Low Carb Talibans

Monday, February 2, 2009

Low Carb Talibans

3:07 AM | Posted by Unknown |

I subscribe to the idea, that the best diet is the one you can maintain in the long run.

For me personally, this entails intermittent fasting and a cyclic approach of higher/lower carbs, plenty of protein and low/moderate fat. My main focus lies on high quality foods, with nutritious and satiating properties, and not discrimination towards a particular macronutrient.

I don't believe there is any magic to be had when one is excluding fat or carbs from their diet. Both have their place. However, there are people that subscribe to a completely different set of opinions.

After watching the documentary Religulous
(melding of "religion" and "ridiculous) yesterday, it dawned upon me how much some religious fundamentalists have in common with certain nutritional fundamentalists. In recent years, I have seen the rise of one group in particular. I prefer to call them the low carb talibans.

When I am using the term 'fundamentalist' here, I am using it to characterize religious advocates that cling to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence - I am not talking about religious people in general, and I don't have anything against them.

1. Religious fundamentalists believe in supernatural beings. Low carb talibans believe you can get fat without a positive energy balance, if you eat carbs.

Similar to the anti-fat proponents 15-20 years ago, we now have one group of people blaming one particular macronutrient as the sole reason for why people are getting fatter.

2. Religious fundamentalists base their beliefs on faith, not empirical evidence. Low carb talibans believe that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity; the most jaded lot believe that you can eat an unlimited amount of fat, without weight gain, as long as carbs are excluded from the diet.

The 'rationale' behind this claim, is that the body can’t store fat without insulin (it can). Carbs equals insulin, and that means ditching carbs must mean no fat storage (wrong). They conveniently ignore that

a) eating protein produce insulin
b) fat stores itself with tremendous efficiency without insulin, due to a nifty little thing called acylation-stimulating protein (ASP).

3. Religious fundamentalists believe that forces of evil hide amongst us, trying to lead us into temptation and wrongdoing. Low carb talibans belive that carbs and insulin are to blame for obesity.

We live in an obesogenic environment; we lead sedentary lives and we are surrounded by easily obtainable foods with high energy density. High carb, high fat foods which taste great, and are extremely easy to overconsume. That people gain weight in such a setting is no great mystery, yet the low carbs talibans likes to make it out to be. It is the carbs specifically that made you fat, not that peanut butter jar you went through watching tv last night. Yes, that seems to make sense.

4. Religious fundamentalists believe there is only one way, and all other faiths are heretic. Low carb talibans tries to push their beliefs on others and will seldom accept alternative views.

More than one time, I have seen the talibans make the most ludicrous claims about their approach, often not accepting the fact that some people actually function better on a higher carb approach, and that people involved in anaerobic sports actually need them to perform better.

5. Religious fundamentalists do not accept current ideas of the creation of earth or human evolution, rather they make up their own stories of how we came to be here. Low carb talibans make up their theories regarding human metabolism.

Here's a quick primer on how it works.

Dietary fat is stored easily as body fat without the presence of carbs or insulin.

Fat metabolism increase when fat intake is increased, but it is primarly dietary fats that are burned off, not fat stored in adipose tissue. For the latter to occur, energy balance needs to be negative. Energy can't just disappear and an excess is stored*

When carbs are consumed, metabolism switches to glucose dependence; that is, while carbs do not get converted to fat**, they do inhibit fat metabolism to a point where dietary fats are more readily stored.

One can say that overconsuming dietary fat leads to fat storage through a direct mechanism, while overconsuming carbs leads to fat storage through an indirect mechanism, through blunting of fat metabolism/lipolysis. Either way you cut it, the key point is that energy balance is the main determinant for fat storage, or fat loss.

* carbs can only be converted to fat by a process called de novo lipogenesis (DNL). This metabolic pathway is very ineffective in humans and in studies it only comes into play during massive carbohydrate overfeeding. How come people still got fat from eating all those low fat foods back when low fat was the craze? Well, the body has the ability to upregulate key enzymes involved in the DNL pathway, making carb to fat conversion more efficient. And this occurs on high carb/low fat diets. So, there is no tricking the body from gaining weight during caloric excess by excluding fat or carbs from the diet.

