U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Diet and Weight Loss
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-17-2018, 02:04 AM
 
46 posts, read 26,157 times
Reputation: 132

Advertisements

So tired of people demonizing carbohydrates, especially when they shouldn't be painted with the same brush. Carbohydrates can be some of the unhealthiest food sources (i.e. cotton candy, chocolate cake, white bread), but they can also be some of the healthiest foods on the planet (i.e. fruits, vegetables, beans, legumes). People who are on a "low carb" diet are greatly misinformed.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2018, 06:50 AM
 
Location: Outside US
2,339 posts, read 1,060,409 times
Reputation: 3322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelshih View Post
If you are feeling the weight loss process does not work out as you want Or you do not know what types of carb should be cut to make weight loss easier.

I know many people want to lose weight but they do not know which carbs to cut so their weight loss becomes more difficult
So,If you want a flat belly you should cut back the 4 carbs:
• Whole wheat bread
• Whole-grain pasta
• Bran flakes and other wheat-based “fiber” cereals
• Whole wheat tortillas and wraps

Despite having more fiber than their “white” counterparts, these 4 high-fiber foods are typically overconsumed, and they can destroy your blood sugar and give rapid rise to the fat-storing hormone insulin. In fact, believe it or not, 2 slices of whole wheat bread can raise blood sugar higher than a can of sugar-sweetened soda or even a sugary candy bar.

This is because the wheat of today is nothing like the wheat of generations ago, having been genetically modified by the food industry, mutated, and exposed to industrial toxins and radiation to force an unnatural higher yield at the expense of your health.

These harmful wheat products, although praised by food manufacturers as healthy for their fiber and “whole grain” content, are a major cause of the raging obesity epidemic in western society today. Even more, because they are so rapidly digested, these foods provide virtually no metabolic benefit during digestion, resulting in less than optimal metabolic rates, and ever-expanding bellies worldwide.

⇒The 5 Best Carbs for a Flat Belly:

• Berries and Cherries: Blackberries, blueberries, raspberries, and strawberries
• Mixed Beans : Black beans, dried peas, garbanzo beans, kidney beans, lentils, lima beans, navy beans, pinto beans, and more.
• Quinoa
• Sprouted Grain Bread
• Vegetables : Asparagus,Beets,Bell peppers,Bok choy,Broccoli,Brussels sprouts,Cabbage,Carrots,Cauliflower,Celery,Collard greens,Cucumbers,Eggplant,Fennel,Garlic,Green beans,Kale,Leaks,Mushrooms,Onions,Romaine lettuce,Sea vegetables,Spinach,Squash,Tomatoes,Turnip greens
Chiming in late.

I don't see a link.

If this just an opinion based on adecdotes?

I'm not saying I disagree with everything, just that I don't know where it's coming from.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2018, 08:45 AM
 
Location: McAllen, TX
4,943 posts, read 3,438,861 times
Reputation: 5869
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcass View Post
So tired of people demonizing carbohydrates, especially when they shouldn't be painted with the same brush. Carbohydrates can be some of the unhealthiest food sources (i.e. cotton candy, chocolate cake, white bread), but they can also be some of the healthiest foods on the planet (i.e. fruits, vegetables, beans, legumes). People who are on a "low carb" diet are greatly misinformed.
Not all carbs are demonized, certainly not fruits, vegetables, and legumes as you mentioned. Sugar and Refined carbs are demonized and should be. They are a major cause of health problems in this country.

You have to understand the science behind low carb before you discount it, and it is science. As a weight loss tool, it's very effective. It should also be a lifestyle as to not return to the same bad health. It's about what you use as fuel. You can run on sugar or fat. If you lower your carb intake, protein turns into sugar (glucose) to feed certain cells. It also helps to build and maintain muscle. If you feed your body nothing but sugar and do not burn it off, it will be stored as fat and cause many problems down the road as we are witnessing all around us. Obesity rates are the highest they've ever been.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2018, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
16,336 posts, read 18,310,666 times
Reputation: 14519
Quote:
Originally Posted by gguerra View Post
Not all carbs are demonized, certainly not fruits, vegetables, and legumes as you mentioned. Sugar and Refined carbs are demonized and should be. They are a major cause of health problems in this country.

