Carb Counters - Growing number of nutritionists looking at low carb high fat




diamondgeog
12-29-2013, 10:06 AM
http://www.examiner.com/article/weight-loss-expert-champions-low-carb-diets-says-saturated-fat-is-healthy

I am still cautious with fat. We only use olive oil and organic butter at home. Try to eat organic grass fed meats as much as possible.

But I have found I am much healthier, lighter, fitter, and infinitely less hungry on lower carbs. Veggies and some fruit are not only fine but essential to me.

But bread, pasta, potatoes, grains in general were killing me.

My body was working correctly. It was producing insulin to deal with all the glucose from the sugar and quickly broken down carbs I was giving it. And it was clearly storing it as fat. My belly was HUGE. Men's XXL shirts were tight. Now I comfortably fit in L.

If you feel hungry often I suggest becoming 'carb aware'. Sauces, dressings, ketchup can add a lot during the day. Many 'heÓlthy' foods have higher glycemic indexes then candy bars. Food companies can take something like yougart and turn it into Yoplait for instance.


Jacqui_D
12-29-2013, 10:59 PM
I think we may begin to see more and more experts advocate a low-carb, high-fat diet. Btw, congrats on going from a tight XXL shirt to a comfortable L one! That's fantastic! :cp:

delmarva
12-29-2013, 11:14 PM
It is so nice to stop seeing fat being vilified, with the realization that easily broken down sugars are clogging are arteries with all their metabolic byproducts. Like you, diamondgeog, I also felt hunger drop a lot as I reduced carbs to a much smaller part of my diet. Exercise also seems to act as a regulator. I get hungry still, but the hunger "storms" don't seem to happen as they did years ago.

PS - added edit - and yeah, it really surprised me to see it go straight to my tummy. I thought I'd be a pear. I was an apple!


diamondgeog
12-29-2013, 11:39 PM
Thanks. Really hoping to see a 1 as the first number in 2014. I think it will happen. Running is getting easier and eating healthy is as well.

I've now heard coconut oil mentioned a couple of times as a healthy saturated fat. It can even help produce ketones that are used in the brain. I am going to try some.

BTW there is some fascinating science as to why you don't need 130 grams of carbs a day for your brain to function. Beyond the obvious, dah, people do it all the time.

http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/17/27575/brain-fuel-myth/

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-much-glucose-does-your-brain-really-need/#axzz2n7U9LTuc

diamondgeog
12-30-2013, 09:56 AM
Which is why Eskimos don't die. Thanks. The articles talk about that, you stated it clearly.

I found when I was eating fast food, junk food, bread, pasta, potatoes every day (not all of that but at least some), my carb metabolism was very much in storage mode. I kept getting bigger and after a lot of carbs I was extremely hungry because none or few were used.

I do occasionally/rarely have a huge carb meal usually when traveling. My body handles it much better now. I am full a long time now.

I think my metabolism gets the biggest boost now not from diet though but running. That seems to super charge it.

kaplods
12-30-2013, 12:37 PM
As a carb-aware, carb-reducing dieter who is horrified by the rampant misinformation surrounding low-carb, I want to point our that the Inuit (Eskimo) diet is often used to defend a type of low-carb diet that is nothing like the actual Inuit diet.

First, it's inaccurate to say that the Inuit do not eat plant foods. They do, and the plants they eat tend to be of the "superfood" variety, with nutrient profiles that are off the charts (such as the many deeply-colored varieties of berries).

Like all groups that rely almost exclusively on animal protein, at least during part of the year, the plants that are eaten are unusually rich in phytonutrients AND (most importantly) they eat every bit of the animal to get the nutrients that are not available in the intramuscular fat and muscle meat alone.

That means eating the bones, blood, skin, and every organ (with the possible exception of the uncleaned intestine and stomach contents)..

The Inuit also eat many "fermented" meats, essentially contolled rot. Fish, seal, whale... are buried and left to decay for weeks or months and when they reach sufficient stinkiness are dug up and eaten (if I remember correctly, usually raw).

Also, marine mammal fat and skin , is especially high in vitamins (such as D and C).

Muscle meat and fat (which American low-carbers tend to eat exclusively) do not contain the micronutrients found in the skin, fat, bones, blood, and internal organs.

I believe very strongly in carb-aware eating, but not in the way it is generally done outside of hunter-gatherer communities. We eat the least nutritious part of the crityer and the plants we do choose tend to be the least nutrient dense, and we shun fermented foods and the parts of the animal we find distasteful.