** metabolism does increase a bit when energy consumption is increased; just a few percentages, nothing drastic (called 'luxusconsumption' or adaptve thermogenesis by some scientists). Ironically, this effect is greatest when the extra energy is provided from carbs, not fat.

Why low carb really works

I have extensive experience with all forms of low carb/ketogenic diets. I’ve done them all, the traditional standard ketogenic diet, the cyclical and the targeted ketogenic diet. I've come to the following conclusions:

1. There is a mild hunger blunting effect on ketogenic diets, which may help intially. This has to be weighed against the deprived feeling you get from not consuming carbs and the decrease in performance during weight training. This can be partially amended by doing a cyclical ketogenic diet (CKD) or a targeted ketogenic diet (TKD), where you either carb load through the weekend or consume carbs in conjunction with workouts.

2. Making the diet highly restrictive, in terms of completely cutting out one macronutrient, may help with adherance. It certainly takes away the hedonic aspect of eating.

Studies actually show that diets which allow ad libitum intake of protein and fat, usually leads to a spontaenous reduction of calorie intake. Cutting out carbs from the equation may be a sound approach for the average joe, who's idea of carbs are in the form of cereal and white bread. IME, you're less likely to binge on egg omelettes and ham, as opposed to chicken and pasta.

3. When people start eating low carb and lose weight, it is partially because they start eating more protein than on their past (failed) diet approaches. Protein leads to better satiety than any other macronutrient. There's also the issue of being forced to make sound food choices overall, such as increasing veggie intake to make up most of your carb intake in order to stay below the threshold (max 50 g carbs/day usually).

4. And of course, there is also the insulin sensitivity/resistance factor to consider. Some people do in fact feel better on ketogenic/low carb diets, for physiological, not behavioral, reasons. No energy dips, hunger pangs and so forth. ***

*** However, as I see it, people have a tendency to draw the conclusion that they need to follow a low carb approach without having visited the middle road. I've had some clients that were convinced they could only do well on low carbs - and it turned out they did just as well, if not better, when I incorporated veggies, fruit and berries as their main carb source. The middle road, with a minimum of refined carbs, is very workable for most people that label themselves as 'insulin resistant'.

Anyway, rant over.

For an unbiased guide to ketogenic diets, free from voodoo science and 'make believe' physiology, I urge you to check out The Ketogenic Diet, by Lyle McDonald. My review is here.

Labels: Articles, Low Carb Diets, Miscellaneous

243 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 243 of 243 Newer› Newest»

Unknown said...: Hail,

'a) Protein is a glucagonic as it is insulinogenic, so wouldnt that mean that these two metabolic effects cancel each other?'

Protein is insulinogenic and raises glucagon which triggers the liver to release more glucose. Else you'd go hypoglycemic.

'b) The insulinogenic effect of carbs will prevent hormone sensitive lipase (HSL), a major mechanism in breaking down and using fats, so wouldnt that imply therefore that low(er) carb diets do provide a benefit to fat loss?
'
You'll burn more fatty acids if you omitt carbs from your diet, but you're also eating more dietary fat so it's not like you're burning BODYFAT by omitting carbs unless you're eating less calories on the whole.; February 18, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Hailtotheking said...: Great thanks for the reply Martin.

I think your emphasis on calories as being the major determinant is spot on. So, based on your response, would a low carb, low calorie day (i.e non-workout day), burn more fat than a high carb, low calorie day, due to less HSL inhibition on lower carbs?

Thanks; February 22, 2010 at 6:55 AM
Unknown said...: Assuming everything else is constant, no.

1500 kcal, 20% protein, 60% cho, 20% fat

vs

1500 kcal, 20% protein, 20% cho, 60% fat

Assuming this will create an energy deficit, these two examples will lead to the same fat deficit at the end of the day.