You have to understand the science behind low carb before you discount it, and it is science. As a weight loss tool, it's very effective. It should also be a lifestyle as to not return to the same bad health. It's about what you use as fuel. You can run on sugar or fat. If you lower your carb intake, protein turns into sugar (glucose) to feed certain cells. It also helps to build and maintain muscle. If you feed your body nothing but sugar and do not burn it off, it will be stored as fat and cause many problems down the road as we are witnessing all around us. Obesity rates are the highest they've ever been.
No, there's no conclusive science behind why a low carb diet is more effective than a balanced or high carb diet. We just don't know that. By that I mean the pathway, not the result.

The results are plain enough. Low carb diets, especially short-term diets and if we look only at those who stick with long-term diets, low carb diets have been shown to do better than low fat diets for weight loss. In meta analysis of longer term diets there's no difference, possibly because more people fall off low carb diets than more balanced diets. But if you're not someone who falls off the diet and sticks with it, they do do better than low fat. That's not the same thing as science showing why low carb tends to work better than low fat for duration of less than a year or if only considering results of people who stick with the diet. That's something we simply do not have a good understanding of.

Diets are often far ahead of science. For example, paleo makes a lot of claims that may be true about modern post-agricultural foodstuff versus pre-agricultural foodstuff where the carbohydrates were mostly loaded with fiber. The science isn't there to support that. It's scientifically plausible and certainly a valid hypothesis, it's just the hypothesis hasn't been sufficiently tested. Results of low carb vs low fat vs balanced are better studied. Less than a year, low carb does better. More than a year, no difference unless you stick to the diet in which case it is. So perhaps low carb is harder to stick with than balanced but beneficial if you do, although that's not well studied. High fat is fine for cardiovascular health although the fat needs to be from healthy sources.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2018, 09:43 PM
 
Location: McAllen, TX
4,943 posts, read 3,438,861 times
Reputation: 5869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
No, there's no conclusive science behind why a low carb diet is more effective than a balanced or high carb diet. We just don't know that. By that I mean the pathway, not the result.

The results are plain enough. Low carb diets, especially short-term diets and if we look only at those who stick with long-term diets, low carb diets have been shown to do better than low fat diets for weight loss. In meta analysis of longer term diets there's no difference, possibly because more people fall off low carb diets than more balanced diets. But if you're not someone who falls off the diet and sticks with it, they do do better than low fat. That's not the same thing as science showing why low carb tends to work better than low fat for duration of less than a year or if only considering results of people who stick with the diet. That's something we simply do not have a good understanding of.

Diets are often far ahead of science. For example, paleo makes a lot of claims that may be true about modern post-agricultural foodstuff versus pre-agricultural foodstuff where the carbohydrates were mostly loaded with fiber. The science isn't there to support that. It's scientifically plausible and certainly a valid hypothesis, it's just the hypothesis hasn't been sufficiently tested. Results of low carb vs low fat vs balanced are better studied. Less than a year, low carb does better. More than a year, no difference unless you stick to the diet in which case it is. So perhaps low carb is harder to stick with than balanced but beneficial if you do, although that's not well studied. High fat is fine for cardiovascular health although the fat needs to be from healthy sources.
The pathway for low carb diets is now well known. It wasn't well known until recently within the last few years from what I can see. As for sustainability, that is up to the individual. I happen to think that as a lifestyle it is very sustainable and so do many others. I personally would never go back to eating high carb. The results of the weight loss you mention in comparing less than a year to more than a year mean nothing in the larger scheme of things. This is not just about weight loss but more importantly about general health.

High Carb Diet
High Carb/Low Fat ->Blood Sugars Spike->Insulin Rises->Body stores energy as glycogen->Insulin signals excess glycogen to be stored as fat

You could interrupt this process using exercise to burn stored glycogen. Once you go through that, you will hit a brick wall so to speak which is why you need to keep refueling. The liver and muscles can only store about 2000 calories at a time. See article at the bottom.

Low Carb Diet
Low Carb/High Fat ->, Blood Sugar remains low->Insulin levels drop->Glycogen levels drop-> Lower insulin signals both dietary and stored fat (ketones) to be used as energy.

You could enhance this process with exercise and intermittent fasting to burn even more fat. The amount of calories stored as fat is much larger although converting it to energy is not as efficient as with carbohydrates.