Articles like the one linked to in the original post actually do a disservive to low-carb eating, because they leave out the most important bits of information.

If you're going to be eating a minimal-carb diet, you have to eat every scrap of the animal and the plants you do eat, need to be especially high in fiber, antioxidants and other important phytochemicals.

The "steak, eggs and maybe a bit of iceberg lettuce" diet that is so common in the modern interpretation of low-carb just doesn't cut it.

In most naturally low-carb hunter/gatherer cultures (with the exception of the Inuit winter diet) animal foods provide the majority of calories, but plants provide the greatest part of the diet by volume.

The Inuit "get away with" eating fewer plants only because of the nature of arctic and subarctic plants and animals which have evolved to maximize nutrient storage.

diamondgeog
12-30-2013, 03:14 PM
Kaplods,

Thanks for that very informative post about the Inuit diet.

I agree low carb can mean so many different things. I cut out fast food, junk food, rice, pasta, and potatoes: mostly. Occasional bread and potato especially sweet and red.

I am eating more veggies than ever because of so many benefits that whole plants convey. And I don't eat organs, bone, sweet meats.

I was trying to think of a better term than 'Low Carbs'.

Perhaps 'Smart Carbs'? And I know people now use the term slow carbs.

What are your thoughts on that? Better? For me the bread, pasta, and potatoes reduction really helped.

kaplods
12-30-2013, 04:21 PM
My thoughts are that we don't know enough to declare any diet optimally healthy, especially without taking into account many individual and environmemtal variables. As with many omnivores, I think we're highly adaptable and can thrive on many different types of diets - as long as the diet is varied and nutrient dense.

What I'm finding frustrating with most of the carb consscious and carb aware plans (my preferred terms), is that the science used to defend them is so often incomplete, and/or misleading, either because the authors don't understand the science, or don't care and it inspires people to avoid healthy foods or trash other healthy diets.

I have no trouble with the idea that eating insects, bone, blood, fat, skin, marrow, tendon, organ meats, and large quantities of low-calorie plants would be healthiest, but putting the idea into practice is a lot more difficult to wrap my mind around.

My problem with much of the carb-aware writing (and diet writing in general) is the amount of incorrect, incomplete and misleading information and opinion presented as factual.

I just have a problem with false information, even if it's used to persuade people torwards better choices.

diamondgeog
12-30-2013, 04:44 PM
And I find it equally frustrating that we conducted essentially a 300 million person high carb experiment on America the past 40 years with disastrous results. Yes it was more than carbs but the increase in sugar/carbs was profound. Yes it's an oversimplification but it is also very important not to ignore.

I would say for everyone to be at least carb aware. And virtually every single thing predicted on a high carb diet happened to me. I was literally a living proof of what happens: from weight, belly, hunger, blood work, tiredness.

And every single positive thing that was predicted on lowering carbs has happened. So either the low carb/ high carb theories are just randomly freakishly 100 percent accurate or this is something to them.

But I agree if it keeps people from veggies and some fruit that is bad.

I would add you seem to read a ton of science. I have read hundreds of success stories on Huffington Post and a lot more here. The overriding similarity among most, not all but most, is when obese the person was having a lot of carbs. And when succeeding they used some form of lowering.

So given the fact the science is never going to be complete I am going to keep going with what has given me my best health, energy, and strength in my life at 48.

And I have no qualms telling people that lowering carbs was my key to achieving that.

IanG
12-30-2013, 04:46 PM
I've ended up eating low carb, high protein, high fat. The trick is to get the good fats: the unsaturated ones and specifally Omega 3s. I eat a ton of oily fish. They have done wonders for my skin, joints and hair. And I really struggle to gain weight eating as much as I like (I either lose or - at worst - maintain if I eat a lot of fish).

Arguing saturated fat is good for you is BS though. Tell that to my former morbidly obese self.

The article seems to be mixing the evidence. For example, contrary to the article I eat tons of eggs because it so happens that they contain mostly polyunsaturated fat.

diamondgeog
12-30-2013, 05:16 PM
The article said to eat eggs. Made a big point of that at the end. I have mostly unsaturated fats. We only use olive oil at home. But I am intrigued about coconut oil.

And I am not Atkins and I am not suddenly going to add lots of saturated fats to my diet. But I am intrigued by many respected scientists who this for a living now saying this about saturated fats.

