Low Carb Stupidity Vs. Low Carb Intelligence
Food for thought!
Low Carb Stupidity Vs. Low Carb Intelligence:
Making The Most Of Your Low Carb Food By: Dianne Villano, CPFI Low carb stupidity: Believing that carrots, bananas, or tomatoes are fattening because they’re high on the glycemic index and because a popular fad diet book says so. (Editor's note: The glycemic index is important, but don't make it everything while ignoring other problems--read on.) Low carb intelligence: Have Americans lost any remaining grip with common sense? With an average banana coming in at 120 calories, do you really think that this yellow, nutrient-dense, low-calorie, all-natural, straight-out-of-the-ground fruit is going to make you fat? Compare that to the average serving of salad dressing, which clocks in at over 160 calories with absolutely no redeeming nutritional value. Perhaps carrots, bananas and tomatoes have 5-10 more calories per serving than broccoli or cucumbers, but try them against a “low carb bar,” which clocks in at typically over 200 calories! Low carb stupidity: Believing calories don't count, if you just count carb grams. Didn’t we go through this years ago when we were a nation of “fat gram” counters? Low carb intelligence: 1. Knowing that fat loss or gain always did and always will boil down to the fact that if you eat more than you burn, you will gain weight. If you eat fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. 2. Taking the time to understand the caloric value of the foods that you are eating. 3. Learning to eat appropriate SINGLE servings instead of “supersizing” everything. 4. Keeping a food journal and taking some time to preplan and avoiding mindless “boredom” or “stress” eating. 5. Knowing that low-carb versions of comfort foods--bread, pasta, and ice cream--often contain more fat and calories than regular versions Low carb stupidity: Carbohydrates make you fat, protein makes you lose weight. We all know who started this one! People have somehow gotten it into their heads that weight gain is all about the carb grams, not the calories. People who quote this myth won't touch a potato (100 calories, 0g fat), but then proceed to eat a 16oz steak for dinner (915 calories, 57g fat). They'll refuse the hamburger bun (120 calories, 2g fat) but take an extra meat patty to make up for it (500 calories, 32g fat). Low carb intelligence : 1. Realizing that If you eat more than you burn you will get fat, regardless of the source. 2. Realizing that if you eat less, you will lose weight. 3. Knowing that some people on low-carb diets do lose weight initially, but this is due primarily to the fact that they have cut overall calories or have lost an abundance of water and lean tissue (muscle, bone, blood vessel mass, and possibly even organ tissue). 4. Understanding that overdosing on protein and cutting out carbohydrates does not equal successful weight loss. It does, however, mean missing out on vital nutrients from healthy carbohydrate foods that should be part of any well-balance diet. If you're considering a low-carb diet, remember to count your calories and nutrients first. |
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. |
Originally Posted by 01gt4.6
(Post 66779)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by RunbikeSki
(Post 66787)
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. |
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny
(Post 67243)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny
(Post 67243)
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.
Today, we live in a society of lazy people. I think we can all agree that the number of overweight/obese people has grown over the years. 20 years ago kids use to go out and play, now they sit inside and play video games (consuming more calories than they burn). Same thing can be said for adults. So I think it's safe to say that as a whole, we (society in general) consume a bigger surplus of calories than we did 20 years ago, which is a DIRECT reason for there being more overweight/obese people than ever. |
Originally Posted by handcycle2005
(Post 67251)
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. |
Originally Posted by VitoVino
(Post 67250)
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. |
PS: One of the things I read was a 30 page compilation of about 150 studies done over the last 30 years. It included studies on starvation (such as refugee camps), anorexia, and other eating disorders--where, at some point, the weight loss stopped, but the shutdown of vital organs continued. It was very interesting...
|
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny
(Post 67256)
PS: One of the things I read was a 30 page compilation of about 150 studies done over the last 30 years. It included studies on starvation (such as refugee camps), anorexia, and other eating disorders--where, at some point, the weight loss stopped, but the shutdown of vital organs continued. It was very interesting...
