Carb Counters - Why do carbs make you gain weight?




iixi
08-11-2013, 10:06 PM
please explain... i never understood. I am currently trying to lose some weight and i am primarily weight training. I keep getting advice to watch my carbs (I easily consume over 200g...and thats when i'm actually counting cals...currently i'm not because it triggers me) so god knows how much I have been eating.

I love fruit, bread and oatmeal. Fruit is the thing that seems to get the counts that high. I wonder if I aimed for less of these foods and ate more protein if I would lose weight without killing too much muscle?


Annik
08-12-2013, 07:24 AM
On a low carb diet, your body resorts to burning fat instead of sugar for energy.

Carbs turn to sugar in the body.

Google ketosis or nutritional ketosis and you'll learn more. For me personally, ketogenic eating has been a godsend!

Annik
08-12-2013, 07:29 AM
Ps just read this article yesterday so am sharing with you!


Thermodynamic Edge For Low Carbohydrate Diets: SUNY Downstate Researchers Say All Calories Are NOT Alike

In a paper published in Nutrition Journal (Open Access, available without subscription at http://www.nutritionj.com/home), two researchers from SUNY Downstate Medical Center show that low carbohydrate, high protein diets can be expected to be more effective than low fat diets, going against long standing prejudice of the nutritional community, which has claimed that only calories count.

(PRWEB) July 31, 2004 -- “There are numerous examples of low carbohydrate diets being more effective than low fat diets with the same number of calories. It doesn’t always happen but it can happen,” said Dr. Richard Feinman of the Department of Biochemistry. “The nutritional establishment has been reluctant to accept this, because they say it violates the law of thermodynamics. However, they never seriously look at the thermodynamics, which not only says its possible, but it is to be expected.” he added.

In their paper, Dr. Feinman and Dr. Eugene J. Fine explain that thermodynamics is as much about efficiency as it is about energy conservation. Carbohydrate is an efficient fuel, whereas protein is not. On a low carbohydrate/high protein diet, even though total energy is conserved, more energy is wasted as heat, a process known as thermogenesis. This energy comes from burning fat.

The researchers stress that “the human body is not a storage locker. It is a machine and the efficiency of the machine is controlled by hormones and enzymes. Carbohydrates increase insulin and other hormones that regulate enzymes, leading to storage rather than burning of fat.”

“Of course, people are different” said the authors, “but many people are sensitive to the effects of carbohydrates and for them, a low carb diet is going to work well.”

The practical point is that getting rid of the idea that “a calorie is a calorie” opens the door for serious research into what kind of diets will be most effective and which people will benefit most. “This is important,” they explain “because millions of people are seriously trying to lose weight on low carbohydrate diets, and instead of being given directions on the best way to do this, they have been largely discouraged by health professionals and self-appointed expert groups. The obesity epidemic is too important to allow this to happen.”

Note to editors/reporters: You can read the entire scientific paper by going to http://www.nutritionj.com/home and clicking on “Provisional PDF” at the bottom of the headline.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prweb145415.htm
__________________


diamondgeog
08-14-2013, 08:42 AM
As I understand it, human orginally were in tropical carb rich environments. Then they migrated to more temperate, colder, carb low, and famine prone environments.

The ones who survived developed the ability through insulin when they found carbs to store them as fat to be used later. The ones with these genes eventually migrated back to more tropical areas. Most if not all modern humans are descendants even from tropical climates of these humans. The ones without the genes didn't survive the days or longer without food. Only the most efficient carb storers as fat survived.

So we became very efficient storing the carbs as fats machines. So what happens if you are evolved to be in a carb low environment and all of a sudden you have carbs EVERYWHERE? And I mean everywhere. And you are bombarded by shops, billboards, adds 24/7 to eat carbs eat carbs eat carbs.

Well your body is still working like it is supposed to, storing those carbs as fat but the body was never intended to have carbs carbs carbs day after day hour after hour. The body tries its best with insulin to keep storing those carbs and the amount of fat in a person goes up and up and up and up. Eventually the insulin producing machine just breaks and people become diabetic and have to have insulin shots.

I found a site dietdoctor with a lot of good info on this whole process.