But veggies, lean meats, nuts, cheese, some fruits are going to be my diet for the foreseeable future.

kaplods
12-30-2013, 05:38 PM
There was no malicious "experiment." Instead, people chose what their instincts told them to... eat the most calorically dense, flavor-intense foods you can acquire in your environment.

We switched to agriculture 10 - 15 thousand years ago, because it helped us survive. We were healthier when we hunted and gathered because we had little choice but to eat everything and anything to survive.

Having nearly unlimited choice of food is what was and is killing us. We no longer need to eat anything we'd rather not. We can be picky and eat only what tastes wonderful to us.

That means we can eat the muscle and throw away the skin, bone, muscle, tendon, organs and fat. We can feed our food animals bland, less nutritious feed because it makes the animals grow faster and the makes the meat taste less "gamey."

Even 40 years ago, people ate more vegetables and organ meats because they didn't have the luxury of turning their nose up at them.

And for at least the past 10,000 years the wealthiest peoples had the highest incidence of disease, simply because they had more choice in their diet and could afford to be picky. They did not have to eat anything and everything they could find.

We want to get back the health of out hunter/gatherer ancestors, unless it means working as hard physically or eating "yucky stuff" like most vegetables, bugs, liver, blood, kidneys, skin, or smelly fish.

The way "low carb" is done and advocated in the modern world, it's nearly as bad (and sometimes worse) as the couch potato, high starch, no-vegetable monstrocity that has become the standard lifestyle of choice.

We also have to remember that we can't feed the current population of the world, or even our country on a low-carb diet. Unless we're willing to rid the world of most of the human population and in the proces, return to a culture in which most of our time, effort, and economy is devoted to food acquisition - it just isn't possible.

Yes, our current system is failing, but the "low carb" diets as they're generally done just provides a different set of problems.

I don't see that changeing unless we're able, as a culture, to become less squeamish and more open-minded about what we're willing to eat.

I'm not even sure that eating grains and sugar are as bad for us as is the absence of all the foods we avoid because we have things that taste better.

I suspect that eating more nutrient dense foods may be more important than avoiding any specific food.

I think what we're not eating (and should be) may be more important than what we are eating.

Some of the science supports this, although not much of the science is even looking at the problem that way.

When people give up carbs, they do usually add more high fiber vegetables. What if adding the vegetables was actually the key component? Or what if the various nutrients and phytochemicals found in a wide variety of veggies counterbalanced the deleterious effects of the higher carb foods? Maybe bread isn't so bad, if you eat "enough" veggies or enough something else, or enough variety.

We've given up a lot of extremely healthy foods because we associate them with poverty and desperation - as things we no longer have to eat.

And if that's true at all, how do we bwcome desperate enough to choose what's best even when it's not tastiest.

I don't have any of the answers, only lots and lots of questions.

SparklyBunny
12-30-2013, 05:46 PM
I'm sorry, but I just have to say this :-)

Nutrition expert Dr. Jonny Bowden joins a growing list of prominent medical experts to champion the benefits of a low-carb, high-fat ketogenic-style diet for weight loss and optimal health.

When you go to Dr Jonny Bowden's website, he describes himself as "The Rogue Nutritionist". I wonder how many would be as psyched about a doctor who'd call himself "The Rogue Surgeon" :-)

The Irish comedian Dara O'Briain had a lovely point about nutritionists. Dietitian is the legally protected term (at least in UK), and anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. "Dietitian is like a dentist, and nutritionist is like a toothiologist."

kaplods
12-30-2013, 06:01 PM
I'm sorry, but I just have to say this :-)



When you go to Dr Jonny Bowden's website, he describes himself as "The Rogue Nutritionist". I wonder how many would be as psyched about a doctor who'd call himself "The Rogue Surgeon" :-)

The Irish comedian Dara O'Briain had a lovely point about nutritionists. Dietitian is the legally protected term (at least in UK), and anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. "Dietitian is like a dentist, and nutritionist is like a toothiologist."

And this is my problem with many of the "experts" in the field of nutrition and dietetics, whose only qualifications are the fact that they created and authored a book, blog, or diet.

Yes, there is growing science that tells us popular low-carb are not as bad as once thought, but all of science does not point in the dorection of low-carb being the optimally healthy diet
There is a lot of science pointed in other directions too.

diamondgeog
12-30-2013, 08:36 PM
I think she used that because mainstream nutrition advice had not been so helpful the past 40 years. Hence 'rogue' as a positive. Thanks for the thoughtful posts.

'Cheap' fast food high carb meals have a 100 billion dollar healthcare cost. Switching to healthier foods might cost society less. Need to look at total costs.