This article can explain it better than I ever could.
Obesity – Solving the Two-Compartment Problem

This is also interesting.
The Body’s Fuel Sources

Last edited by gguerra; 08-22-2018 at 10:15 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2018, 12:39 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
16,336 posts, read 18,310,666 times
Reputation: 14519
Quote:
Originally Posted by gguerra View Post
The pathway for low carb diets is now well known. It wasn't well known until recently within the last few years from what I can see. As for sustainability, that is up to the individual. I happen to think that as a lifestyle it is very sustainable and so do many others. I personally would never go back to eating high carb. The results of the weight loss you mention in comparing less than a year to more than a year mean nothing in the larger scheme of things. This is not just about weight loss but more importantly about general health.

High Carb Diet
High Carb/Low Fat ->Blood Sugars Spike->Insulin Rises->Body stores energy as glycogen->Insulin signals excess glycogen to be stored as fat

You could interrupt this process using exercise to burn stored glycogen. Once you go through that, you will hit a brick wall so to speak which is why you need to keep refueling. The liver and muscles can only store about 2000 calories at a time. See article at the bottom.
Or you could interrupt it by not overeating. Where do you think protein and fat get stored? (hint: fat). Excess calories only go one place. Fat.

Quote:
Low Carb Diet
Low Carb/High Fat ->, Blood Sugar remains low->Insulin levels drop->Glycogen levels drop-> Lower insulin signals both dietary and stored fat (ketones) to be used as energy.
Same happens on a high carb diet. Throughout the day on a high-carb or low-carb diet you're using stored fats or glycogen as fuel between meals. With high carb the glycogen buffer in the liver gets used more. Either way the key is not overreating. Doesn't really matter if it's cupcakes or bacon. If you're storing more fat than you're burning, you're getting fatter.

You could enhance this process with exercise and intermittent fasting to burn even more fat. The amount of calories stored as fat is much larger although converting it to energy is not as efficient as with carbohydrates.
Quote:
This article can explain it better than I ever could.
Obesity – Solving the Two-Compartment Problem

"So, why can’t you lose weight using the CICO method? Because it is based on the incorrect idea that all calories are equal. When you store food energy (calories), it is stored as sugar (glycogen) in the ‘fridge’ and fat in the ‘freezer’. But you must burn through the sugar first before you can start burning fat.

So, now you want to lose body fat. The first thing you need to do is clear out the sugar in your refrigerator. However, if you are continually filling up your fridge 3-6 times a day with sugar, then you will never start burning the fat in the freezer. The CICO method ignores the two compartment problem and pretends that all calories are stored equally and burned equally (single compartment), even though this has been known to be false for at least 50 years. This is the equivalent of the standard calorie restricted diet of eating 3-6 meals a day with a relatively high carbohydrate (50-60%) content."
Completely false.

The refrigerator almost never runs empty. In sports we call it bonking. I've done it a few times. It's not pleasant. Bonking is hitting the brick wall. Fat alone is a crap source of energy for sustained effort. Until you get some carbs into your system again, you're in limp mode. What actually happens is as the refrigerator starts running low, the body starts going hey the fridge is running low. How about we start using some fat for fuel and trying to conserve the fridge. That happens long before the fridge runs empty.

None the less, as a kindergarten level model it really just is as simple as CICO. If you're putting in 2,000 calories into the fridge and trying to take out 2,100, 100 calories is coming from the freezer (net). If you're putting 1,000 calories in the fridge and 1,000 calories in the freezer and trying to take 2,100 out, 100 calories is coming from the freezer (net). If you're putting in 500 calories into the fridge, 1,500 calories into the freezer and trying to take out 2,100, 100 calories is coming out of the freezer (net). Calories in, calories out.

Quote:
This is also interesting.

The Body’s Fuel Sources
Correct. I actually should have read that first instead of wasting a bunch of time since it contradicts your first link about the refrigerator needing to be empty before the body uses fat.

