No Carbs? WTF?

The Food Forum's Evil Twin. Trying to lose weight or get in shape? Tips, encouragement, status reports, and so forth go here.
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, we are not health professionals. Take advice with salt.

Moderators: Mighty Jalapeno, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
rockym93
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:57 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

No Carbs? WTF?

Postby rockym93 » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:01 pm UTC

Hey guys. I don't have anything inspirational, just a question. My dad's girlfriend (typo'd as girlfiend... now there's a Freudian slip) has just decided to put herself on a crackpot new diet (although she calls it an 'experiment') where she eliminates all carbohydrates from the entire household. Now, I normally have no problem with her weird little fads, they're quite cute, and she's otherwise a really nice person, except that we're moving in with her, so this no carbs thing applies to us now too. Being quite fond of my toast and pasta and taters, I'm a little concerned. So, what I need to ask is: Are there any health benefits to this diet? Somehow any diet which means you can't have one slice of toast but can instead have as much bacon as you want seems fatally flawed, as does one which eliminates your body's major source of energy.

Thanks in advance!
"It's kinda fun to do the impossible" - Walt Disney

blue_eyedspacemonkey
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Salford, UK
Contact:

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby blue_eyedspacemonkey » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:57 pm UTC

She could be going Low GI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index
which is based on how your bodies insulin reacts to carbohydrates. I have insulin resistance, which means I'm more likely to get type 2 diabetes, so I follow this diet. Although you can substitute white bread/pasta etc for wholegrain alternatives.
Or possibly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_Nut ... l_Approach
which I have no idea about.
Hope that helps :)
"Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes"

So. Twitter

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby psyck0 » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:09 pm UTC

A no carb diet is extremely stupid. Your body gets a very large part of its energy from glucose. Your brain and red blood cells get 100% of their energy from glucose. Glucose comes from sugars, which are carbs. If you're not eating carbs, you have to synthesise glucose from other starting materials so you don't DIE, which is highly energy intensive.

From a health standpoint, absolutely no diet is going to get you in good health on its own. It may make you healthier if you're obese or something, but you won't get fit without hard exercise, and fitness is the larger half of health.

User avatar
rockym93
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:57 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby rockym93 » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:51 pm UTC

psyck0 wrote:A no carb diet is extremely stupid. Your body gets a very large part of its energy from glucose. Your brain and red blood cells get 100% of their energy from glucose. Glucose comes from sugars, which are carbs. If you're not eating carbs, you have to synthesise glucose from other starting materials so you don't DIE, which is highly energy intensive.

That is essentially the conclusion I came to after remembering Year 10 Bio, where the teacher told us about how your body starts ripping proteins to bits to use as energy instead of amino acids. So would you then have health issues from lack of protein? (ironic, since it's the only thing you can eat)

blue_eyedspacemonkey wrote:She could be going Low GI:
*snip*
Although you can substitute white bread/pasta etc for wholegrain alternatives.

Yeah, it could be low GI, but I don't think it is. She never mentions GI, just 'no carbs'. This actually means no bread/pasta AT ALL in the house, as I have had explained to me. She has said I'm free to go along with it or not, and one of her sons has already said he won't be.

Just to clarify, I have little intention of following this fad as I like my pasta too much (I'm in perfect health). I have no issue with something more sensible like eliminating all soft drinks, or Sugar-Flakes cereal.
"It's kinda fun to do the impossible" - Walt Disney

asad137
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:58 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby asad137 » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:56 pm UTC

This low/no-carb thing was a big fad here in the States a few years back. The popularity started with the Atkins Diet. I doubt it's "healthier" than a more balanced diet, but it does seem to help people lose weight (most likely through the mechanism of fats/proteins making one feel sated more quickly and for a longer period of time than carbohydrates, thus reducing overall calorie intake). I had two girlfriends who had used this type of diet with success.

Asad

Klotz
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:27 pm UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Klotz » Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:07 pm UTC

Don't let her force her nutrition on others (this only applies if you're prepared to cook for yourself)

But yes, carbs from grains are a huge calorie source and tend to make you fat if you eat a lot of them. Vegetables and fruit are better.

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby psyck0 » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:13 pm UTC

asad137 wrote:This low/no-carb thing was a big fad here in the States a few years back. The popularity started with the Atkins Diet. I doubt it's "healthier" than a more balanced diet, but it does seem to help people lose weight (most likely through the mechanism of fats/proteins making one feel sated more quickly and for a longer period of time than carbohydrates, thus reducing overall calorie intake). I had two girlfriends who had used this type of diet with success.

