High carb diet? Studys say yes!

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: new2AMD
Everyone is different. Body make up and metabolism have a lot to do with maintaining good weight. Exercise can and will help everyone though. Eating properly and sensibly isnt the same thing for each person.

So all the beer I drink could be a good thing given my particular body chemistry?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

So you mean you can get the carbohydrates you need, and your body uses the fats it has stored? Gasp!

 

[Rilescat]

I want to die fat. That way the bearers will drop my casket and my BIG FLOPPY BELLY will bounce right out on top of some dieting freak.

I will laugh from hell.

 

[new2AMD]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: new2AMD
Everyone is different. Body make up and metabolism have a lot to do with maintaining good weight. Exercise can and will help everyone though. Eating properly and sensibly isnt the same thing for each person.

So all the beer I drink could be a good thing given my particular body chemistry?

I know a lot of skinny drunks.

Unfortunately one doesnt stare back at me in the mirror. :beer:

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
So you mean you can get the carbohydrates you need, and your body uses the fats it has stored? Gasp!

Are you implying that people who use low carb plans are depriving themselves of the carbs they "need"?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
So you mean you can get the carbohydrates you need, and your body uses the fats it has stored? Gasp!

Are you implying that people who use low carb plans are depriving themselves of the carbs they "need"?

Yes.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: new2AMD

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: new2AMD
Everyone is different. Body make up and metabolism have a lot to do with maintaining good weight. Exercise can and will help everyone though. Eating properly and sensibly isnt the same thing for each person.

So all the beer I drink could be a good thing given my particular body chemistry?

I know a lot of skinny drunks.

Unfortunately one doesnt stare back at me in the mirror. :beer:

i think there was a czech study that basically found that beer bellys didn't have anything to do with beer intake

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
So you mean you can get the carbohydrates you need, and your body uses the fats it has stored? Gasp!

Are you implying that people who use low carb plans are depriving themselves of the carbs they "need"?

Yes.

So I guess I am biking 1 hr a day and lifting weights on solar energy, since I am depriving myself of all these much needed carbs.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
So you mean you can get the carbohydrates you need, and your body uses the fats it has stored? Gasp!

Are you implying that people who use low carb plans are depriving themselves of the carbs they "need"?

Yes.

So I guess I am biking 1 hr a day and lifting weights on solar energy, since I am depriving myself of all these much needed carbs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your brain run on carbs?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Right. The reason this diet works is because the participants took in a reasonable amount of calories (2,400 per day) with high fiber content and a mostly low glycemic-index with regard to carbs. Add some exercise and you'll lose weight. The same diet with simple carbs and low fiber wouldn't work nearly as well.

The problem is no intelligent, self-respecting nutritionist or doctor EVER recommended people eat a diet high in simple carbs and low in fiber plus minimal exercise.

The reason every diet has the potential to work is the creation of an energy deficit. But predictable patterns always developed. The more severe the calorie deficit the greater the weight loss but the more severe the calorie deficit the less likely someone would actually do it. Dean Ornish has the most effective published, peer-reviewed diet in America. But typically you have to be on your second heart attack before you will embrace a 1200kcal diet. Ornish's diet works like roto-rooter for clearing coronaries and melts the pounds away but it sux for gastronomic satisfaction.

When you start with fat people . . . any study less than a year will likely produce benefits simply by regression towards the mean. That's why controls are necessary. Actual health outcomes studies take much longer (and a lot more money) and NONE currently exist for Atkins or other mod/high fat, mod/high protein diets.

Much of what Atkins advocated in the 60s/70s was quackery but his last book is actually pretty decent. The foundation is liberal consumption of lean chicken and fish, followed by low glycemic index fruits/vegetables plus abundant fiber and regular exercise. I guarantee you that if Atkins had published such recommendations three decades ago he wouldn't have been labeled a quack. Naturally, the Atkins people are blaming the media for distorting his message.

To the extent that Dr. Atkins has fostered increased awareness of excess carb intake (particularly simple and processed carbs) he deserves proper respect. But going to Burger King, Wendys, or McDonald's and ordering a burger without the bun is better than nothing but it ain't healthy.

 

[Spike]

Mmmmm, this means I can eat whole cartons of goldfish crackers every day... yes!

-spike

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your brain run on carbs?