The difference being more dietary fat is being oxidized and consumed in the second example, and less dietary fat oxidized/consumed in the second example.; February 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Marc said...: I gained weight easily on high fat/low carb diet, I found that high fat foods are easy to overeat, leading to me being hungry a lot of the time, I could eat 3,000 cals easy, with a good deal of it coming from peanut butter and cheese. I still eat low carb for digestion reasons and prefer high fat foods to high carb, but try to get more protein now, so more of a protein fat balance, I'm a firm believer in calories in calories out, I track cals and all that to make sure I know how it's all going well, I am not a member of the low carb taliban :-); February 23, 2010 at 10:05 AM
Hailtotheking said...: Great cheers for that Martin. So basically, the raised HSL levels on a higher fat, lower carb diet only serve to oxidise the higher levels of fat you would be consuming, not bodyfat.; February 23, 2010 at 11:26 AM
cubby said...: Great read. I hadn't come across this blog post before. I enjoyed the comments as well. I have one question, though: How much value do you put in the high TEF of protein compared to the other macronutrients. Seeing at the TEF is around 25-30% according to most sources, and that to be stored as fat, it must be inefficiently converted, many put a value on protein, especially when striving for a positive or negative energy balance. I noticed you kept mentioning that manipulating macronutrient ratios basically has no body composition advantage, so long as protein remains constant. Do you think striving for protein levels beyond what can possibly be used for protein synthesis has any advantages? I've recently went from 1g/lb to 1.5g/lb and have been happy with the results, but am not one much for isolated, anecdotal evidence, even when it comes from myself; the placebo effect and perception are quite strong.; February 23, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Unknown said...: Marc,

'I gained weight easily on high fat/low carb diet, I found that high fat foods are easy to overeat, leading to me being hungry a lot of the time, I could eat 3,000 cals easy, with a good deal of it coming from peanut butter and cheese.'

Same experience. What worked for me was keeping veggie intake very high (fibrous veggies like broccolli) and have most fat/protein coming from fattier cuts of meat. I find it way too easy to overeat standard low carb fare such as cheese, nuts and peanut butter.; February 24, 2010 at 7:19 AM
Unknown said...: Hail,

'Great cheers for that Martin. So basically, the raised HSL levels on a higher fat, lower carb diet only serve to oxidise the higher levels of fat you would be consuming, not bodyfat.'

In a nutshell, yes.; February 24, 2010 at 7:20 AM
Unknown said...: Cubby,

'Seeing at the TEF is around 25-30% according to most sources, and that to be stored as fat, it must be inefficiently converted, many put a value on protein, especially when striving for a positive or negative energy balance. '

Yes. A researcher named Livesey proposed that protein should be counted at 3.2 kcal/g and not 4 kcal due to factors like high TEF.

'Do you think striving for protein levels beyond what can possibly be used for protein synthesis has any advantages?'

Absolutely. One major advantage is during dieting in order to prevent muscle catabolism, and another one is due to the satiating effect. Protein is superior to both carbs and fat in this regard. I keep protein high even when I'm maintaining. Keeping protein amped up beyond the generic 1 g/lb body weight is a good way to maintain very low bodyfat levels without feeling deprived or hungry.; February 24, 2010 at 7:27 AM
ProSkiller said...: Which macronutrient percentages do you recommend for dieting and bulking?; March 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Unknown said...: Depends. I'm saving all the nitty gritty for the book.; March 20, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Somatotropina said...: Being an advocate of high fat/low carb diets I have to say that there is no magical diet where you can eat all you want and keep getting leaner (actually there are some helfpul tools). I recommend anyone that wants to understand what happens in your body, read the following paper: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-4-27.pdf.

Because we are not discusing the HEALTH benefits of LCKD, having the "feeling" that you are eating as much as you want until you are full is a strong argument in favor of LCKD for aesthetic reasons.; June 7, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Unknown said...: "1500 kcal, 20% protein, 60% cho, 20% fat vs 1500 kcal, 20% protein, 20% cho, 60% fat

Assuming this will create an energy deficit, these two examples will lead to the same fat deficit at the end of the day."

I see your point, and I basically agree ... for healthy persons. But if we consider a person who has hyperinsulinemia (Syndrome X / pre-diabetic), which is actually not unrealistic for overweight people, wouldn't it be possible that the high-carb diet - by exacerbating the elevated insulin levels - affects the metabolism in a way that blocks fat mobilization even in the face of a caloric deficit?

