What's the recommended about of carbs one should eat per day? (overweight, scan)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by william_ns

Listed below for your perusal. Clearly, the research has shown that at low intensities, fat is the primary fuel source. Again, clearly, the research shows that after some intensity there is a crossover point where glycogen becomes the PRIMARY source of fuel.

1. Edward F. Coyle "Substrate Utilization during exercise in active people" Am J Clin Nutr (1995) 61 (suppl): 968S-979S.
2. Eric Hultman "Fuel selection, muscle fibre" Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (1995) 54: 107-121.

Thanks for citing the studies, but neither of these support what you originally claimed. The first study is looking at activity after fasting and that is important detail...when you're fasting your blood glucose levels are low. The situation is much different right after you eat carbohydrates, the body will utilize them regardless of activity level. Carbohydrate metabolism happens fairly rapidly, its either used by the cells, starts to be converted into glycogen or as a last resort converted into fat (which would increase plasma fatty acids). The authors show that after fasting the body will largely run off plasma fatty acids at low intensities, but those plasma fatty acids could have been synthesized from carbohydrates. When you talk about the source of energy in the body you have to remember that carbohydrates can be converted into fatty acids, where as the opposite doesn't occur (fatty acids can't be converted into carbohydrates).

You originally claimed that "Carbs are a fuel source. If you aren't using these carbs they get stored as body fat." and that isn't accurate. Carbohydrates are indeed a fuel source, but the conversion of carbohydrates into body fat is a last resort. First carbohydrates will be used for energy, next they will be stored as glycogen and next they will be converted into plasma fatty acids. The plasma fatty acids may be stored as body fat, or they can be used for energy in which case the carbohydrates will be indirectly used as fuel. So there are a lot of things that can happen between "you don't use the carbs" and "they get stored as body fat", they will only get stored as body fat if your over eating by a pretty large margin.

Originally Posted by william_ns

You spout percentages like everyone's requirements are the same. This couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is each individual's personal requirements are directly linked to their activity level and/or goal.

The numbers I cited already account for individual variation, so for example most people can do fine with less than 10% of protein and many people can do okay with less than 10~15% fat. Though its certainly possible that in some rare cases some people may have different needs, for example someone may poorly convert carbohydrates into fat thus requiring more dietary fat.

You seem to be suggesting that more sedentary people consume higher amounts of fat, but fats are the easiest thing to over-eat due to their high caloric density. On the other hand the foods mentioned in the OP are very difficult to over eat on and contrary to what you've claimed, carbohydrates aren't easily converted into body fat. In fact, its the opposite, the pathway for dietary fats into body fat is almost direct and the body will always prefer to store dietary fats as body fat because its vastly more efficient. When the body converts carbohydrates into fat it loses 30% of the energy, that is why the body always prefers to use carbohydrates for energy (when there is a lot in the bloodstream), next store as glycogen which is very efficient and lastly converted into fatty acids.

Originally Posted by william_ns

However, our body can and does create all necessary glucose through gluconeogenesis which explains why it is not "essential" that we consume it.

This is only partially true, the body can create sufficient glucose from protein to keep the body going short-term. This is necessary to deal with starvation, the body can break down its proteins to create the needed glucose. But the amount of carbohydrates created by gluconeogenesis is very limited, just enough to "get by" short-term. So, yes, technically carbohydrates aren't "essential" in the sense you are referring to....but you're not going to last long without a dietary source of carbohydrates.

[william_ns]

Originally Posted by user_id

Thanks for citing the studies, but neither of these support what you originally claimed. The first study is looking at activity after fasting and that is important detail...when you're fasting your blood glucose levels are low.

By stating "The first study is looking at activity after fasting" it's apparent you only read the abstract of the study and NOT the full text. The full text is 10 pages long and only mentions "fasting" four times.

Originally Posted by user_id

The authors show that after fasting the body will largely run off plasma fatty acids at low intensities, but those plasma fatty acids could have been synthesized from carbohydrates. When you talk about the source of energy in the body you have to remember that carbohydrates can be converted into fatty acids, where as the opposite doesn't occur (fatty acids can't be converted into carbohydrates).