Thanks for all the thoughtful posts.

IanG
12-30-2013, 08:41 PM
Healthy food does cost a lot. I am coming to that conclusion.

Not to be confused with the cost of dieting to lose weight. That can be very cheap. When I started, my food was cheap, cheap, cheap because I ate so little.

But further on as I have focused on trying to get a better balance of lean protein and a good mix of other nutrients for better overall health, my food bill began to skyrocket.

So I suppose the real cost comparison has to be limited to obesity, not overall health.

To combat obesity, you just eat less and say **** to nutrition.

Nutrition is about the other stuff which may or may not make you live longer but will make you look and feel better.

ReillyJ
12-30-2013, 11:25 PM
Having nearly unlimited choice of food is what was and is killing us. We no longer need to eat anything we'd rather not. We can be picky and eat only what tastes wonderful to us.



YES! like the entire box of chocolates i ate yesterday! :o

diamondgeog
12-31-2013, 09:33 AM
From what I am reading and very much my own experiences I do have to distinguish more about carbs. Saying low carbs can be confusing. At the same time, after eating my veggies the first thing I considered was carbs in my food choices and it has worked very well for me.

When I was eating bread, pasta, potatoes, snack food, fast food I had the huge belly, fat storage, tiredness, hunger, the inflammation response so many people talk about. My body clearly was not able to handle those carbs and I was if not killing myself, shortening my life and reducing my quality of life. I remember at my highest not even 35 I was barely able to walk from a parking garage to a basketball game much less sit in the seat.

Plant based carbs don't seem to have that response.

I also think you do have to think in terms of overall cost especially as you get older and quality of life. Bad health not only sucks it is expensive and time consuming. I'd rather plunk down some extra for organic.

And from barely being able to walk I should do my first 5K in a couple of months at 48.

SparklyBunny
12-31-2013, 11:15 AM
@diamondgeog:

I think it might also help to understand how those carbs are used by the body. I'm going to have to paraphrase here, because there's so much going on in the body and I admit that I don't understand it all. Anyway, my very simplistic view is that carbohydrates and protein raise insulin levels. Insulin signals that food is coming and starts to store it, first by filling the glycogen stores in liver and muscles and when those are filled, then as fat. It is my understanding that fat would always be stored as fat (and then used as energy), though I guess medium chain triglycerides can be used almost directly as energy.

Just because something is stored as fat doesn't mean that it's a bad thing and it'll stay there forever. We use our stored fat as energy most of the time, but also the energy stored as glycogen. Depending which one is used most depends on our activities, as does how much of it is used.

In the same way, raised insulin isn't a bad thing by default. If I lift heavy things, I want to raise my insulin levels right after that and ingest at least protein, or both protein and carbohydrates. This means that the glycogen that I just used during my exercise will be replaced and the muscles start to repair themselves with the amino acids I just provided. If there would be no insulin spike, the muscles wouldn't get what they need.

It's not quite that simple and there's more to it, but my personal experience has shown me that eating a big plate of pasta with creamy sauce whilst watching telly will result in bloating and excess fat around the waist, but eating a big plate of pasta with meat or fish or low fat cheese after exercise will result in a lean body. Sure, the pasta isn't needed to have a lean body, but it's also not your worst enemy in this case. You just have to know how much and when to eat it.

We do get hooked on pleasurable things, and excess of anything will result in problems sooner or later. Yet there are plenty of people who don't become alcoholics or drug addicts or sugar addicts. It's not a universal thing, so there is more to it than just carbs. I'm sure that some people are more physically prone to become addicts, but it doesn't remove the personal responsibility that we all have over our bodies. For someone that means eating low carb foods, because it's the best thing they can do for their bodies. Someone else would feel utterly miserable and would not be able to perform well if they had to give up starchy carbs. And like kaplods pointed out, most people in this world would die of starvation if they would have to give up carbs.

IanG
12-31-2013, 11:20 AM
I'm on the fence with plant-based carbs. I used to eat a lot of them but as I lost more weight and got near my goal they started to stall out my loss. I found them pretty good for health, but not weightloss. Specifically, corn and chick peas were a problem for me. Don't get me wrong, I was not putting on weight. I just wasn't losing any more. Since cutting them I have started to lose again. So I try to avoid the high carb veggies if I can now. To maintain I will just bring them back. Easy.

One thing I am finding is that this game is not all about calories. Losing weight is about calories. Getting fat is not.