IMO a high carb diet might thus cause the body to hold on to fat while downregulating the metabolism to compensate, and/or cannibalizing lean tissue. Calories in, Calories out would still apply here, and the high-carb diet might be less effective when it comes to fat loss.

If I remember correctly, one of your recommendations is to eat more carbs on training days and less on resting days (please, correct me if I'm mistaken) ... IMO that would kind of fit my theory here.; June 12, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Unknown said...: "IMO a high carb diet might thus cause the body to hold on to fat while downregulating the metabolism to compensate, and/or cannibalizing lean tissue. Calories in, Calories out would still apply here, and the high-carb diet might be less effective when it comes to fat loss."

No. Stop smoking crack. Doesn't work like that, not matter how fucking insulin resistant you are.; June 13, 2010 at 9:37 AM
Unknown said...: Ok, I knew that I would be insulted. Well, in my opinion (which is of no importance to you, I know) you are ignoring the role of insulin as a master hormone when it comes to fat release. High insulin antagonizes fat mobilization.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/26/13343.aspx

Increasing insulin level is the mechanism that is used by hibernating animals to enable them to gain fat pre-hibernation. I know, I know, humans aren't squirrels. But there is such a thing as evolution, and both squirrels and humans have a pancreas which is secreting insulin. If you put squirrels on a calorie restricted diet, they'll still gain fat at the expense of lean tissue. It's a fact, but of course you can conveniently ignore it by instead focusing on my audacity of bringing the squirrels back into the discussion.

But what do you care - you already made up your mind, and everyone who disagrees with you is a moron.; June 13, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Unknown said...: If you cant handle the heat then get the fuck out.

No shit, insulin antagonizes fat burning so what? Do you think you will have high insulin on a 1500 kcal diet?

So you switch fat for carbs = fat oxidation goes down, carb oxidation goes up, but you'll still be burning fat in between meals.

Carbs for fat = lower insulin will equal greater fat burning, but you are also eating more dietary fat.

At the end of the day fat balance will be equal. Is that so fucking hard to grasp, Mike?

And dont come at me with animal research because it's not comparable. Look at the DNL pathway in animals vs humans for example.; June 13, 2010 at 10:24 AM
Unknown said...: Don't worry, I can take the heat. ;-)

My stepfather got diagnosed with type 2 diabetes about a month ago, and I have seen his blood works from when he was eating very, very little food (he was also suffering from painful arthritis), and both his blood sugar and insulin levels were too high. Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but while I'll gladly agree with you that for many people insulin will not be elevated on a 1500 calories diet, for some it might. And they might still lose weight - just not necessarily the same percentage of fat. I'm sure you know the "skinny fat" type of body composition - can be a lack of exercise, too - which also causes insulin resistance. I'm not saying that insulin is completely to blame for this - I'm just saying that it might be a contributing factor.

Anyway, you're certainly right that especially with your focus on intermittent fasting, even if for such a person insulin would be pathologically elevated after meals, on the whole there might be sufficient periods during which it would be low enough to allow for fat metabolism to normalize. Still, why not make it even easier and lower the carbs - and thereby the exaggerated insulin response - some more? All we need is establish that some people react more strongly to carbs than others, and those people might benefit from lower carb consumption in order to establish normal hormone levels.

BTW: I lost a lot of fat on a pretty low carb diet this year (I've been on it for about 2 months), recently I sort of switched to your approach, although I like to mix it up a bit with whole day fasting periods as opposed to regular feeding windows. I've also been cycling carbs, and my current "verdict" is that it's beneficial to still eat good amounts of carbs occasionally, if only to train your hormonal response to them.

I'm not trying to piss you off ... I'm enjoying reading your weblog and I agree with your approach.; June 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Tim B. said...: @ MikeEnRegalia

"IMO a high carb diet might thus cause the body to hold on to fat while downregulating the metabolism to compensate, and/or cannibalizing lean tissue. Calories in, Calories out would still apply here, and the high-carb diet might be less effective when it comes to fat loss."