One of the big things for me is why I could have a buger, ice tea unsweet, but also fries and feel hungry so soon afterward. Yes there was some protein but A LOT of carbs in the bun and fries and ketchup and who knows what else. These would mostly get stored and not used as fuel for my cells. So pretty soon afterward I would feel hungry again.

diamondgeog
08-14-2013, 09:12 AM
I came across this very interesting article. It explains A LOT of what I experienced. I think I am repogramming my body. I have a lot less energy dips during the day, no carb cravings, can walk by pizza and ice cream now no problem. I can even have one or no potato chip which was impossible before. And when I have bad days (too many calories too many carbs, I am not perfect low carb) I don't gain like I used to. Everything he predicted in this article both under high carbs and low carbs is pretty much my experience.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-metabolic-paradigm-shift-fat-carbs-human-body-metabolism/#axzz2bwpsud6C

freelancemomma
08-15-2013, 12:39 PM
I do think it depends on the person. I have a scientific interest in the low-carb phenomenon (hence my presence on this subforum) but eat a high-carb diet myself -- about 300 g of carbs per day, mostly but not exclusively the "good" kind. I find carbs enormously satisfying, don't feel any more or less full on protein/fat than on carbs, and have never had any trouble losing weight on a high-carb diet. For me it's all about calories. YMMV, of course.

F.

Radiojane
08-15-2013, 12:59 PM
I honestly get so many different "reasons" handed to me that I long ago gave up on the science. All I know is since I've been lax in carb counting, I've struggled even more to lose weight, so I definitely need to be low carb. My friend on the other hand started at about the weight I'm at now, and loses rapidly with simply caloric restriction. It depends on your body.

Matisse
08-15-2013, 01:11 PM
I believe in calories IN, calories OUT too and I love fruits too much to go on a low-carb diet. One thing I have seen mentioned in several papers though is that high carb days with generous amounts of bread or pasta will make you gain water temporarily and I believe that. It's not fat ; so no need to obsess about it, unless you have a bikini shoot. ;-)

Here is the position (http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2013/03/13/2013-nsca-personal-trainers-conference-looking-back-at-my-debate-with-dr-jeff-volek/) of a nutrition expert, Alan Aragon

My Turn

The aim of my presentation was to present controlled research, observational research, and client case studies collectively showing that the narrow position of low-carb supremacy simply does not hold much evidential weight. I began by discussing the current state of affairs in the low-carb versus low-fat experimental research, which is best summed up in a recent meta-analysis by Hu et al (the largest of its kind) showing a general lack of difference in effectiveness for improving metabolic risk factors, including weight reduction [3].

I went on to examine the common methodological limitation of low-carb versus low-fat comparisons failing to match protein intake. As such, the advantage of greater thermic effect, satiety, and lean mass retention will strongly favor the groups whose protein is optimized, or at least adequate. Low-fat/high-carb treatments often fall short of adequate protein intake, and the disadvantages are inherent. A memorable example showing significantly greater effects on mood and a lack of significant difference in body composition improvement from a non-ketogenic diet compared to a ketogenic diet was by Johnston et al [4]. This study showed a trend toward more favorable effects in the non-ketogenic diet group, and the important detail is that protein intake was similar between groups, and significantly above the paltry RDA level.

This is the abstract from the Hu meta-study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23035144) that Aragon talks about.

Effects of low-carbohydrate diets versus low-fat diets on metabolic risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.
Hu T, Mills KT, Yao L, Demanelis K, Eloustaz M, Yancy WS Jr, Kelly TN, He J, Bazzano LA.
Source
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, USA.
Abstract
The effects of low-carbohydrate diets (≤45% of energy from carbohydrates) versus low-fat diets (≤30% of energy from fat) on metabolic risk factors were compared in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Twenty-three trials from multiple countries with a total of 2,788 participants met the predetermined eligibility criteria (from January 1, 1966 to June 20, 2011) and were included in the analyses. Data abstraction was conducted in duplicate by independent investigators. Both low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets lowered weight and improved metabolic risk factors. Compared with participants on low-fat diets, persons on low-carbohydrate diets experienced a slightly but statistically significantly lower reduction in total cholesterol (2.7 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 0.8, 4.6), and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (3.7 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 1.0, 6.4), but a greater increase in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (3.3 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 1.9, 4.7) and a greater decrease in triglycerides (-14.0 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: -19.4, -8.7). Reductions in body weight, waist circumference and other metabolic risk factors were not significantly different between the 2 diets. These findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets are at least as effective as low-fat diets at reducing weight and improving metabolic risk factors. Low-carbohydrate diets could be recommended to obese persons with abnormal metabolic risk factors for the purpose of weight loss. Studies demonstrating long-term effects of low-carbohydrate diets on cardiovascular events were warranted.