Asad


Probably worked largely because without the calories for carbs, all the fats that the idiots using this diet consume get burned for energy to make glucose so their brains don't shut down, instead of being stored. Still not a very healthy diet; it's far better to just make better food choices, but a very large portion of our population seems to completely lack any willpower when it comes to food or exercise.

Victoria Maddison
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Victoria Maddison » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:44 am UTC

rockym93 wrote:would you then have health issues from lack of protein?

No, because one would be consuming a great deal of protein from meat, eggs and organs.

rockym93 wrote:[protein is] the only thing you can eat

A significant portion of the diet would have to be fat.

rockym93 wrote:Are there any health benefits to this diet?

Yes, but none relevant to a normal healthy person and none that can't equally be accomplished by a low carb diet without going to the extreme of zero carb intake.

Given that all calorie restricted diets work she'd be better off with a healthy balanced diet and cutting calories by 20%.

User avatar
Swivelguy
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:11 pm UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Swivelguy » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:35 pm UTC

All I can say is, good luck with your bowel movements if you cut out plant matter 100%.

(all plants contain carbohydrates).
EVE Online: Daesis Wrack
Starcraft 2 (US): CosmicOsmo #465
Anarchy Online (RK2): Azzamis

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:51 pm UTC

Look up 'ketosis'. It's fun. You'll get to know it quite well.

User avatar
rockym93
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:57 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby rockym93 » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:03 am UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Look up 'ketosis'. It's fun. You'll get to know it quite well.

Wow. Well. Looks like she'll be losing weight after all. And hair, And skin tone, And vital signs, right after she starts peeing acetone.
"It's kinda fun to do the impossible" - Walt Disney

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:35 pm UTC

My advice as a carb-reduced eater (30% of total intake as opposed to my normal 60%) is to modify your diet OUT of the house to include carbs.

User avatar
waltwhitmanheadedbat
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:45 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby waltwhitmanheadedbat » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:28 am UTC

rockym93 wrote:
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Look up 'ketosis'. It's fun. You'll get to know it quite well.

Wow. Well. Looks like she'll be losing weight after all. And hair, And skin tone, And vital signs, right after she starts peeing acetone.


That's ketoacidosis. You enter normal, benign, ketosis every night while you sleep. Ketoacidosis usually only occurs in diabetics.

EDIT: WHOA! Sorry. I had no idea this thread was this old. I don't read most of the lower-traffic forums, so I assumed that a thread a page or two back would be recent.

poohat
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:21 am UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby poohat » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:58 am UTC

stuff like carb cycling/ketosis/etc might be a good idea if youre already quite slim and trying to get really lean, but obese people need to stop worrying so much about dumb gimmicks and just focus on training harder and not eating shit food.

I like lowcarb when cutting fat because it means I can't rationalise eating a bar of chocolate by saying "I'll just eat 200 less calories for my next meal", but I doubt it has much benefit apart from that.


edit: woah old thread

User avatar
waltwhitmanheadedbat
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:45 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby waltwhitmanheadedbat » Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:42 am UTC

poohat wrote:stuff like carb cycling/ketosis/etc might be a good idea if youre already quite slim and trying to get really lean, but obese people need to stop worrying so much about dumb gimmicks and just focus on training harder and not eating shit food.

I like lowcarb when cutting fat because it means I can't rationalise eating a bar of chocolate by saying "I'll just eat 200 less calories for my next meal", but I doubt it has much benefit apart from that.


edit: woah old thread


It's damned near impossible to lower fat and carbohydrate at the same time, though. You need to increase fat intake on a carbohydrate-restricted diet.

Your calories have to come from somewhere, and protein is hardly a good source on account of the gradual wear on your kidneys; it's also very difficult to elevate the level of protein without things protein shakes and ground meat, which is a very limited scope.

I wouldn't say it's a gimmick either. It's a method that's been gaining clinical approval and acceptance for years. This is the earliest low-carb study I know of: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/23/7/948 - and this is a lecture on what is probably the most vindicating study, much more recent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

EDIT: A breakdown of the study is available here: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/meta ... a-calorie/ - it's a biased source on account of the fact that he writes low-carb diet books, but I think you'll like the man for the clarity and skepticism in his writing. Gotta love him, only doctor-engineer I've ever heard of.

Victoria Maddison
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Victoria Maddison » Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:19 am UTC

waltwhitmanheadedbat wrote:It's damned near impossible to lower fat and carbohydrate at the same time, though. You need to increase fat intake on a carbohydrate-restricted diet.