The thing you're forgetting is that this hypothetical person is INSULIN RESISTANT. Meaning insulin doesn't have much or any effect on the cells. This includes fat cells. Why would it still block these fat cells from releasing fatty acids if the cells don't respond to insulin?

Just because these people will have an exaggerated insulin response doesn't mean their fat cells will respond more to it while the rest of their cells wouldn't. It makes no sense.; June 13, 2010 at 9:00 PM
Tim B. said...: Sorry - forgot to add this in:

Your example of the squirrels isn't only skewed because they're squirrels and not humans, but also because they aren't insulin resistant. The increased insulin is genetically controlled to allow for hibernation. In other words they produce a ton of insulin, but their cells are responsive causing weight gain. In humans, increased insulin would be because the cells aren't responding to it, meaning MORE INSULIN NEEDS TO BE RELEASED TO HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS A NORMAL INSULIN RESPONSE. That part in caps is key.

Also, Martin has reviewed the relevant scientific literature, so when people don't agree with him, he knows they're wrong and can prove it. They're basically disagreeing with decades of research, while citing extremely flawed research. He may have slightly arrogant responses sometimes, but you would too if people always tried to argue against reviewed science.; June 13, 2010 at 9:11 PM
Unknown said...: "The thing you're forgetting is that this hypothetical person is INSULIN RESISTANT. Meaning insulin doesn't have much or any effect on the cells. This includes fat cells. Why would it still block these fat cells from releasing fatty acids if the cells don't respond to insulin?"

Insulin resistance doesn't mean that the cells have stopped responding to insulin ... it means that it takes more insulin to get them to respond. In pre-diabetic persons the pancreas manages to up the insulin secretion accordingly. An important question would be whether indeed the level of insulin resistance is identical in fat cells and muscle cells ... if you know about a study about that please let me know, I'm not aware of any.

"Your example of the squirrels isn't only skewed because they're squirrels and not humans, but also because they aren't insulin resistant. The increased insulin is genetically controlled to allow for hibernation. In other words they produce a ton of insulin, but their cells are responsive causing weight gain. In humans, increased insulin would be because the cells aren't responding to it, meaning MORE INSULIN NEEDS TO BE RELEASED TO HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS A NORMAL INSULIN RESPONSE. That part in caps is key."

Well, if that was the case, why is there a strong correlation between insulin resistance and obesity? As I mentioned above, researchers haven't established that insulin resistance affects muscle cells and fat cells uniformly. Linking this to the fact that insulin has this role in pre-hibernation, and that humans may very well descend from animals that used to hibernate or at least have the capacity for it, it doesn't seem to far fetched to me that elevated insulin might be a strong factor in obesity by directly promoting fat storage.

"Also, Martin has reviewed the relevant scientific literature, so when people don't agree with him, he knows they're wrong and can prove it. They're basically disagreeing with decades of research, while citing extremely flawed research. He may have slightly arrogant responses sometimes, but you would too if people always tried to argue against reviewed science."

Ancel Key's seven countries study is also still being cited by respectable researchers, nutritionists and medical doctors, yet on this one Martin has sided with people he normally rants against (Gary Taubes) in pointing out that it is skewed. Like it or not, but especially when it comes to studies about nutrition, the fact that they have become part of conventional wisdom and remain unchallenged by the majority of researchers for decades doesn't mean too much. There are billions of dollars at stake. I'm sure that Martin is aware of this and does try to distinguish between studies that are on shaky ground and those that are probably true, but claiming absolute certainty (as you did above), IMO we should leave that to the Taliban. ;-); June 13, 2010 at 11:52 PM
Unknown said...: hahaha...that's one helluva debate you got going here dudes and dudetts.
Scientific research, especially made on animals, are one thing, personally I'm a big fan of real life experience and anecdotes.
I have been working out for almost 30 years and have been studying nutrition for just as long, I have also tried a bunch of different diets and food intake approaches.
For me the only one that works and make sense is to cycle your macros, just like Grand Master Berk suggests. And if you wanna kick it up a notch just add Intermittent Fasting to your regime. It really is that simple!! ..just my 2 (carb) cents...