diamondgeog
08-15-2013, 01:13 PM
I do have a coworker who really does eat a diet day in day out incredibly high in carbs that I am sure I would be at least 400lbs or more on. So people are different.

Lowering carbs has been THE KEY for me. And as the general increase in obesity has gone hand in hand with an explosion in carbs I would say for a lot if not most people lowering carbs would be hugely benefical. Are there exceptions? Of course. It doesn't mean it isn't a great place to start.

And when I say the key it really has been. Why? It wasn't just the calories of the first load of carbs. Because of my body I store them really well and they didn't really fuel me or not for long. So they would need to another load of carbs. And they made me very leathargic.

So cutting carbs was not just the carb calories but allowed me to change a bunch of other stuff in my eating habits. And I work out so much more now. Key, linchpin, call it what you want. It may not be everyone's key but sure will end up to be for a huge part of the population.

diamondgeog
08-15-2013, 01:20 PM
Matisse,

I don't know if your ever highest weight was 155 but if it was you might have a body that processes carbs well. I wonder how Aragon explains the explosion of obesity correlated with a carb intake explosion and deals with that.

Here is the thing. You can't just use the numbers he did. Why? Because carbs leads to more carbs for a lot of people and more and more and more. Diets low in carbs often don't. They fill you up more. Can they measure fill you upness? Do they measure how soon you feel hungry again? Do they measure if you feel like working out after same amount of calories but high carb versus low carb? Do they study how efficient people burn fat when they are doing low carb versus high carb? How hungry people become in between meals on low carb and high carb? How better people are at resisting hunger between low car and high carb?

It just frustrates me because we have a lot of evidence right in front of us. If the obesity explosion happened when people in the mainstream were mostly going low carb then that would be one thing. But it didn't. It happened when high carb went mainstream.

But I will say this. You need to find what works. If I was the surgeon general though I would say I think that everyone should try lowering carbs in their diets who want to lose weight because I feel the majority of people trying that will benefit.

kaplods
08-15-2013, 01:24 PM
I think the simplest strategy is to try different approaches and reuse the ones that seem to work best for you.

And I mean best overall, not just best for weight loss.

I lose best on very low carb, but I feel best physically on only moderate low carb, and I feel euphoric (temporarily) on very high carb.

To lose weight without feeling physically or emotionally miserable, I have to balance all these desired outcomes. To "meet in the middle" I have to eat lowish to moderate carb. Too low and I start feeling achey, ill and irritable, - too high and I'm hungry and lethargic (not to mention my blood sugar goes wonky being diabetic).

diamondgeog
08-15-2013, 01:24 PM
I'd like someone to measure people eating high carb fast food mostly. And people eating lean protein veggies and fruits. And how the majority of them handle eating and have feelings of hunger between meansl.

Then take the high carb eaters give them a month of eating low carb and see if they have gained appetite control. I bet you the vast majority do gain appetite control and about that time or after another month or so start burning into their fat better also.

diamondgeog
08-15-2013, 01:27 PM
Some people live to 100 that smoke cigrattes every day. Everyone is different. Does that mean that the surgeon general should not put health warnings on cigarettes or that we should allow cigratte commericals on TV again?

Yes everyone is different and yes we are also all similar. It seemed like the government had no problem telling people en masse to eat less fat and consume more carbs.

Why is their such reluctance to see low carb messages go out?

diamondgeog
08-15-2013, 01:41 PM
Kaplods,

About the iritability. Maybe you can't tell from my posts but I am A LOT less irritable now on lower carbs, but it was hard at first.