At the point where the weight loss stopped even though they burned more calories than they ate in the situations you are referencing the people were starving. There is a huge difference between starvation and trying to lose weight. And their organs continued to shutdown. They probably couldn't weigh any less because that was the weight of their skeleton, skin & organs. |
Originally Posted by VitoVino
(Post 67253)
What % of carbs do you take in, HC? Like I said, 55-60% seems to work for me with my cardio workouts. Do you get the same? Have you noticed if you don't get enough carbs that it effects your endurance?
Protein runs around 10%, fat 20% Edited to add: Yes, my performance suffers without enough carbs. |
Originally Posted by VitoVino
(Post 66789)
You enjoy running. I'm curious as to what % of carbs you can operate efficiently on while maintaining your running.
;) As I've been told, most average atheletes only store about 30 minutes of glycogen in muscles and a bit more in the liver (HC you can probably chime in on this). After 30 minutes of continued aerobic work, the body starts switching over to the fat reserves, but the conversion of tri-glycerides to glucose is not as efficient as burning the glycogen stores, thus you eventually tire. In any event, if you don't eat much after your run, your body will continue to work off the fat reserves to restore glycogen. Training does many things, among them is improving that efficiency at extracing glucose from fat. No doubt, some people are physiologically better at adapting to low carb diets than others. That's the basis behind "eating according to blood type". An interesting concept, but LOTS more research needs to be done.
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny
(Post 67243)
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 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. 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. Volleyball, it would appear that you have a gluten intolerance, which is a complicating factor in the carb vs no carb debate. I would agree that some diets work better for one person than it does for another. Part of that is that "the best diet is the one you can stick to". If you are not much of a carnivore doing paleo just won't work for you. But I also think that there is a hereditary component to food tolerences and metabolism. And as a number of us post menapausal-types can tell you metabolic rates definitely change with time and age.
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny
(Post 67255)
And, at a certain point, they stop losing and stay the same--even though their calorie intake continues to be much less than they use. Some of the recent studies were done using that type of information.
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny
(Post 67256)
PS: One of the things I read was a 30 page compilation of about 150 studies done over the last 30 years. It included studies on starvation (such as refugee camps), anorexia, and other eating disorders--where, at some point, the weight loss stopped, but the shutdown of vital organs continued. It was very interesting...
The whole starvation below 1200 calories is a protective guideline that the AMA has adopted - according to my diet doc. As with all medical guidelines its goal is to be as protective of the "average" person as possible. Unfortunetly the "average" person doesn't really exist, so for me his recommendation was closer to 1000 cals which worked just fine - as long as I could maintain it :D. 1000 cal ain't much food. |
Glycogen stores are generally enough for 2-3 hours of running depending on training volume, running speed, running efficiency and a number of other factors. Hence "hitting the wall" at around twenty miles in a marathon.
The average athlete store between 300-450 grams with highly trained endurance athletes having levels as high as 750 grams. With training, the % of fat to carbs burned can improve some(along with in-race feeding of carbs) thus enabling runners to complete a marathon without depleting. Only a tiny percentage of fat can be converted to glucose(<10%) which accounts for the abrupt slowdown that accompanies hitting the wall. Fuel cannot be burned fast enough to go faster. Protein can be converted to glucose more easily but not as well as carbs so a high protein diet could provide enough though it can be hard on the kidneys for some. RbS, vegetarian sources of protein are generally high in carbs as well. Has your friend really totaled up what she's getting? It's not a bad thing as she would be getting complex carbs rather than simple carbs or refined sugar. |
Originally Posted by handcycle2005
(Post 67269)
RbS, vegetarian sources of protein are generally high in carbs as well. Has your friend really totaled up what she's getting? It's not a bad thing as she would be getting complex carbs rather than simple carbs or refined sugar.
|
Originally Posted by RunbikeSki
(Post 67295)
HC, yeah, I know what you mean. But, she is very small, so over all intake is pretty low to begin with and she leans towards a lot of eggs and whey powder shakes (too many IMO - but I'm not her). I've seen her equivalent to FD and I don't really know how she does it... but she does.
Someone that small will burn fewer calories per mile. Also effort level is a factor-running at 65% of MHR will use a higher percentage of fat for energy that running tempo at 85% so fewer carbs are needed to fuel endurance training. |
All times are GMT -12. The time now is 09:59 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.