For some reason, my body struggles to convert lean protein to fat. So if I eat a lot of it, I don't lose weight but I don't gain any either.

SparklyBunny
12-31-2013, 11:46 AM
I'm on the fence with plant-based carbs. I used to eat a lot of them but as I lost more weight and got near my goal they started to stall out my loss. I found them pretty good for health, but not weightloss. Specifically, corn and chick peas were a problem for me. Don't get me wrong, I was not putting on weight. I just wasn't losing any more. Since cutting them I have started to lose again. So I try to avoid the high carb veggies if I can now. To maintain I will just bring them back. Easy.

One thing I am finding is that this game is not all about calories. Losing weight is about calories. Getting fat is not.

For some reason, my body struggles to convert lean protein to fat. So if I eat a lot of it, I don't lose weight but I don't gain any either.

Our bodies quite literally do struggle to convert lean protein into fat. 20-35% of the calories in protein will be burned just in the process. It's 5-15% for carbs and 0-5% for fat.

Also, coming from someone who's been on a diet that was basically just protein and very low on carbs and fats...I don't know if it would be possible to eat just protein above maintenance calories every day. I struggled to eat enough at just 700kcal. Insanely efficient, but really horrible.

diamondgeog
12-31-2013, 08:36 PM
I know there is an argument that to feed the masses we need lots of grain. But our agricultural system, worldwide, has been converted to make huge profits for a few as the primary goal.

So Third World Agriculture which was operating to provide healthy diets was instead forced into commodity production and populations forced to buy on the world market.

Even in America our old system of small and medium mixed farming with crops and livestock was obliterated and replaced by commodity farms.

So what looks like our only options often look that way because of decades of decisions and power plays making that look like our only options.

And yes I know not everyone can or should eat vast sums of meat. But our worldwide concentration of wealth for a few has profound implications for what kind of agriculture and diets are possible. It constrains many choices from even coming into being when they would be possible if agriculture was structured differently.

kaplods
12-31-2013, 09:26 PM
I know there is an argument that to feed the masses we need lots of grain. But our agricultural system, worldwide, has been converted to make huge profits for a few as the primary goal.

So Third World Agriculture which was operating to provide healthy diets was instead forced into commodity production and populations forced to buy on the world market.

Even in America our old system of small and medium mixed farming with crops and livestock was obliterated and replaced by commodity farms.

So what looks like our only options often look that way because of decades of decisions and power plays making that look like our only options.

And yes I know not everyone can or should eat vast sums of meat. But our worldwide concentration of wealth for a few has profound implications for what kind of agriculture and diets are possible. It constrains many choices from even coming into being when they would be possible if agriculture was structured differently.


The current system isn't our only option, it's just that the other options have their own ugly side, and cannot be adopted easily or quickly..

To make eliminating grains possible, we'd have to first eliminate several billion people.

At minimum that would take 70-100 years, unless we don't mind people dying of global famine (which wasn't rare in the USA even into the 1940's).

Without technology, we can't go back to the old way, even if we wanted to without bringing the old problems back in addition to many more new ones (because we have a lot more people now than we did then and the culture is different as well).

Without incredible technological breakthroughs, the old way isn't possible without DRASTICALLY reducing global and local populations.

The old way means no mega-cities like NewYork, Chicago, SanFrancisco...

That may ultimately be for the best, but rapid change cannot happen without some kind of miracle (or disaster).

The problems need to be addressed, but the fix is going to be neither easy nor quick. We don't even know which foods are the worst (some are arguing that polished white rice is less harmful than whole grain brown rice - so which do we "ban").

It's such a complex set of problems, it could take centuries to get better.

We've traded in our health and lifespans for population growth. We're sicker and die sooner, but we have more people on the planet than ever before. To "get back" to a healthier lifestyle, we need to find a way to cut our populations by much more than half, and probably more like 80-90%.

That means that out of the 7 billion people on the planet, 5 billion or more probably have to die to make a grain-free diet possible for everyone.

And if it's not possible for everyone, how do we determine who deserves to be healthy and who doesn't.

Do we create an underclass who has to eat grains so a few of us don't have to (some argue this is the current state of affairs, but it can only get worse with the current global population).

diamondgeog
12-31-2013, 10:22 PM
Those are many great points. But you are leaving out how many resources are in the hands of a few. If wealth and resources were not so concentrated there would be a lot of possibilities many of which we literally couldn't even imagine now.