I believe he was talking about cutting body fat.

waltwhitmanheadedbat wrote:Your calories have to come from somewhere, and protein is hardly a good source on account of the gradual wear on your kidneys

Protein causes no wear on the kidneys of a healthy person.

poohat
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:21 am UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby poohat » Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:31 am UTC

waltwhitmanheadedbat wrote:It's damned near impossible to lower fat and carbohydrate at the same time, though. You need to increase fat intake on a carbohydrate-restricted diet.

Your calories have to come from somewhere, and protein is hardly a good source on account of the gradual wear on your kidneys; it's also very difficult to elevate the level of protein without things protein shakes and ground meat, which is a very limited scope.
I meant bodyfat. Its really easy to eat high amounts of protein though, but on a lowcarb diet you dont want _too_ much otherwise it starts getting converted to glucose which defeats the point. About 30% protein 60% fat is the recommendation Ive commonly seen given, or about 1g per lb of body weight.


I wouldn't say it's a gimmick either. It's a method that's been gaining clinical approval and acceptance for years. This is the earliest low-carb study I know of: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/23/7/948 - and this is a lecture on what is probably the most vindicating study, much more recent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo
Well we have to be clear about what it means to say that a diet 'works'. Theres 2 very different cases - what's best for fat people trying to get slim, and what's best for non-fat athletes who want to lose additional body fat. In the first case, the reason why diets fail is purely because people dont stick to them, so the best diet is the simply the one which makes the dieter less likely to give up. Theres some evidence that low carb diets do reduce hunger once the body has become fat adapted, but theres also studies that show no real difference in adherence between low carb and normal dieting. So Id say the evidence is pretty inconclusive. With athletes its difference, because they people are generally committed and will actually stick to their diets. So in this case the only thing that matters is whether low carb is more muscle-sparing than normal dieting (i.e. if a low carb dieter and a normal dieter both lose 2 pounds a week, which one will have lost the most fat compared to the amount of muscle lost?). And again, I dont think there any conclusive evidence showing that low carb diets are better than normal ones. I think a lot of it depends on the individual - some people feel shit on low-carb diets, while others feel great and almost never get hungry.

However, the really important point is that if youre losing weight then you need to be doing a good weight training routine if you dont want to lose muscle, and a low carb diet is simply incompatbile with this unless youre carb cycling. Carb cycling does seem to work, but thats not what 90% of the population doing 'low carb diets' are doing.
Last edited by poohat on Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:35 am UTC, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:31 am UTC

If it's the only source of useful caloric energy for your body, then yes... yes it does.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Grop » Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:22 pm UTC

Hi, I follow the primal diet, as described at Mark's Daily Apple.

(The lifestyle they suggest isn't only about diet, though).

So I mostly eat veggies, meat and fruits, and certainly no bread, rice, potatoes or anything with much carbs. And I have done so since June. I've been quite healthy so far, and this diet seems to be quite easy to follow in the long run (if a bit expensive). Because you can follow it and have tasty food.

(Well, it's not easy when you live with people who mostly eat rice and pastas, obviously).

caje
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:01 am UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby caje » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:11 am UTC

As long as you are getting plenty of fruits and veggies it isn't a big deal.

EDIT: I know this is not a low carb diet, but when most people say carbs what they mean is pasta, rice, bread, etc.

User avatar
waltwhitmanheadedbat
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:45 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby waltwhitmanheadedbat » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:18 am UTC

Victoria Maddison wrote:
waltwhitmanheadedbat wrote:Your calories have to come from somewhere, and protein is hardly a good source on account of the gradual wear on your kidneys

Protein causes no wear on the kidneys of a healthy person.


I found this study which seems to corroborate what you're saying. I had heard quotations of 2.0g/kg being harmful in the long term. This study doesn't look at the long-term, but I haven't been able to find anything to support that quotation so I'll assume you're right.

poohat wrote:I meant bodyfat. Its really easy to eat high amounts of protein though, but on a lowcarb diet you dont want _too_ much otherwise it starts getting converted to glucose which defeats the point. About 30% protein 60% fat is the recommendation Ive commonly seen given, or about 1g per lb of body weight.


I don't think it does that until there's no other source of energy, like MJ said; at 60% fat, you're probably fine. Protein *does* defeat the purpose to some extent though, in that in provokes an insulin response.

poohat wrote:Theres some evidence that low carb diets do reduce hunger once the body has become fat adapted, but theres also studies that show no real difference in adherence between low carb and normal dieting.