Now you're arguing my point that excess carbs will, directly and indirectly, lead to fat storage?

Originally Posted by user_id

The numbers I cited already account for individual variation, so for example most people can do fine with less than 10% of protein and many people can do okay with less than 10~15% fat. Though its certainly possible that in some rare cases some people may have different needs, for example someone may poorly convert carbohydrates into fat thus requiring more dietary fat.

Rare cases like I want to lose more body fat but my brother wants to gain a bit of muscle? Rare cases like my wife just wants to maintain her current body composition? How about the distance runner? Or the person who can't exercise right now due to injury? Football player? Obese lady that has to lose 150 lbs versus the man next door who has to lose only 20 lbs?

I wouldn't think that all these individuals are THAT rare yet they all have different dietary requirements to achieve their goal.

Originally Posted by user_id

You seem to be suggesting that more sedentary people consume higher amounts of fat, but fats are the easiest thing to over-eat due to their high caloric density.

It all depends on that sedentary person's goal. I would never make blanket statements and/or percentages for all individuals. There are far too many factors to take under consideration to be fair.

Originally Posted by user_id

contrary to what you've claimed, carbohydrates aren't easily converted into body fat.

Allow me to be more clear. Excess carbs can PROMOTE fat storage, indirectly and directly. Excess carbs first will force your body to store the fat you eat as body fat. Excess carb intake means carb oxidation is raised while simultaneously impairing fat oxidation (fat burning).

So lower the fats down to your 10% recommendation, right? Wrong. As we get closer to and around that 10% mark, the body ramps up de novo lipogenesis. <--- the process in which carbs are DIRECTLY converted to fat.

Originally Posted by user_id

In fact, its the opposite, the pathway for dietary fats into body fat is almost direct and the body will always prefer to store dietary fats as body fat because its vastly more efficient.

Are you suggesting that all the fat we eat is directly converted into body fat 100% of the time?

Originally Posted by user_id

This is only partially true, the body can create sufficient glucose from protein to keep the body going short-term. This is necessary to deal with starvation, the body can break down its proteins to create the needed glucose. But the amount of carbohydrates created by gluconeogenesis is very limited, just enough to "get by" short-term. So, yes, technically carbohydrates aren't "essential" in the sense you are referring to....but you're not going to last long without a dietary source of carbohydrates.

You mention "short-term" as though at some point it doesn't work any more? As though gluconeogenesis stops at some point? Not true.

The reason gluconeogenesis (GNG) slows down (GNG never halts completely) is because ketosis kicks in and ketones are created for fuel not because we must now eat carbs. As GNG slows down, our body creates ketones and then uses those ketones as fuel. The body doesn't NEED dietary carbs at this point because GNG never halts completely. It never halts because the brain still needs a bit of glucose to function. The human body is very smart.

You then say "you're not going to last long without a dietary source of carbohydrates". What does "last long" mean? Will we die? No, we won't, otherwise carbs would be "essential".

Yes, glucose is created to just enough to "get by" because that is all our body needs for survival.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by william_ns

By stating "The first study is looking at activity after fasting" it's apparent you only read the abstract of the study and NOT the full text. The full text is 10 pages long and only mentions "fasting" four times.

huh? The number of times it mentions "fasting" doesn't matter, what matters it that they were looking at individuals after fasting.

Originally Posted by william_ns

Now you're arguing my point that excess carbs will, directly and indirectly, lead to fat storage?

No, I said that the idea that carbohydrates are either used for energy or stored as fat is not accurate, a lot happens in between those two. Any macro-nutrient if consumed in excess will lead to fat storage sooner or later, but excess carbohydrates are the least likely to end up as body fat. That is because its more efficient for the body to use them for energy or store them as glycogen.

Originally Posted by william_ns

Rare cases like I want to lose more body fat but my brother wants to gain a bit of muscle? Rare cases like my wife just wants to maintain her current body composition? How about the distance runner...