Peace

Jonas; June 14, 2010 at 2:28 AM
Unknown said...: Mike,

"Well, if that was the case, why is there a strong correlation between insulin resistance and obesity? "

Because fat people get fat by eating shit that causes insulin resistance. They didn't get that way by eating a low fat high carb diet at energy balance. Correlation does not equal cause.

"Ancel Key's seven countries study is also still being cited by respectable researchers, nutritionists and medical doctors, yet on this one Martin has sided with people he normally rants against (Gary Taubes) in pointing out that it is skewed. "

This is a great example of the black and white thinking so prevalent among low carb fanatics like Mike.

There's no middle ground. You either agree completely with something or you are completely against it.

You either believe that carbs are evil and that fat is good

OR

Fat is evil and carbs are good.; June 14, 2010 at 8:25 AM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 14, 2010 at 8:56 AM
Unknown said...: "This is a great example of the black and white thinking so prevalent among low carb fanatics like Mike.

There's no middle ground. You either agree completely with something or you are completely against it.

You either believe that carbs are evil and that fat is good OR fat is evil and carbs are good."

Where did you read that into my posts? I'm not a low carb fanatic. My basic position here has always been that composition of the diet can affect one's metabolism, and possibly diabetics or pre-diabetics more so than others when it comes to carb intake. I never said that carbs are 100% evil and fat is 100% good.

I mentioned that I did implement a low carb diet this year ... but currently I'm re-introducing carbs into my diet. Yesterday I had duck with 150g+ of white rice. I'm still losing weight, and I agree with you that caloric balance does matter. I would also say that although I haven't tried, if I was to binge on fat and maintain zero carbs I would undoubtedly get fatter, because my body would not let that fat go to waste. This is compatible with seeing insulin as the master hormone of fat, since even if you eat zero carbs, of course any non type 1 diabetic always has insulin in the blood, plus the other pathway(s) there are to store fat that you also mentioned.

I also agree with your notion that carbs are benefitial on training days. This has also become a strategy of mine ... the more I work out on a day, the more carbs I'll eat. On resting days I'll try to keep carbs low. I'm not a researcher myself, but I think that it's important to not saturate your body with carbs in every waking hour. Your 16/8 concept essentially means that the body is in a low-carb state most of the time, as do other concepts like Eat Stop Eat, Warrior Diet, Alternate Day Diet etc.. Among other things, the increase the time your body spends without carbs. And without fat, I know. ;-); June 14, 2010 at 9:11 AM
Tim B. said...: "An important question would be whether indeed the level of insulin resistance is identical in fat cells and muscle cells"

An insulin receptor behaves the same whether it is on a muscle cell or a fat cell. How that cell responds is based on the number of receptors on the cell's surface. When insulin binds to the receptor too often, it gets "worn out" and and stops responding. So in the big picture, insulin sensitivity positively correlates to the number of active receptors on the cell's surface. There would be no reason for the receptor to behave differently depending on whether it is on the surface of a muscle cell or a fat cell. The chemistry is the same.

If the fat cells have more working receptors than muscle cells, then they will still have the same ratio of receptors if that person became sensitive to insulin, just with higher amounts of receptors in each.; June 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Unknown said...: Your argument assumes that insulin receptors are only affected by the level of insulin in the blood. I'm sure that there are many other factors affecting them, and some of them might work from within the cells, and they might differ between fat calls and muscle cells.

But be that as it may: I'm not a low carb fanatic. I agree that you need to have a caloric deficit to lose weight. Like Martin also said elsewhere, low-carb approaches, if for nothing else, might be beneficial for some people since they can make it easier to comply with the diet. The lowest common denominator for most approaches that I agree with is neither related to carbs nor fat anyway:

Adequate Protein.

Leangains, Primal Blueprint ... even Protein Power by the dreaded Eades. ;-); June 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Tim B. said...: Hahaha. Dude you gotta stop finishing your posts with a winky face, it's creepin' me out.

But as long as you accept the fact that calories are what ultimately matters, you're at least on the right track. If you choose to create a deficit by cutting out carbs, more power to you. Just know it isn't the only way (something you seem to be alluding to anyways).