Neurons run on glucose but the brain has a limited capacity to run on ketones. IIRC, babies have a greater capacity for it than adults. To the extent you consume a quality high-protein diet (with at least 20% carbs) with abundant glucogenic amino acids (your liver makes glucose) your gray matter should be fine. But if you are an active individual you create more competition for the limited glucose available in a low carb diet. But true to form nature has options for all kinds of human stupidity. The brain's capacity for scavenging glucose from the bloodstream is superior to all other organs. In the end, no matter how low your carb consumption may get your brain will get it's share. The only time you have to worry is during prolonged ketotic states. IIRC, the brain actually requires MORE glucose during ketosis due to the metabolic stress. But like I said, serum glucose levels would have to be below normal for this to be much of a concern.

 

[FoBoT]

i'll start with a dozen donuts for breakfast everyday and we'll see how it goes

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
So you mean you can get the carbohydrates you need, and your body uses the fats it has stored? Gasp!

Are you implying that people who use low carb plans are depriving themselves of the carbs they "need"?

Yes.

So I guess I am biking 1 hr a day and lifting weights on solar energy, since I am depriving myself of all these much needed carbs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your brain run on carbs?

Seems to me that my brain, along with everything else, is working just fine... I use it almost every day.

 

[SSibalNom]

after i finish this bowl of extra meaty chili, I'm gonna start eating like a korean... if all we ate was kimchi, rice, and a lil bulgogi here n there wed all be fit

 

[BD231]

It all depends on body type, some people are just plain better with carbs than others.

I know someone who goes on a chicken and rice diet to loose weight, while chicken and rice makes me gain weight like I'm eating candy at every meal.

I can get away with eating tons of fats and not gain, while the chicken and rice lady is very sensitive to fats.

In the end people want what they can't have, I'd much rather be eating chicken and rice and she'd much rather be eating high fat meats.

 

[DT4K]

What I really don't get is why people assume that they automatically know what foods are healthy.
They say, Oh, Atkins may work, but it lets you eat unhealthy foods.
How do you define what is a healthy food and what isn't?
If the foods you eat, even if they are high in fat and cholesterol, cause you to lose weight, have better cholesterol levels, lower triglycerides, more energy, etc., then how can you say those are unhealthy foods.
In other words, even if you did eat bacon and eggs everyday, if this causes you to be healthier as measured by a doctor, than how are those foods unhealthy?

If eating lots of pasta and baked potatos makes you fat and raises your cholesterol, then how can you call those foods healthy?

Shouldn't we decide what a healthy diet is by what condition it puts your body in?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Shouldn't we decide what a healthy diet is by what condition it puts your body in?

You are on to something but the truth is typically too complex for layperson consumption. For instance, there's ABSOLUTELY nothing good about saturated fat but all saturated fats are not the same. There's a clear hiearchy where sat'd fat from avocados ain't too bad, sat'd fat from dairy sources is bad, and sat'd fat from meat sources is horrible. The simplest interpretation is that there's something else about avocados that make them OK to eat (if not actually good to eat).

Polyunsaturated fat is generally good for you but monounsaturated is actually better. Unless of course you are talking about docosahexanoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) these two omega-3 fatty acids are actually more vital to the human diet than monounsaturated ones. In fact, they are so important the human mammary glands concentrate them to a level 10,000x that of serum . . . breastfed babies are healthier (and happier) babies. But not all sources of omega-3 are comparable.

Even some saturated fats are good. For instance, medium chain triglycerides (MCT) are too short to be stored as fat so your body essentially burns them like carbs. Babies get a lot of this in breastmilk, too. Of course, if you have a surplus calorie diet your body will just convert excess carbs or protein into fat. The rationale behind high carb diets instead of high fat diets evolved from simple physiology. It's far easier for your body to reprocess dietary fat into adipose than convert carbs and protein into fat. So it made sense to recommend low fat diets. Unfortunately, as you tune down fat intake your body adjusts by increasing endogenous fat production and increases efficiency at reclaiming lipids and cholesterol. In addition, the body's most powerful anabolic hormone is insulin. Diets high in simple carbs create spikes in serum glucose that promote higher insulin secretion. Insulin is equal opportunity so it drives muscle and adipose synthesis while simultaneously decreasing the breakdown of fat (lipolysis) and stored carbs (glycogenolysis). The take home is that excess calories in ANY form has negative consequences unless you are a competitive athlete trying to gain muscle mass.