Last edited by Malloric; 08-24-2018 at 01:11 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2018, 08:57 AM
 
Location: McAllen, TX
4,943 posts, read 3,438,861 times
Reputation: 5869
We'll agree to disagree. These are facts backed up by actual studies. CICO ruins your metabolism and doesn't work for many. That is a FACT. It's also a FACT that low carb/high fat diets work and they improve health substantially, the results speak for themselves. I guess you know more than the scientists? LOL

There are many theories but the only one that makes any sense is it's all related to insulin. Too much insulin makes you gain weight, simple logic would tell you that the absence of it would make you lose weight.

Here's another one.

8 Reasons Why Low-Carb Diets Actually Work

You didn't actually explain why low carb diets work. Care to give your explanation?

Last edited by gguerra; 08-24-2018 at 09:13 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2018, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
16,336 posts, read 18,310,666 times
Reputation: 14519
Quote:
Originally Posted by gguerra View Post
I don't have to argue with you. These are facts backed up by actual studies. CICO ruins your metabolism and doesn't work for many people. That is a FACT. It's also a FACT that low carb/high fat diets work and they improve health substantially, the results speak for themselves. I guess you know more than the scientists? LOL
CICO does not ruin your metabolism. That doesn't even make any sense. We eat calories. We burn calories. That's CICO. If you're not CICO your dead or soon to be dead. If you stop eating, you will die. If you stop burning calories, you're already dead.

It is worth noting that the CICO model is an open model. That is, caloric deficit results in slower metabolism. That's just inevitable. The normal methods of minimizing that are lose weight slowly, lose weight incrementally (eg, a classic 2:5 IF, fast two days, eat five days), and exercise. Diet MAY play a role in that. That could be why low carb diets initially result in more weight loss but then eventually they even out over the longer term. The science isn't fully developed there. We know fasting for 24 hours does slow down your metabolism as well, but does a 2:5 IF that averages 1,500 calories/day (2,100 calories on eating days, 0 on fasting days) slow down your metabolism less than eating 1,500 calories/day? If you have such a study that shows that, by all means. I've never come across one.

I doubt I know more than Jason Fung, author of the refrigerator/freezer model. Why he chooses to use that particular model, I don't know. Maybe commercial interests. Maybe legitimate interest in IF. None the less, I doubt he is unaware that the model is a simplification.

I've used the same principal myself, as have many, many athletes. It's fat adaption. The idea is if you train on a low refrigerator, your body will adapt to that and start looking for fat sooner allowing the refrigerator to last longer in sustained effort. It's nothing new.

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.c....1113/JP273230

If you go about two thirds of the way down to Figure 5, you'll notice that the LCHF group massively increased fat oxidation. So it does work and works quite quickly. On the other hand, the LCHF also was slow. That's not that surprising as oxidizing fat requires more oxygen than oxidizing glucose. So you have to balance the potential benefits of fat adaptation versus that it will hurt your training and performance. The actual science on fat adaption is relatively new. Like diets, however, the practice is not at all. Athletes have been doing it for decades.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2018, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Wine Country
6,011 posts, read 7,435,895 times
Reputation: 11973
Quote:
Originally Posted by gguerra View Post
We'll agree to disagree. These are facts backed up by actual studies. CICO ruins your metabolism and doesn't work for many. That is a FACT. It's also a FACT that low carb/high fat diets work and they improve health substantially, the results speak for themselves. I guess you know more than the scientists? LOL

There are many theories but the only one that makes any sense is it's all related to insulin. Too much insulin makes you gain weight, simple logic would tell you that the absence of it would make you lose weight.

Here's another one.

8 Reasons Why Low-Carb Diets Actually Work

You didn't actually explain why low carb diets work. Care to give your explanation?
Sources please.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2018, 11:17 AM
 
Location: McAllen, TX
4,943 posts, read 3,438,861 times
Reputation: 5869
It doesn't ruin it forever, it will come back in time.

Quote:
So, while we all obsess about reducing ‘Calories In’, it is actually virtually irrelevant for long term weight loss. It’s only ‘Calories Out’ that is important. If you can keep ‘Calories Out’ high, then you have a chance to lose weight. But Caloric Reduction as Primary (neatly abbreviated as CRaP), absolutely will not do it for you. This method is guaranteed to fail. This weight-loss method, in the literature, has a 99% failure rate. In this study, 13 of 14 Biggest Loser contestants failed – a 93% failure rate. Pretty much expected.
The Biggest Loser FAIL and That Ketogenic Study Success
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Diet and Weight Loss
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top