ketoacidosis is what we want to avoid.

I don't look to serious athletes or athletic councils for my advice. Why is this? Because I don't believe that portion of the population should be used as a picture of health and wellness. The majority of the population will NEVER work out at the level of a serious athlete nor should they without proper training. I don't think the same of most bodybuilders either as they tend to lead some fairly extreme nutritional controls and use supplementation (creating loading, for one) I simply do not agree with. Outside of athletic councils, you'll see a growing number of physicians advising a lower carb diet...typically in the name of controlling insulin response in our growing Baby Boomer population with growing middles. They're not worried about performance in an HIIT session. They're concerned with improving their health stats or overcoming diabetes. I'd highly doubt that 50% carb diet is "just the ticket" to reduce their fat stores. Quite the contrary, actually.

I agree highly with consuming adequate levels of vegetables in the diet. Especially dark, leafy greens. Also a small amount of berries. These are key for many vital nutrients and antioxidants. I don't believe in consuming grains in the name of avoiding nutritional deficiency. From personal experience of a grain heavy diet, I experienced more frequent anemia and joint inflammation. I know others deal with the same. I do not deal with gluten well. That is me. It does not equate to some lack of fiber or the inability to have a properly functioning digestive system.

Wow ... quite the thread. I think I will keep my opinons to myself, since after all I am not an expert and I only know what has worked for me and what I have been taught. And I think that is the point most of us should take away from this. Anything posted on here should be taken with a grain of salt (no pun intended). I mean most of this is really just opinions based on our own experiences and the research we have done on our own (which is inherently biased by the opinons we have already partially formed before doing the research IMO). I think what is important is that our family physician supports the lifestyle we have chosen and is monitoring our health regularly (and screening for known risks). Nothing wrong with self education and trying to share your knowledge (which I believe is always well intentioned) but I think all opinions on here are follow at your own risk.

That being said I just want to say Happy Friday!:happy: I think that is something we can all agree on!