But in complete agreement no easy answers at all.

kaplods
12-31-2013, 11:49 PM
Those are many great points. But you are leaving out how many resources are in the hands of a few. If wealth and resources were not so concentrated there would be a lot of possibilities many of which we literally couldn't even imagine now.

But in complete agreement no easy answers at all.



Absolutely, but the lifestyle gap between the wealthy and the poor actually became narrower in the USA, largely because of grain subsidies (which were originally designed to address the "calorie shortage" facing the poor).

We did too good a job of feeding our poor, as diseases that were only found in the uber-wealthy royals before 1500 (when sugar first became significantly more affordable), such as obesity, diabetis, and gout - are now even more common in our poor than our wealthy.

Malnourishment among the poor is still rampant, but very few Americans starve to death or are suffering from calorie shortage.

Trying to force the wealthy to share their resources hasn't worked very well in the past and I don't see it working well in the future, without a major cultural revolution (hopefully not a bloody one).

As the standard of living increases, people waste more. When I was in college, you could still get bones from the butcher, nearly free (when I was a child, butchers gave them away). Now, they're not even available, or sold at high prices as exotic ingredients.

Frugality is no longer seen as a virtue, let alone a necessity.

To feed a nation (let alone the world) every choice has to be examined. We'd probably have to get rid of cattle almost entirely, and raise mostly small animals and fowl like rabbits, guinea pigs, iguana, chickens, duck.... critters lower on the food chain which can be raised with fewer resources.

We'd also have to be far less wasteful with all our resources, not just food.

I think the biggest problem is fighting our instincts. Overfeeding is never a problem in a natural world, because overpopulation and famine occur long before obesity becomes a problem. You don't see morbidly obese lions outside of zoos and you don't see super morbidly obese humans outside of a modern, sedentary culture.

Fighting our instincts is probably our biggest battle as individuals and as a community. Fighting our habits will be #2.

Overeating oce provided a survival advantage, but now that advantage is gone, but we still have the instincts and habits that make it difficult to stop easily.

Do we make grains illegal? Wouldn't that just create a black market?

I guess for now, we're each left to do the best we can with the resources we have, but we need to be working on the cultural solutions too.

We also have to start funding research and health services aimed at prevention rather than on fixing only what has already broken down.

I wish I had known more about these issues when I was younger and had more resources at my disposal.

SparklyBunny
01-01-2014, 12:06 AM
That's the downside of free market and capitalism. It's only truly free when everyone involved are equal. But since we're not, we have to place trust in others. That's the fabric of every society that holds everything together, but unfortunately there are plenty of people who are willing to break it for their own gain and as a result, everyone suffers. The more people there are in one place, the greater the chance of such a collapse happening and I don't think there is any political system that would be able to prevent that.

I hate Monsanto as much as the next person and think that their business practices are immoral, but what they do is still legal. I've sometimes wondered how the people working there sleep at night, but when it's never fully down to just one person, you can always shift the blame. "It's the corporation that does it, not me personally."

All we can really do is try to educate ourselves and behave in ways that would hopefully create a better world. I've thought about these things a lot and that's pretty much the only solution I can find. Try to behave from a place of humility and curiosity and hope for the best.

diamondgeog
01-01-2014, 11:43 AM
Fighting Our Instincts is huge Kaplods. Very well put. The Salt, Sugar, Fat book by Moss I am reading now details how food companies used arrays of scientists, psychologists, and aggressive advertising to make the most addictive food and market them as aggrisevely as possible to hook people on them.

Awareness of this has helped me a lot. I, frankly, don't want to be another 'victim'. And I am very well aware not everyone has choices. I grew up on food stamps, school breakfasts and lunches and a mom who didn't cook.

freelancemomma
01-02-2014, 12:10 PM
@diamondgeog:

Just because something is stored as fat doesn't mean that it's a bad thing and it'll stay there forever... In the same way, raised insulin isn't a bad thing by default... We do get hooked on pleasurable things, and excess of anything will result in problems sooner or later. Yet there are plenty of people who don't become alcoholics or drug addicts or sugar addicts. It's not a universal thing, so there is more to it than just carbs...

I agree 100% with the above. I have always been able to lose weight by cutting my daily calories to 1,500 without paying any attention to carbs. I currently maintain my weight while eating about 300 grams of carbs per day (or 60% of my 2,000-cal allotment). Carbs make me feel great and give me no symptoms whatsoever. I always have my best morning workouts after a high-carb dinner the previous evening. One day I may experiment with a month of low-carb eating (if I can last that long) out of curiosity, not because I believe it's a better way of eating. On the contrary: I view carbs as my friend, not my enemy -- and certainly not the satanic food group some people purport them to be.