I will agree that people may feel better on lower or higher carb diets based on their individual insulin sensitivities, just that it won't affect fat loss.

And of course I more than agree with you that protein is king and matters the most.; June 14, 2010 at 4:45 PM
Unknown said...: @Martin Levac

I think the major point that supports Taubes is that it can be shown in animal models that with the right hormonal imbalance, an animal can starve to death while still maintaining obesity to the last moment. But it's also important to remember that this doesn't imply that sometimes caloric surplus could lead to weight loss. Those are two unrelated claims, and I would never subscribe to the latter. In fact, when people describe that they lose weight on a low-carb diet even without a caloric deficit, I suspect that they failed to calculate their true metabolic rate properly. For example, obese persons who engage in body weight exercises (especially running or involving jumping) burn a lot more energy than lean persons.; June 15, 2010 at 7:57 AM
TyAces said...: I must applaude you for your nearly objective outproach to this subject. Most people I know are either against fat or against carbs.

I'm a low carber. I'm not a low carber taliban. I eat some carbs, both fast and slow at times, but they are not a part of my daily diet and that is what matters, to me ;). It's not what you eat between christmas and newyears, but what you eat between newyears and christmas that decides what weight you will be.

So why do I eat low carb, and with dietary fat? Easy, I think I have pcos, a condition that makes it harder for women to conceive. Low carb "cures" that disease. Besides which, I weight to much, and I feel better eating low carb.

I have respect for all people who decides to have their diet different from mine. It's all about finding something that works souly for you. Each body responds differently to food. However people seem to forget that low carb is eating up to about 100-150 grams of carb pr day(around that point you body starts to produce ketons). That is alot of carbs. Alot. With 100 carbs pr day you can eat so much great and healthy food!

When it comes to fat I feel I must add to you article that it has been proven that when you eat fat+protein+little carb you can eat up to 7 times more calories than ifyou eat fat+protein+carbs balanced. We have a signal in our brain that alerts us when we are hungry. This signal is called cAMP, and when it gets mostly fat it will say to the brain that it is full. However it will say to the body that it needs more energy and start turning our body fat into energy. This process is said to be very demanding and that is why we CAN eat more with fat and protein. It doesn't mean that every single one of us can do that.

We don't acctually need carbs. It is not essentual to us, as we can break down protein to that little glucose our brain need. Some might feel better with a higher intake of carbs. Totally understandable. All I ask is, when trying low carb diets, give your body some time to adjust to the new fuel. This isn't something that has been done within a week. You need at least 4 weeks, preferably 3 months to say that it aint working, or it is working.

I think that, no...I am very much postive to exercise with less carbs. I do it my self. I can't give it my all when beeing on a higher carb diet. I feel exhaused, tired, and so on. There are people who exell in their sport, among other that sweedish bike rider, don't know his name, but he's some sort of champ several times, and on low carb high fat diet. It's all about what you make your body get used to.

Have you by the way watched the video "sugar, the bitter truth"?
Here it is, I was somewhat suprised myself by this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM; July 13, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Lindsey Holmes said...: "We don't acctually need carbs. It is not essentual to us, as we can break down protein to that little glucose our brain need."

actually, we do need carbs, if we plan on doing any significant or worthwhile exercise. i dont trust gluconeogenesis to feed my brain.....and why should I? Why should I be forcing my body to use up my dietary protein when I can fuel my brain much more efficiently on yams, potatoes, and veggies AND reap the nutritional benefits of these foods at the same time?; July 14, 2010 at 7:52 AM
ProSkiller said...: Hi Martin, what is your opinion on the Paleo/Caveman diet?; July 19, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: The most amazing read I have read this month??; September 22, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Great post, been after that!!; September 25, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Interesting and amusing discussion.

Here is an honest question ...

Unless I'm a diabetic who is incapable of producing insulin, isn't my protein intake (an independent variable in this discussion) also going to trigger an insulin response, making alot of this high versus low versus no carb debate meaningless? (That is, aside from some of the reasons given why eating lower carbs is useful for controlling overall calorie intake.); December 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Unknown said...: Anon,

Of course. And some protein sources are quite insulinogenic to boot - even more so than some carb sources.