No, rare cases like genetic diseases. Anybody with a normal functioning body (doing what normal people do) can subsist on 10% protein and 10~15% fat, as I mentioned before there are numerous societies that do this. 100's of millions of people. None of the cases you are mentioning would require more fat or more protein, though I suppose if you want to be obese you could eat a diet of 30~40% fat, 15~20% protein and 40~55% carbohydrates like most Americans.

Originally Posted by william_ns

Allow me to be more clear. Excess carbs can PROMOTE fat storage, indirectly and directly. Excess carbs first will force your body to store the fat you eat as body fat.

And to say it again, excess of anything will promote fat storage. Insulin, among other things, tells your fat cells to uptake fatty acids from the blood stream. Good thing too, you'd die otherwise. But if you're only consuming 10~15% fat there isn't much fat to uptake also the response is proportional to the amount of insulin. So the worse combination is a diet that is high in fat and high in sugars that spike your blood sugar (and hence insulin levels), a high carbohydrate diet composed of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits and nuts won't spike your blood sugar.

Originally Posted by william_ns

Are you suggesting that all the fat we eat is directly converted into body fat 100% of the time?

By no means, just that when there is excess energy (calories) its the first thing to be converted into body fat. If you're not over-eating fat will be utilized for energy and used in cellular development.

Originally Posted by william_ns

You mention "short-term" as though at some point it doesn't work any more? As though gluconeogenesis stops at some point? Not true.

I mention short-term because the body will start to break down on a zero carbohydrate diet.

[william_ns]

Originally Posted by user_id

huh? The number of times it mentions "fasting" doesn't matter, what matters it that they were looking at individuals after fasting.

It matters because if you had read the 11 page study and NOT just the abstract you wouldn't have stated what you did then or what you're stating now. That was my point. The study in question mentions "Fasting" in the abstract but in the full text it then talks about sugar feedings during the hour before exercise (not fasting), carbohydrate ingestion during the 6 hours before exercise (not fasting), types of carbs to ingest during that 6 hour period (not fasting), and carb intake during exercise.

I've spent enough time going back and forth. Enjoy your evening sir.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by william_ns

The study in question mentions "Fasting" in the abstract but in the full text it then talks about sugar feedings during the hour before exercise (not fasting), carbohydrate ingestion during the 6 hours before exercise (not fasting), types of carbs to ingest during that 6 hour period (not fasting), and carb intake during exercise.

Yep it does, but you seem to be forgetting what you claimed. You claimed that the body doesn't utilize much carbohydrates when your heart rate is below 130, that isn't supported by the sugar feedings you're citing. The fact that the body starts to use more glucose for energy when physical activity increases is well know and what the text is discussing is well known to any athlete, namely carb loading. I'm not disputing any of that, what I'm disputing is your claim that the body won't use carbohydrate for energy if your heart rate is below 130. That isn't accurate, your body will use carbohydrates whenever they are available in the blood-stream but when fasting (or even if its been a few hours after you've last consumed carbohydrates) the body will start to rely on fats....but as your physical activity increases your body will start to release the glucose stored in your glycogen. All that means is that your body will conserve your glycogen and use fats instead at low levels of physical activity, that makes a great deal of sense because glycogen is what gives your body a quick boosts of energy. As the article shows, the oxidation of fats is too slow to supply energy at high levels of physical activity.

If you're claim was true people consuming diets of ~10% fat would all be dropping dead, but they don't. Furthermore, when both glucose and fatty acids are in ample supply it would be rather sub-optimal to utilize the fats for energy and store the carbohydrates as fat.

[Opsimathia]

(replies in bold)

Originally Posted by user_id

The protein numbers aren't minimums, they are averages for adults and already have a "safety margin" built into them. That is, most people need less. I cited those numbers to show that the USDA recommendations are consist with what I said, namely, that protein should be around 10% of diet. A large muscular male is going to need more than 54 grams, but he is also going to consume more than 2,000 calories. You can calculate protein intake by your lean body mass, or as a percent of calories. It works out to roughly the same thing because people with higher lean body mass consume more calories. So your claim that 10% is too low isn't accurate, that figure is even consist with the USDA recommendations.