F.

diamondgeog
01-02-2014, 06:35 PM
One person's god is another person's devil I guess.

I could not keep daily calories under control with say 60% carbs. They just make me way too hungry. It was a 'death prescription' for me to try to follow that advice.

Carbs were pretty satantic for me. They spiked my insulin....bad. Left me MORE hungry than before. I could eat a 5 ounce bag of chips, 800-1000 calories and actually feel MORE hungry. They were leading me to diabetes, heart disease, and probably an early grave.

But bodies are different. But it is vitally important for people to find what works for them. I think all the evidence in the US population is more people than not are carb sensitive. But of course far from everyone.

And I should say most of my carbs were coming from fast food, junk food, potatoes, bread, pasta, and rice. Not veggies. I used to go to Red Robin which has unlimited fries. I would ask for my first order as an appetizer. Eat the ones with the burger then get 3 refills. It seems insane now.

Then I'd be hungry in 2 hours.

kaplods
01-02-2014, 11:49 PM
One person's god is another person's devil I guess.

I could not keep daily calories under control with say 60% carbs. They just make me way too hungry. It was a 'death prescription' for me to try to follow that advice.

Carbs were pretty satantic for me. They spiked my insulin....bad. Left me MORE hungry than before. I could eat a 5 ounce bag of chips, 800-1000 calories and actually feel MORE hungry. They were leading me to diabetes, heart disease, and probably an early grave.

But bodies are different. But it is vitally important for people to find what works for them. I think all the evidence in the US population is more people than not are carb sensitive. But of course far from everyone.



Although I personally am carb sensitive (diabetic actually), I actually disagree. I do not believe that "all the evidence" or even most of the evidence suggests that more people than not are carb sensitive.

There is a lot of evidence that most Americans abuse the worst types of carbs, but there isn't much evidence at all for or against a high-carb diet (60% of calories or more) when those carbs are coming from high fiber, whole, unprocessed foods.

Most of the evidence for low-carb diets have only compared low-carb to high carb diets in which the carbs are primarily of the white bread, white pasta and fried potato type.

More comparison needs to made between low-carb (with varying quantities of fiber-rich freggies) and high carb diets in which the carbs come from veggies, fruits, whole grains (especially gluten-free), legumes, nuts, and pseudograins.

We don't know enough about "good carb" diets to say that most people would do better on a much lower carb diet. We just do not have enough data to say that.

The diabetes educator my husband and I met with when hubby was first diagnosed, believes that only people with or at risk for blood sugar issues such as diabetes, insulin resistance, and hypoglycemia are carb sensitive. She may be right. There just isn't enough evidence one way or the other to say for sure.

Most people tend to believe they are typical, so they believe that almost everyone else is just like them.

I went through this when I discovered that even on wholesome carb diets I tended to overeat. When my carbs were coming from fruit, veggies, sweet potato, and even whole grains, I felt good, but I had trouble controlling portions. I rather effortlessly did not gain when all my carbs were wholesome ones, but I didn't lose.

When I reach my goal weight, it's quite possible that I might be able to maintain my weight and health on a high-carb, unprocessed carb diet. It's also possible that I will always have to be carb-conscious.

But despite what many low-carb authors say, there is not enough evidence to support low-carb recommendations for the majority.

I cannot assume that my carb issues are either common or unusual. There just hasn't been enough research to say one way or the other.

This isn't immediately evident if you read only the low-carb authors. To see the ample evidence on other sides of the argument, you need to also read the books advocating other diets such as low-fat, veg*n, raw food, fruitarian, Meditaranean, Japanese...... Those authors cite all the evidence supporting THEIR theories.

Reading it all, it becomes clear that recommending ANY one type of diet for "most" Americans is simply not warranted and at best is premature. We don't have enough evidence one way or the other and have too much evidence pointing at other options.

We just don't know whether carb-sensitive individuals are in the majority or the minority.


Low-carb and paleo are popular right now, so that is the science we are reading and hearing about now. However, they've been popular in the past and then lost favor. When low-fat was popular, you heard only about the science that supported that viewpoint.

There needs to be a lot more research before we can say what most people need.

It's fair to say that most people need to eat fewer processed carbs and more vegetables and fruits, but as to specific carb/fat/protein ratios, there isn't enough evidence to make specific recommendations or to assert that carb-reduction is necessary or helpful for "most" Americans.

We need to know more before we can make any such claims.