But when I eat a lot of carbs my body just wanted more carbs and I would crash and get irritable and it was a horrible, awful roller coastr. At about 2 months for me from cutting carbs my level of energy is now maintained throughout the day, I rarely get hungry anymore.

It has actually been AWESOME. I use to have this thing in meetings where went the lights went down I would just get super sleepy. I am on CPAP for years now so it isn't that. I just get no 2-3 hunger or 2-3 sleepy anymore. I've created a new normal for me with so much less irritability on low carb.

kaplods
08-15-2013, 01:48 PM
Some people live to 100 that smoke cigrattes every day. Everyone is different. Does that mean that the surgeon general should not put health warnings on cigarettes or that we should allow cigratte commericals on TV again?

Yes everyone is different and yes we are also all similar. It seemed like the government had no problem telling people en masse to eat less fat and consume more carbs.

Why is their such reluctance to see low carb messages go out?




Probably because what is good for the individual isn't good for the national economy or global community.

If everyone were to eat low-carb we wouldn't have enough food to feed everyone. Other countries wouldn't buy our grain if we weren't willing to eat it. It takes a lot of grassland to raise animals and nonstarchy vegetables. A lot more than we have.

Also, living longer isn't necessarily a goal of government. Especially with the age of retirement being less than half the outer limit of longevity.

We can't count on government to tell us how to live. At it's best, governmental recommendations are going to be based on average. What needs to be done to maintain the status quo, because every drastic change has drastic consequences.

I love low-carb, but if everyone was converted even to moderate carb, we'd have to also drastically alter many other aspects of our society and cultue. As we stand, even a minor shift in food choices would have impacts that are hard to gauge. For government, any drastic change is an opportunity for self-destruction, so the get stuck in recommending the status quo, or something not too far from it.

diamondgeog
08-15-2013, 02:00 PM
I agree with everything you said. But I do think we could feed everyone a good low-car diet...if well the whole global economy were different. The real problem is the enormous discrepency in wealth. Somethng like 2 billion people live on under $5 a day. We have too much money in too few hands. That gums up nutrition a lot.

I also would have to look at the ecology more. One thing we use to do was mixed farming which had a ton of enviromental benefits. If you grass feed cows they produce manure that is used as fertilizer. If we went back to mixed farming, which agribusiness hates because they don't get to seel fertlizier maybe we could feed everyone on low carb? But I don't know.

It has been interesting on this journey though to think about money and food in just my experience in the US on a middle class income.

I can get a pound of grass fed organice beef for usually $8, sometimes less depending. That gives my family 4 burgers. It tastes awesome and we'd be hard pressed to go out and get the worse stuff (except for dollar value meal burgers) for that price. You can eat awesome at home often for less, sometimes way less, than you can eating junk out.

Matisse
08-15-2013, 02:42 PM
Matisse,

I don't know if your ever highest weight was 155 but if it was you might have a body that processes carbs well.

Yes, that's my highest. I am not sure if I process carb so well, I sometimes feel very tired after eating pasta, but to be honest that happens also with a little carb/high protein dinner. I suffer from IBS and feeling fatigued after meals is a symptom.

I wonder how Aragon explains the explosion of obesity correlated with a carb intake explosion and deals with that.

Here is the thing. You can't just use the numbers he did. Why? Because carbs leads to more carbs for a lot of people and more and more and more. Diets low in carbs often don't. They fill you up more. Can they measure fill you upness? Do they measure how soon you feel hungry again? Do they measure if you feel like working out after same amount of calories but high carb versus low carb? Do they study how efficient people burn fat when they are doing low carb versus high carb? How hungry people become in between meals on low carb and high carb? How better people are at resisting hunger between low car and high carb?

It just frustrates me because we have a lot of evidence right in front of us. If the obesity explosion happened when people in the mainstream were mostly going low carb then that would be one thing. But it didn't. It happened when high carb went mainstream.

But I will say this. You need to find what works. If I was the surgeon general though I would say I think that everyone should try lowering carbs in their diets who want to lose weight because I feel the majority of people trying that will benefit.