This would not cover me for protein needs. If I was going by the restricted intake it definitely would not cover my needs. I am not a large guy and wouldn't need over 2000 calories and that is where I or anyone on a a lower calorie diet would run into a problem. (1200 calories is a basic diet number you can check )


Its not that strange, the USDA is heavily controlled by US food businesses where as the WHO is more neutral. The USDA recommendations are so vague that they allow for a junk food diet of pizza, candy bars, etc.

No they don't? Those all have limits due to being processed,unhealthy fats or sugar.


I'm not sure what you want to read about, but in regards to the safety of low fat intakes there are many societies that consume only ~10% fat. But there are also clinical studies in the US, some doctors have been treating heart disease with very low-fat diets for decades. For example, Dr. Ornish and Dr. Esselstyn. So there is strong evidence that fat intakes as low as ~10% are indeed safe, not only safe but seem to greatly reduce your risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, etc.

I agree there are certain body types that do better with the low fat. Perhaps the lowered protein too. Unfortunately I am not one of them. I think everyone has to sort of take into account where there family tree is from. Protein and fat helps the body feel full, helps the body absorb vitamins (fat) and protein intake helps support muscle (not overdone as it does get to that point). Protein also helps the body process carbs.


One thing that should be noted though, societies that consume ~10% fat aren't eating sugary processed foods. Nor are the people in those clinical studies. They are getting their carbohydrates from whole foods, whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables. A very low fat diet rich in refined sugars and refined carbohydrates may have much different health outcomes.

Processed foods and too much sugar or unhealthy fats are what I have read and feel are the biggest health killer of all. I have to think more than us finding out our own levels of fat and protein that work for the individual, avoided excess consumption of refined products and a diet too high in sugar is good for everyone. They do eat a lot of white rice which is a refined carb.


Was there something else you wanted sources on?

I want to know where livestrong got that calorie number! LOL. I guess I can look around.


I have no idea where they got that number and there is no citation (livestrong.com isn't an accurate source of information), perhaps its including children? Though the Okinawans are known to have a calorie restricting diet and that may have something to do with their high life expectancy. But I mentioned them in relation to fat intake, I'm not recommending people eat like that. They show that very very low fat intakes are possible, their fat intake was just 6% and I'm claiming that as low as 10~15% is healthy and safe.

Safe for Okinawan. Thats just something I want to point out. We have to look at the ethnic links in these failures and successes. Especially when dealing with cultures that have survived hardships.
Nature will find a way!

I think people can try it but they should clear it with a doctor as any extreme diet can come with risks.

With the low fat high carb diet like the Okinawan there is also the risk of developing diabetes from overworking your system to process the carbs.

They do have a higher amount of diabetics:
Is it Possible to Eat Too Little Fat? (with picture)
Study: Diabetics in Asia Are Younger, Thinner - TIME
More white rice, more diabetes risk : Disease Proof


Another ancient diet that came to light again was the Mediterranean diet.Which is a fat friendly one. It came to light after mummies had signs of heart disease when eating a similar diet. Then you have to ask was it the diet? Or sitting on your butt (as royals do)? Inbreeding maybe (they did that too).
And just thinking about the recent study that made me laugh because its probably true...sitting around all day and not being active is worse for your health than smoking.

But people have improved their blood-work with that fat friendly diet just as they have with a lowered fat one. I just think that it may be a little better to have a little extra protein when your goal is weight loss because your calories are lower, it helps you stay full and damage from too low of a protein intake can not always be reversed.

[Octa]

So by green carbs you mean complex carbs? I have a vague understanding of how they work and only know that they spend more time in your digestive system and your body burns more calories attempting to digest than compared to simple carbs. The only carb in my diet that I am concerned about are the carbs from lentils and beans since I eat those almost every day. Over the past week I've only had a couple handfuls of oats and I've only ate about half of the loaf of whole wheat bread I have.


Another question that was prompted by some things you guys have been saying: Why is it that complex carbs can be eaten at much more higher amounts than simple? When I see people who have a bit more than average fat, especially skinny people, I assume they probably consume meals that full of carbs since carbs happen to be cheap and easy to make. So things like pastas, cereals, chips, cheap beer, etc.... Fats and sugars are another thing I assume as well, but take second and third place in their diet to carbs.