The Stock-Yudkin study published in AJCN I linked above shows a reduction of average caloric intake *very* fast, from an average of 2330/day to 1560/day. I will note that it is a small study with only 11 participants over a 4-week period, with 2 weeks on their normal diet and 2 weeks on the adjusted diet.

The lecture I linked on the JAMA study shows a reduction of calories both the carbohydrate-restricted and low-fat groups to ~1300, but the low-carb group loses twice as much weight as the other.

I'm not denying that calories matter, but I don't think they're relevant to weight gain and loss in quite in the way that nutritional science currently believes them to. Presentation of the hypothesis begins with a restatement of the first law of thermodynamics:
Change in weight = energy in - energy used


'Energy in' being calories from food and 'energy used' being what's expended from normal metabolism and exercise. The problem with this is that it's usually interpreted with 'energy in' and 'energy out' being independent variables. They're not. 'Energy used' is going to be based on 'energy in.' If you eat less calories, your body will adapt to less calories. This doesn't mean that you can't lose weight on a calorie-restricted diet, just that calorie restriction might not be enough, depending on your goal and situation. Calorie restriction, in fact, is frequently used along with carbohydrate restriction in clinical settings in those patients that are unresponsive to carbohydrate restriction alone.

One of the hot topics in nutriton right now is the concept of insulin resistance, and the theory goes that the amount of insulin secreted determines the amount of fat allocated, to some degree irrespective of your body's sensitivity or resistance to it. I don't know the exact mechanism of weight gain/loss; I'll come here with a citation when I've read more and worked through the process, assuming it's valid.

poohat wrote:With athletes its difference, because they people are generally committed and will actually stick to their diets.


I agree that the biggest issue is adherence in any dietary or exercise regimen. But this also doesn't mean there's not a metabolic advantage with one macronutrient profile over another.

poohat wrote:However, the really important point is that if youre losing weight then you need to be doing a good weight training routine if you dont want to lose muscle, and a low carb diet is simply incompatbile with this unless youre carb cycling.


I've never seen any evidence that low-carb is less muscle-sparing than a "carbo-loader" diet - or any, for that matter. You're welcome to provide some. :-)

-Edited for spelling and clarity.

Victoria Maddison
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Victoria Maddison » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:50 am UTC

poohat wrote:on a lowcarb diet you dont want _too_ much otherwise it starts getting converted to glucose which defeats the point. About 30% protein 60% fat is the recommendation Ive commonly seen given, or about 1g per lb of body weight.

waltwhitmanheadedbat wrote:I don't think it does that until there's no other source of energy, like MJ said; at 60% fat, you're probably fine. Protein *does* defeat the purpose to some extent though, in that in provokes an insulin response.

Other than the small amount of amino acids circulating in the blood stream the body doesn't have a method of storing excess protein so it's converted to glucose fairly quickly. I believe "poohat" was referring to the fact that low/no carb is a method of reducing glucose to limit the alpha glycerol phosphate available in adipose tissue for the esterification of free fatty acids into triglycerides. The rate at which fat can be fixed into adipose tissue is proportional to the availability of glycerol phosphate (oxidized glucose), so limiting glucose limits the rate of fat deposition.

waltwhitmanheadedbat wrote:One of the hot topics in nutriton right now is the concept of insulin resistance, and the theory goes that the amount of insulin secreted determines the amount of fat allocated, to some degree irrespective of your body's sensitivity or resistance to it. I don't know the exact mechanism of weight gain/loss; I'll come here with a citation when I've read more and worked through the process, assuming it's valid.

The book Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes may be of interest to you. It's heavily researched and referenced.

poohat wrote:However, the really important point is that if youre losing weight then you need to be doing a good weight training routine if you dont want to lose muscle, and a low carb diet is simply incompatbile with this unless youre carb cycling.

waltwhitmanheadedbat wrote:I've never seen any evidence that low-carb is less muscle-sparing than a "carbo-loader" diet - or any, for that matter. You're welcome to provide some.

Carbohydrate cycling is not the same as carbohydrate loading. A bit of an oversimplification but it's basically just making sure you have enough carbohydrate on the days you train to support your lifting. One of the reasons this is important is because high intensity (relative to %1RM) work is required to spare muscle tissue while on a caloric deficit but insufficient glucose reduces the rate of adenosine triphosphate regeneration harming performance.