I think we are talking about two things. Sure, I totally believe the obesity epidemic is caused by too much sugar, mostly refined sugars like fructose, sucrose. I just watched the first episode of The Men Who Made Us Fat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6nGlLUBkOQ) and I am totally on board with the thesis that sugar is "pure, white and deadly". Also, I have never eaten and Americanized diet. To my tastebuds, American chain food - a muffin a Starbuck's or a burger at McD - is way, way too sweet!

If fruits are balanced with proteins and healthy fats, if bread is unsweetened, I bet a diet with 45-55 % of carbs would work for many people, but perhaps not everybody. If carbs/sugars in fruits trigger hunger/hormonal imbalance/addiction centers in some persons, then by all means, they should stay away from carbs. I am glad you found something that works for you and the last thing in my mind is to steer you away from that.

What Aragon and Hu are comparing are two different low-calories diets. Some are low-carbs, some are low-fat ; everyone is losing weight at a comparable speed because each diet has the same calorific deficit. Protein are key for saving/even building muscles though and I have learned that I did not eat enough proteins before, so maybe daily or weekly targets need to be set.

diamondgeog
08-15-2013, 06:50 PM
But people don't in general eat the same number of calories on both kinds of diets. I started a thread in general chatter on The Men Who Made Us Fat: great doc.

So a scientist was trying to get rats fat, but he couldn't. Until he gave them American junk food. Then their whole system got messed up. They overeat became obese. Have to look holistically at what high carbs does: it begets more high carbs and lack of exercise often and often results in obesity in rats and people. Something about our phyisology including mind/body just doesn't do well, for many if not most people, with a diet with a lot of carbs.

362to262
02-12-2014, 06:52 PM
But not everyone would have to eat low-carb. Those with a low insulin response, like our friend upthread, can stay on high carbs. It's just the obese that need to switch.

kaplods
02-12-2014, 08:57 PM
It's just the obese that need to switch.


Not true, unless you only care about weight and not fitness and health. High carb diets have been implicated in diabetes (and there are thin diabetics) hypoglycemia, heart disease, food allergies, stunted growth, dental problems, osteoporosis, IBS, arthritis (osteo, rheumatoid, and psoriatic), fibromyalgia, asthma, thyroid disorders and other autoimmune issues.


Most people, not just those who are obese, would probably benefit from reducing carbs, but how low you need to go depends on a lot more variables than whether or not you're obese.

362to262
02-13-2014, 02:29 AM
"Also, living longer isn't necessarily a goal of government. Especially with the age of retirement being less than half the outer limit of longevity."

In the UK this would lead to a collapse of the economy. About 36% of welfare payouts go on state pensions. It is crucial that people going on dying at the current rate.

Helena

362to262
02-13-2014, 02:33 AM
Not true, unless you only care about weight and not fitness and health. High carb diets have been implicated in diabetes (and there are thin diabetics) hypoglycemia, heart disease, food allergies, stunted growth, dental problems, osteoporosis, IBS, arthritis (osteo, rheumatoid, and psoriatic), fibromyalgia, asthma, thyroid disorders and other autoimmune issues.

Then we are doomed if word gets out.

kaplods
02-13-2014, 02:59 AM
Then we are doomed if word gets out.

I think the USA, the UK, Canada, Japan and other nations with very high standards of living could cope, with a few major lifestyle adjustments (fewer children, and less wasteful, more frugal lifestyles, better more efficient farming practices...), but the rest of the world would be screwed, especially those relying on grain exports from wealthier nations. We could probably afford to feed ourselves better and live longer, but we wouldn't be able to supply food to other countries. We probably wouldn't even be able to send the "unhealthy" grain crops, because we wouldn't have the space to grow it and feed ourselves the "better" stuff.

It would help if we switched to smaller, faster breeding and maturing meat animals rather than standard cattle (and I mean really small like chickens, ducks, guinea pig, rabbit.... nothing bigger than a pigmy goat or potbelly pig). Everyone might have to grow and raise some of their own food, such as sprouts and other plants that can be grown in little or no space with little or no skill.


It isn't that a healthier diet isn't possible for everyone EVENTUALLY, but radical immediate change would be disastrous. Unfortunately, most people tend to resist or postpone "small changes." Humans tend to prefer "revolutions" to gradual, planned improvements.