SparklyBunny
01-03-2014, 06:44 AM
Most people tend to believe they are typical, so they believe that almost everyone else is just like them.


This. This is the reason why we should take a moment before making assumptions or passing judgment. This is also the reason why people tend to reveal a lot about themselves when they are talking about other people.

freelancemomma
01-03-2014, 10:58 AM
Low-carb and paleo are popular right now, so that is the science we are reading and hearing about now. However, they've been popular in the past and then lost favor. When low-fat was popular, you heard only about the science that supported that viewpoint.

That's why I never fully believe any nutritional "discovery" that comes out. There are so many ways to bias study design and cherry-pick data. We're left with the task of experimenting on ourselves and deciding that "this seems to work for ME..."

F.

diamondgeog
01-03-2014, 01:37 PM
That's why I had the last paragraph in my post. I made sure to point out where most of my carbs were coming from. It's important to consider the source

If I didn't apples would be bad, too many carbs. And almonds and avocados would be bad, too much fat.

diamondgeog
01-03-2014, 01:40 PM
But it was vitally important for me to realize, and 10 million posts will not make it less true, that I was and am carb sensitive for many types of carbs.

I could have almost unlimited amounts of whole wheat bread, pasta, potatoes, any kinds of rice. They just made me hungrier.

diamondgeog
01-03-2014, 02:59 PM
I think carb senitvity is typical because of the diabetes explosion in the country, people talking about crashes, hunger, the huge amount of processed carbs consumed in America. Their addictive qualities.

It isn't something more than that. I'd have been an idiot to think my body was unique and not typical and I could consume all those carbs , be 300 lbs, and healthy.

kaplods
01-03-2014, 03:41 PM
But while it's true that diabetes, hunger issues, hypoglycemia, blood sugar crashes, and even obesity have become more common, even widespread, that doesn't mean they are typical. In fact, they are not. They are diseases of the minority. A growing minority, but still a minority nonetheless.

50-60 % of the population is overweight, not 100% (and most are only mildly overweight). Only 30% are obese. Yet, the majority of people are neither obese, nor sick and are not eating low carb.

Besides which, we do not know that a high carb diet comprised of whole food carbs - lots of Omega 3s, whole vegetables and fruits, and whole grains (maybe gluten-free, maybe not) would not reverse all those problems as well or better than low-carb.

You and I have determined that even an excess of fruit or any other "healthy" carbs can trigger problems for us, but we do not know how many people are like us. There's no proff that we're in the majority - in fact there's quite a lot of evidence that the majority is not. The majority is not obese. The majority do not have diabetes. Half are at a healthy weight or under. The majority of Americans do not have heart disease, cancer, or autoimmune disease.

It's possible that the problems are being caused by carb intolerance, but it's also possible they're not even being caused by what we are eating, but by what we aren't eating and/or doing.

It's possible that lack of exercise is a bigger key to obesity, diabetes, hunger, and blood sugar crashes than carbs. It's possible that phytonutrient shortage is the more common contributor. It may be there are dozems of factors in comination.

Maybe a high carb diet can be healthy, but only with lots a exercise or for people of certain genetic types. Maybe grains ate fine, but only when certain other foods are eaten.

We can't label anything typical or attribute it to carb content without knowing more than we do.

Even those of is who think we're carb sensitive may be wrong. Maybe we just haven't tried the right high-carb diet or haven't combined it with the right kind of other foods, exercise, rest, stress reduction, environment...

I know I have not tried every combination or even every high-carb diet in existence. I have never tried raw vegan (or vegan), or vegetarian for very long. I've not tried, juicing, or pescatarian, or fruitarian, or any diet with large amounts of daily cardio exercise. I've never tried a diet high in starches but low in sugar (or vice versa). I've never eaten insects or large amounts of organ meats.
'Ve never tried a diet in which all my food was local and/or homegrown...

And neither has most of the USA's population.

We don't know the effects of these kinds of diet, because we haven't got enough data on any of them.

freelancemomma
01-03-2014, 06:52 PM
But diabetes, hunger issues, hypoglycemia, blood sugar crashes, and even obesity are more common, even widespread, but they are not typical.

Very true. Last November I ate 200 g of Nutella in one sitting and experienced what I assume to be a sugar crash -- I dove into bed and had a long nap -- but it was a novel experience for me. It evidently takes a lot of carbohydrate for me to react this way. When I eat toast, bagels, tortillas -- even sugary desserts in moderation -- I feel just fine.

F.