Have a look: http://www.mendosa.com/insulin_index.htm; December 12, 2010 at 6:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Everyone is different. Look at metabolic typing; December 29, 2010 at 3:33 AM
Anonymous said...: "A calorie is a calorie". "Calories in/ calories out".
Both very foolish/ simplistic ideas in terms of diet. Maybe if the only use for all the macro nutirents we consumed was to provide energy and all types of food were treated by the body in exactly the same fashion. They are obviously not. The body is a very complex organism and not some petrie dish in a lab.

Carbs only purpose is for use as energy. There are of course essential animo acids and essential fatty acids however there is no such thing as essential carbs. We can get all the energy we need from protein and fats. When body fat is metabolised ketones are created for energy and if needed the body can also create glucose from amino acids (gluconeogenesis). Amino acids obviously also have major structural functions in the body and not all protein consumed can be used as energy, some will be used to create essential enzymes, to maintain muscles, collagen for your skin, tendons, bones, cartilage and hair. And when protein is converted to glucose it is done so with less than 60% efficiency.. so although both protein and carbs have about 4 calories per gram when the body creates glucose from amino acids, 10g of protein will result in less than 6g of glucose.

Have a look at this:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/15; March 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM
popimaster said...: I think you should re-define the term low carb.

For one person it will be 200 grams
For other low carb will be 20 grams...

Anyways, we all need to consume less than the average joe, so we can all call ourselves low carb.; September 6, 2011 at 12:48 AM
Hank said...: 1) If carbs were required for fat storage, you'd lose weight and fat indefinitely eating no-carbs, and eventually wither away to nothing. Obviously this does not happen.

2) Gary Taubes is 220 lbs eating low/zero carb. Tom Naughton is overweight. Jimmy Moore is pretty much obese. These are the low carb posterboys. All of them have some excuse for why they're not black / not swans, yet Jimmy Moore refuses to believe eating 5000kcals of fat is making him fat, no, it must be some destroyed metabolism, same thing keep Taubes from being the 180 lbs he would be if only he hadn't eaten so many carbs earlier in life. Funnily enough Naughton lost weight on a < 2400kcal mcdonalds diet, and Sisson stays in shape at 2400kcal, even while eating carbs. Even the Twinkie diet worked (but that's because of the carbs he cut, not the calories, of course. Right). Anyone wanted to know who got fat eating fat? Head over to Jimmy's blog.

3) Eades does say cal-in=cal-out, he just makes a big story to avoid actually using those terms. Also, he says metabolic ward studies are fraught with "rampant cheating", so his suggestion is to basically just take the word of the obese lady who claims she is gaining weight on 800 calories a day (om nom nom). Colpo has a nice writeup about Eades.

4) Low carb blogs like to tie the failings of the lipid hypothesis to their own arguments, suggesting they are the same. See just because dietary fat isn't all that bad, and dietary cholesterol won't kill you if you eat 2 eggs a day, that somehow proves Taubes' carb "hypothesis". Somehow the former is supposed to prove the latter. Attack Taubes and somehow you are preaching Keys.

Nice article Martin :); November 16, 2011 at 4:06 AM
Anonymous said...: I can't believe I just read all 253 comments. Fascinating discussion, though.; March 22, 2012 at 1:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Martin, since u are a supporter of the paleo diet i wondered if u've ever tried the raw foodism approach to eating and especially the "raw meat section".do u have any xperience concerning that approach cause from what i read, it claims many -too good to be good- things.thx!; April 26, 2012 at 4:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I actually feel much better on low carb...

Let's be honest: bread, pasta, rice, cereals etc... are all processed foods and in one way or another unhealthy for your body.

I prefer getting my sugars from whole foods like fruits, potatoes, yams.; November 1, 2012 at 1:48 PM
cih said...: I know this is an old thread but just a quick question, if macronutrient breakdown doesn't matter and its all cal in/cal out, what is the point in cycling carbs?; December 4, 2012 at 4:50 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 243 of 243 Newer› Newest»