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

im not bashing the thread, but a lot of you guys are posting way too much information for a forum read. can you please

state the point
and then the source

not the whole source word for word, paraphrase!

anyway, above someone asked lioness if we were supposed to be omnivores or not. and it reminded me of something i read on this last night. not sure if anyone posted it, because they are are much too long for me to read.

but, apparently, and of course this a theory, we turned mostly to meat diets because of the energy needed to move around so much as well as the fact that it kept the neanderthals 'gut-free' which kept their bellies out of the way helping them move more. evolution has a way of telling people these things. people should really read the origin of species, but beware...it is long! i have officially demonstrated my hate for loaded information. lol

Haha let me try my post again...

1. I read too darn much on the internet and type WAY too much, sorry.
2. Carb content in diet varies greatly with level of physical activity. We often overestimate what we need to be active.
3. Regular people can be active, but are not necessarily athletes; nor do they require athletic nutrition levels.
4. Local foods = more sustainable, choose local meat when possible.
5. Uh...eat more fat?

I think that's about it. :flowerforyou:

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.

I've always really enjoyed an old school pig roast with an apple stuffed in his mouth. I get my meat and carbs at the same time it's gorgeous! :laugh: Anyone else?

a porketta always has way too much sodium in it, but it does taste good. although, i do have a huge problem with glorifying the piggy's death when they put daisies behind its ears :frown:

Wow, do they do that? Maybe we haven't evolved that much from the caveman. Well, I suppose they were never that into making things look pretty.

I would never have the will to give up carbs. I don't think there's enough evidence in either direction to warrant giving up an entire food group. As in every issue, there are people on both sides of the fence. Me, I'll sit on the fence somewhere in between. Lioness is proof that, at least in the short term, a low carb (no carb?) diet can be healthy, and there are, obviously, many who eat carbs in moderation and are perfectly healthy.

I say- everything in moderation. I think it's a good philosophy for life and diet.

This isn't a zero carb diet nor is anyone banning moderation.

However, any means of eating is, typically by anyone watching their weight has SOME form of control.

Do we eat a 100% donut diet? Didn't think so.

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.

I was going to make the same argument but you made it much more eloquently than I would have. I noticed that all of the original poster's sources came from athletic or sports book/articles etc. While everyone should work out regularly (unless of course they have a condition that makes it unsafe) we are not all Michael Phelps and over 50% of carbs seems excessive. Now I like grains so I'm not going to stop eating them but I agree more with the side of eating like a caveman.

I also feel the need to address that our longer lives don't have much to do with our diet but with science and engineering. Despite our terrible eating habits we still live much longer than our ancestors did. We now have discovered medicines that heal our illness, we have houses that shield us from nature's elements and governments that protect us from predators.

Great points made about the short life span of the cave people. They had many, many reasons for their health problems. Today we do live much longer not because of our diets or activity levels, but because of medicine. We have mastered "dragging out our lives" via medical procedures and drugs while diminishing the quality of living via a slow degenerating respiration capacity and over all functional capacity. It's like we can make life drag on seemingly forever and we as a people are ok with that. I personally don't advocate merely living, I advocate a higher more functional quality of living. Some 80% of people do not die peacefully in their sleep. Dying peacefully in ones sleep is the minority now while living longer is the majority. In my opinion our priorities are azz backwards. I don't except to appeal to people ok with living longer because of advances in medicine and medical procedures (unless you are physically unable to eat reasonable and stay physically active).

Now to your other point... That 55% to 65% carb figure is based on a sedentary to highly physical active lifestyle. So to put it in your terms if you are a michael phelps then consuming towards the 65% end of the spectrum is ideal for optimum health. If you are a lazy sedentary individual, or physically unable to move, then 55% is ideal for optimum health. Less than 50% is not ideal for optimum health including the physically inactive. By the way now that I have seen the caveman paradigm there really isnt much difference in terms of macro nutrient proportions. They largely focus more on fruits verses grains. I just wouldn't recommend swapping out grains for fruits to someone who may have overly sensitive receptor cells to insulin secretion.

Hasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant.

Hasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant.

nah, you're a sweetheart.