There's nothing inherently good about a Krispy Kreme doughnut . . . well except for the taste. But if you managed to replace the processed flour with a soy, whole wheat blend and the glaze with a sugar-substitute like sucralose . . . you've taken a 200kcal high-glycemic index snack (granted who eats just one) with no fiber, no real micronutrient content, and minimal protein . . . into a 100kcal low glycemic-index snack with several grams of protein (plus soy isoflavones) and several grams of fiber.

In sum, all foods produce the same basic pattern of physiological response in the majority of the population. That's why broad recommendations (such as the food pyramid) are useful guidelines. But clearly food preparation and consumption patterns can have dramatic effects on the ultimate outcome.

 

[cmaMath13]

Here's the answer:






Eat in moderation and exercise, while you are still thin/fit/young. Then keep doing it.

 

[Wingznut]

Lots of good info, BaliBabyDoc... I presume you've had plenty of education on said matter.

Care to comment on trans fats (partially hydrogenated oils)? From what I understand, these are pure evil.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: xmellyx
I discovered that the more carbs I eat, the leaner I get. I'm not sure why but I'm not complaining!

It all depends on the carbs, and your current mode of metabolism.

We wouldn't need all these diet fads if we stripped out all the junk food, sweets, sodas, etc. And wheat products are really causing problems. Bleached wheat is now the #1 filler for just about everything. If all your carbs were fruits, natural syrups (honey, maple), rices, potatoes, etc. you wouldn't have a problem.

BAM! Exactly.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Shouldn't we decide what a healthy diet is by what condition it puts your body in?

You are on to something but the truth is typically too complex for layperson consumption. For instance, there's ABSOLUTELY nothing good about saturated fat but all saturated fats are not the same. There's a clear hiearchy where sat'd fat from avocados ain't too bad, sat'd fat from dairy sources is bad, and sat'd fat from meat sources is horrible. The simplest interpretation is that there's something else about avocados that make them OK to eat (if not actually good to eat).

Polyunsaturated fat is generally good for you but monounsaturated is actually better. Unless of course you are talking about docosahexanoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) these two omega-3 fatty acids are actually more vital to the human diet than monounsaturated ones. In fact, they are so important the human mammary glands concentrate them to a level 10,000x that of serum . . . breastfed babies are healthier (and happier) babies. But not all sources of omega-3 are comparable.

Even some saturated fats are good. For instance, medium chain triglycerides (MCT) are too short to be stored as fat so your body essentially burns them like carbs. Babies get a lot of this in breastmilk, too. Of course, if you have a surplus calorie diet your body will just convert excess carbs or protein into fat. The rationale behind high carb diets instead of high fat diets evolved from simple physiology. It's far easier for your body to reprocess dietary fat into adipose than convert carbs and protein into fat. So it made sense to recommend low fat diets. Unfortunately, as you tune down fat intake your body adjusts by increasing endogenous fat production and increases efficiency at reclaiming lipids and cholesterol. In addition, the body's most powerful anabolic hormone is insulin. Diets high in simple carbs create spikes in serum glucose that promote higher insulin secretion. Insulin is equal opportunity so it drives muscle and adipose synthesis while simultaneously decreasing the breakdown of fat (lipolysis) and stored carbs (glycogenolysis). The take home is that excess calories in ANY form has negative consequences unless you are a competitive athlete trying to gain muscle mass.

There's nothing inherently good about a Krispy Kreme doughnut . . . well except for the taste. But if you managed to replace the processed flour with a soy, whole wheat blend and the glaze with a sugar-substitute like sucralose . . . you've taken a 200kcal high-glycemic index snack (granted who eats just one) with no fiber, no real micronutrient content, and minimal protein . . . into a 100kcal low glycemic-index snack with several grams of protein (plus soy isoflavones) and several grams of fiber.

In sum, all foods produce the same basic pattern of physiological response in the majority of the population. That's why broad recommendations (such as the food pyramid) are useful guidelines. But clearly food preparation and consumption patterns can have dramatic effects on the ultimate outcome.

The point was,
If you eat lots of saturated fats from meats, but you lose weight and your triglyceride and cholesterol numbers improve, then by what rationale can you claim that diet is unhealthy.
I have seen quite a bit of evidence that people on low-carb, high-protein, high-fat diets can indeed consume more fatty meats while still seeing an improvement in all measures of health. If that is the case, then how can you define the foods they eat as unhealthy?

Interesting article that basically says the high-carb study is junk science and totally misleading.link