Low Carb Stupidity Vs. Low Carb Intelligence
 

Food for thought!

Article written by Dianne Villano, President of Custom Bodies. Dianne is a personal fitness instructor certified through the National Academy of Sports Medicine and a frequent speaker on health and fitness related topics with articles published in over 20 media outlets including Weight Loss & Obesity Resource Center, Women’s Exercise Network, Self Growth, Gateway to Beauty & Life tools for Women.

I almost posted this in another thread this morning. Going low carb has worked for me. I've had great success BECAUSE WHEN I GO LOW CARB I EAT LESS CALORIES. I can gorge on cakes and cookies and the clories add up quickly. It's not I'm going to get an insatiable craving from grilled chicken beast and broccoli and consume over my limit of calories.

On the flip side, if I truly stuck to low carb I probably wouldn't need to count calories b/c I'd eat less anyway. But it is about calories in vs. calories out.

This makes perfect sense. And of course I believe very much in the second statement. :)

I'm not against low carb per se, I'm against extremism. And that's what this article is poking fun at. I've seen people announce that they are doing only 5-10 percent carbs. On that amount, the brain wouldn't function properly. And that's what people do, they take a concept and think if x is good, xx must be better. Not so.

And I've never heard "low carbers" discuss endurance sports. Exactly how are they going to jog or swim or bike ride on 5% carbs? They can't! I've seen fitness articles say that endurance athletes need 60% carbs. When I bumped mine up from 50% to 60% I saw an increase in my running endurance, along with my daily energy levels. And I kept losing weight. But this is something extreme "low carbers" never seem to address. They have demonized all carbs, even the good ones.

Although there is really no such thing as a "bad" food, there are foods that are bad for you when eaten in large quantities.
Carbohydrates are essential to life, but living on simple carbohydrates alone will (I want to say "kill" but that's a little too dramatic, so I'll go with) harm you.

I agree with Mike, when I focus on lowering my carbohydrate intake I almost always increase my intake of healthier foods, without increasing calories.

You enjoy running. I'm curious as to what % of carbs you can operate efficiently on while maintaining your running.

And yeah, there's no such thing as a "bad food" so long as it's natural, not man made. But like you say, even then it can be consumed, if in the right quantities. ;)

I. love. this. post.

For those whom low carb works, more power to them. I've tried it with miserable results. I stay in the range of 50-55% carbs when I monitor it (I hit 60% or 65% when I don't track), but they are all good carbs (with the exception of a few weaknesses...frozen yogurt, raw sugar in my tea in the morning ;)). I am a huge proponent of fiber and I can't get where I need to get with that without that percentage of carbs...unless I force myself to eat things I hate, so what's the point? My numbers are consistently excellent, so it's apparently not negatively affecting my health to eat them.

My guiding principle has always been to find what works for you personally. You have to live with it for it to work. If it's low carb, that's great. If not, that's great, too...just be honest and don't make obviously dumb choices, like a steady diet of fast food "works for you" :p.

Read a great quote this past week in a book I got from the library..."The best diet is one you don't know you're on."

Someone asked about endurance...
 

I spent about 20 years participating in competitive volleyball, basketball, and softball on 11-15% carbs (all from vegetables and dairy products). It worked for me. My body was leaner, less fat, than many of my competitors, though I was not thin. My endurance we better than those who tanked up on carbs and then crashed. The protein gave me a longer 'burn.' FYI: I began competitive volleyball when each match was 5 games and each game was played to 15 pts--totally earned by the server, not (as it is now) awarded when the other team makes a mistake. I did not run or jog (as exercise) ever, though I (until an ankle injury 2 years ago) could walk 5 miles in 1 hour--which I did daily for years.

I do low carb because it helped stave off diabetes (originally diagnosed with hypoglycemia) for 32 years. Now, when I measure blood glucose (fasting and after meals), I can see an immediate impact whenever I add carbs back in my diet. My body cannot handle wheat or corn--it used to make me fat, now it makes me sick. After the last hospital stay (of 5) last Spring, I don't even try small portions of wheat and corn any more.

The person who wrote the article appears to be ignoring the last 20 years of research. She makes some good points, but the research no longer backs up everything she said. Whether you are a professional in the field or not, you would pretty much have to read every day to keep up with the current body of research.

One of the things that researchers are beginning to say is that our concept of weight loss--eat fewer calories than you use to lose weight--is not valid (by itself) because there are other things that impact weight loss, such as heredity and vitamin deficiency. Also, the researchers say that if 'eat fewer calories than you use' worked, fewer people would be overweight and all diets would work for any person. They don't.

My sister lost 20 lbs on the Fat-Busters Diet, but I gained 1 lb a day on the same diet (I quit after 14 days). My TOPS friend lost 40 lbs on a low-fat diet, but was hungry all the time. I lost 40 pounds on Atkins and was never hungry--and my blood tests came back in the healthy range while hers didn't. Each person's body reacts differently to nutrients--we need to remember that.

Not to argue, and I respect your opinion, but how can one possibly gain weight by eating few calories than they burn? As far as our knowledge of physics has progressed, the perpetual motion machine has yet to be perfected and the notion seems to go against Eienstein's law.

Now, I agree that there is not always, in the short term, a linear relationship between calorie deficit and weight loss, but on average, in the long run, it seems to work out pretty closely. I also agree that different people may lose "faster" with different mixes of nutrients but at the end of the day, if you eat less than you burn, you must lose weight.

Regards,
Michael

I agree with you, Michael. It's a basic law and it stands as such.

To argue against a basic law such as this is like arguing that the sun might not rise tomorrow morning. It's an impossible case to make so why bother. Explain that argument to all the starving people in third world countries who are definitely taking in less calories than they burn; all lose weight.

I could not function on a low carb diet. I'm in the gym 1 1/2 hours a day and ride 120-150 miles a week.
Low carb may work for specific situations but I really dislike the faddism that surrounds "miracle" diets in general.