User avatar
aliceone
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:12 pm UTC
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby aliceone » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:38 pm UTC

I don't suppose explaining that there is no magic fix is going to make a difference to her actions, that eating a well-rounded healthy diet and getting some exercise is the best way to lose or maintain weight, not by cutting whole swaths of food from her (and your) diet. Anything is ok in moderation, for the mental and psychological comfort if for no other reason.

Just because you live there, you shouldn't have to follow the same diet. You should be allowed or able to make your own foods. Keep a stash in your room, if she can't handle seeing them? I mean, she's making a food choice. She can make the same choice whether the boxes are in the cabinet or in the market or on the restaurant menu. She can opt out of eating them.

User avatar
aliceone
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:12 pm UTC
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby aliceone » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:44 pm UTC

Totally not arguing, but I think the whole insulin argument is going to turn out to be another fad--a science fad and probably backed by some bad research in the beginning to get headlines (as anything even remotely associated with weight loss does). I think it is utter BS to say that person A can eat xyz, but if person B eats the same thing, his or her insulin levels will make the individual put on more weight (true insulin dependent Diabetics notwithstanding).

I think it all boils down to people who are unwilling to exercise. And by exercise, I mean move their bodies and exercise control over their food choices. It is by far easier to say, yeah, I eat a bunch of garbage, but my weight problem is due to insulin, not the crackers, take-out, fried foods.

Victoria Maddison
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Victoria Maddison » Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:32 am UTC

aliceone wrote:I think the whole insulin argument is going to turn out to be another fad--a science fad and probably backed by some bad research in the beginning to get headlines (as anything even remotely associated with weight loss does). I think it is utter BS to say that person A can eat xyz, but if person B eats the same thing, his or her insulin levels will make the individual put on more weight (true insulin dependent Diabetics notwithstanding).

Nonsense. The effects of insulin have been known for decades. Rosalyn Yalow and Solomon Berson stated in 1965 that the release of fatty acids from fat cells "requires only the negative stimulus of insulin deficiency." If you take an individual and inject them with insulin they will gain body fat. If you take a rat, lesion the ventromedial hypothalamus sending signals to the pancreas causing its body to be flooded with insulin it will get fat on the same diet that keeps a regular lab rat lean. If you take a Zucker insulin resistant rat and a regular lab rat and starve them both the Zucker rat will die with fat still on its body. It will literally die before giving up its fat stores. No amount of running on his little exercise wheel will make him thin.

caje
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:01 am UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby caje » Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:39 pm UTC

aliceone wrote:Totally not arguing, but I think the whole insulin argument is going to turn out to be another fad--a science fad and probably backed by some bad research in the beginning to get headlines (as anything even remotely associated with weight loss does). I think it is utter BS to say that person A can eat xyz, but if person B eats the same thing, his or her insulin levels will make the individual put on more weight (true insulin dependent Diabetics notwithstanding).

I think it all boils down to people who are unwilling to exercise. And by exercise, I mean move their bodies and exercise control over their food choices. It is by far easier to say, yeah, I eat a bunch of garbage, but my weight problem is due to insulin, not the crackers, take-out, fried foods.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin
Insulin causes cells in the liver, muscle, and fat tissue to take up glucose from the blood, storing it as glycogen in the liver and muscle, and stopping use of fat as an energy source. When insulin is absent (or low), glucose is not taken up by body cells, and the body begins to use fat as an energy source, for example, by transfer of lipids from adipose tissue to the liver for mobilization as an energy source.
.......
# Increased fatty acid synthesis – insulin forces fat cells to take in blood lipids which are converted to triglycerides; lack of insulin causes the reverse.
# Increased esterification of fatty acids – forces adipose tissue to make fats (i.e., triglycerides) from fatty acid esters; lack of insulin causes the reverse.


I think the idea that a low-fat high-carb diet is particularly good for you and watching fat is how to lose weight is going to be a fad.

User avatar
Kendo_Bunny
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:56 pm UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Kendo_Bunny » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:03 am UTC

Like every other diet, it's intensely individual on how well it works. I lost 50 lbs on the South Beach diet, which is no refined carbs. High fiber, low GI fruits and vegetables are encouraged, as is a moderate intake of natural fats and sugars. It works well for me - my body does not naturally produce cholesterol, so I have to eat a high cholesterol diet, I have IBS, so I have to eat a high fiber diet, and I'm insulin resistant, so a low GI diet is best for me. Oh, and I'm also a recovering bulimic with anorexic tendencies, so low calorie is out, as I have almost no metabolism to speak of.