[william_ns]

Originally Posted by Octa

So by green carbs you mean complex carbs? I have a vague understanding of how they work and only know that they spend more time in your digestive system and your body burns more calories attempting to digest than compared to simple carbs. The only carb in my diet that I am concerned about are the carbs from lentils and beans since I eat those almost every day. Over the past week I've only had a couple handfuls of oats and I've only ate about half of the loaf of whole wheat bread I have.

I'm sorry, I meant to say "green veggies" not "green carbs" They are broccoli, cucumber, salad, spinach, asparagus (although not "green")... veggies like that.

Please understand, my advice is not dogma I shout from the mountain top as the ONLY way to achieve a goal. MY advice is only what I've studied and applied on myself and many, many others successfully with body composition goals in mind.

The green veggies above are fibrous so, as you allude to, they sometimes take more energy to digest than they consist of. The so called "negative" calorie food.

Originally Posted by Octa

Another question that was prompted by some things you guys have been saying: Why is it that complex carbs can be eaten at much more higher amounts than simple? When I see people who have a bit more than average fat, especially skinny people, I assume they probably consume meals that full of carbs since carbs happen to be cheap and easy to make. So things like pastas, cereals, chips, cheap beer, etc.... Fats and sugars are another thing I assume as well, but take second and third place in their diet to carbs.

You seem to be describing "skinny" fat people. My take on the matter is they don't eat enough protein and healthy fats to maintain their muscle mass, so they lose it. They also don't lift weights which also helps us maintain our muscle at the least. We all have "X" amount of muscle which requires "X" amount of protein & fats to maintain. When we don't eat that "X" amount and/or we don't eat enough daily calories or lift weights, we lose muscle.

Couple that with the intake of the foods you just mentioned (i.e.pastas, cereals, chips, ...) and their "fat burning" ability is blunted because our body will use carbs for fuel if they're in our blood stream first (actually, there's an order of fuel substrate our body will use preferentially (1-alcohol 2-glucose 3-amino acids 4-bodyfat)). So, the more carbs in our system the less fats our body will use for fuel. And vice versa.

I've noticed the same on people as they hit 30 or 40 years of age. It's easy to say "our metabolism slows down" as we age but it would be much better if we understood why or what that really means. My thought is after years of under eating protein and healthy fats we lose muscle and every year it gets worse and worse. Then factor in at 30 or so a man's natural hgh levels lower as well as their testosterone levels simultaneous with our estrogen levels rising.

Our metabolism basically is how much muscle we have and how efficient our inner organs work. Increasing your muscle will also increase your metabolism. Eating foods that digest slowly will also increase your metabolism. Meats and healthy fats being the most prominent.

[sacredgrooves]

I am not getting involved in the pissing match, but I will give details on my diet/nutrition and how it worked for me.
I am a 40 year old 6'2 male, and was 247 lbs over the holiday season. I used to eat a 300-500 grams of carbs per day. I went into Primal/Paleo style eating at the beginning of the year with a macro ratio of 15% carb, 30% protein, and 55% fat give or take a few percentages per day with calories in the 1200-1500 per day range. I currently weight 201 lbs. I cut out grains, dairy, sugar and the fat has literally fallen right off of me, as well as having significantly more energy. I have lost virtually nothing in strength or muscle mass (I have a naturally muscular build and ripped I would weight about 190). When I reach my final weight goal I will increase carbs to 100-150 grams a day and keep them there to maintain my weight. I am done with grains and sugar, but may introduce a little dairy back in on a trial basis. The food pyramid can kiss my rear. All it did was lead me to being overweight, under-nourished, and low on energy. Get your carbs from veggies and limited fruit for a month and see how uch better you feel.

[william_ns]

^^^^ lol@pissing match. Some people can be so dogmatic regarding diet, I tell ya!

Ive found what works for me just as you have for yourself!

Congrats on your fat loss success story! Keep it up!