So yeah. I don't agree with any diet that tells you to cut carbs completely - South Beach suggests cutting almost all carbs for no longer than two weeks to help break craving cycles, but supplementing with lots of low GI vegetables.

User avatar
waltwhitmanheadedbat
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:45 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby waltwhitmanheadedbat » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:12 pm UTC

I think it is utter BS to say that person A can eat xyz, but if person B eats the same thing, his or her insulin levels will make the individual put on more weight (true insulin dependent Diabetics notwithstanding).


You know, there are diabetics and pre-diabetics that aren't insulin-dependent. If insulin resistance varies among diabetics, why shouldn't it vary among the general population? As it happens, it does.

aliceone wrote:I think it all boils down to people who are unwilling to exercise. And by exercise, I mean move their bodies and exercise control over their food choices. It is by far easier to say, yeah, I eat a bunch of garbage, but my weight problem is due to insulin, not the crackers, take-out, fried foods.


No, 'your' weight problem is due to (to use your example) the proportion of fried foods and take-out that is high in carbohydrate, if you are, in fact, insulin-resistant. If you're calling "bad research" on the literature that's out there concerning insulin, I'd love to see you cite a supporting the superiority of exercise and/or caloric restriction over carbohydrate restriction, in particular one involving real people outside of a metabolic ward.

There are biochemical explanations for obesity, and whether or not food comes from the Chinese take-out place down the street is not one of them.

Kendo_Bunny wrote:Like every other diet, it's intensely individual on how well it works.


I generally agree, with the caveat that some diets are generally clinically superior to others, statistically speaking. That is, that if you selected an overweight individual at random, some diets are more likely to others. These are generally carbohydrate-restricted diets.

Tailoring a diet or regimen to a particular individual may support a greater or lesser degree of carbohydrate restriction, or no change in the level of carbohydrate at all, if the problem leading to obesity is very particular, but it's really the only thing that works in large clinical trials.

User avatar
Kendo_Bunny
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:56 pm UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby Kendo_Bunny » Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:05 pm UTC

That's true... but I don't think any one diet works for every single person. For example, I need a diet that is high in fiber, high in cholesterol, and low GI. My body doesn't produce cholesterol properly, so the high cholesterol diet keeps me working. While there are generalizations to be made, one part of the diet is always going to be super individual.

User avatar
waltwhitmanheadedbat
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:45 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby waltwhitmanheadedbat » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:34 am UTC

Agree.

hhhhaggis
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:57 am UTC

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby hhhhaggis » Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:43 am UTC

No carbs is dangerous and should be avoided (only meat and eggs really, NO VEG OR FRUIT).

I am an advocate of a low carb approach. I lost 71lbs on a low carb diet.
It is difficult in the first week, as you will feel without energy on the 2nd day as the last of your glycogen store is used up, and as you quit your sugar cravings (speaking from personal experience). Essentially, it is like a switch is flipped after your glycogen is gone, and you burn fat instead. On day 3, your energy is renewed. After the first week, you stop missing sugar altogether.

Eat only meat, eggs, veg, etc... (other approved items) for the first 2 weeks.
Add nuts, seeds, and berries to your diet 2 weeks after you started.
Add other fruits to your diet 4 - 6 weeks after you started.
Once you are close to the weight level you are happy with, add pasta, cous-cous, and any non-refined carb filled foods to your diet to stop weight loss altogether.

DON'T have caffeine for the first 2 weeks, as this requires more sugar in your diet to process.
DON'T eat processed foods, as these will contain processed fats (which are bad for you), and they usually contain added sugar. Buy fresh.

This approach works for people (like me) who are so overweight (288lbs when I first started this diet) and out of shape (I never did ANY form of exercise), that weight loss is needed to be capable of exercise.

One last thing, if you use this type of diet you must stick to the rules. The Atkins diet is a perfect example. Many people did the Atkins diet without really knowing what they were doing, and ended up in a worse state of health than when they began. Because of this, the low carb diet has received a lot of bad press. I have given broad strokes as to how the diet works, not hard and fast rules. Check it out more thoroughly before trying this diet, rather than simply deciding you know what you're doing.

User avatar
waltwhitmanheadedbat
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:45 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: No Carbs? WTF?

Postby waltwhitmanheadedbat » Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:17 pm UTC

hhhhaggis wrote:No carbs is dangerous and should be avoided (only meat and eggs really, NO VEG OR FRUIT).


I'm an advocate of a low-carb diet too, because I think zero-carb is unrealistic for most lifestyles, but I've never seen any convincing evidence for it's "unhealthfulness."


Return to “Fit Club”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests