Carbohydrates Are Unhealthy

moonage

I said I'd never post here again but I've, er, changed my mind!

Why are we told to get most of our calories from cabohydrates when it's debateable whether they're even biologically necessary? We'll die without protein and fat but there's little evidence of a carb deficiency syndrome.

Yet, too much carbs raise levels of a few hormones which can cause, or be a major factor in the development of, many diseases including obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

We have only one hormone to lower glucose levels (insulin) but several to raise it, which would indicate that we have evolved not to rely on carbs as our main energy source. Carbs were an emergency or back up source of energy, the primary source being directly from protein and fat.

Consuming too many carbs puts the body in a continual glucose control crisis. Insulin, cortisol and adrenalin levels rise which in time will probably lead to health problems. Deriving energy mostly from protein and fat will not cause these spikes in hormone levels. On a low carb diet the body can produce the required amount of glucose and other energy sources as and when needed.

Being told carbs should form the basis of our diet is bonkers. Keeping our carb intake low is more sensible and in line with what our bodies are designed for.

This site explains the dangers of carbohydrates:

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/foods12.php

Barry Groves' site explains why a high carb diet is bad for you health, all backed up with plenty of references to studies and research:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/

Mr Benevolent

Ever hear of the Atkin's diet and why that was discredited?

Pembily

Confab wrote: »

Ever hear of the Atkin's diet and why that was discredited?

Thanks!!

My mum ate a high protein and 0 carbs diet for a few months when she was younger and as a result had to have her gal bladder removed due to such severe gal stones...

And if you want to only eat protein please don't stand near me as the gas and breath smell are horrid!!!!

moonage

Confab wrote: »

Ever hear of the Atkin's diet and why that was discredited?

Tell me how it has been discredited.

moonage

Pembily wrote: »

My mum ate a high protein and 0 carbs diet for a few months when she was younger and as a result had to have her gal bladder removed due to such severe gal stones...

The ideal diet is low carb/moderate protein/high fat.

Your mother was probably eating too much protein and not enough fat.

metamorphosis

Try training 10-12 hours every week and see if you can live without any carbs.

Im all for lower carb, nice bit of fat and protein.

Tristram

I'd love to have a breakdown of what % of my diet here is carb/protein/fat. I imagine it would come out quite carb heavy as with most of the natives. One of the lowest rates of obesity and one of the longest life expectancies in the world.

(If anyone does have data on Asian - or specifically Japanese - diet please share!)

Sapsorrow

On second thoughts I think I'll go chisel the eyes out of my face today...

Darkginger

Sigh - not getting into all this again, but the Atkins diet has never been discredited, in fact low carb ways of eating are finally (FINALLY!) becoming more accepted. I have been eating the 'discredited' way since 2004 and my gall bladder/kidneys/liver have, as yet, failed to explode. I have, however, lost 5 stone, and have managed to do 2 hours a day in the gym, 6 days a week, for at least 2 years without passing out (alternating cardio/weights days). There's loads of threads on this board with links to studies/books/etc about low carbing. If you're interested, the info is all here. If you disagree with lowering carbs, well, that's fine too - your body, your science experiment.

menoscemo

ULstudent wrote: »

Try training 10-12 hours every week and see if you can live without any carbs.

Im all for lower carb, nice bit of fat and protein.

Haven't you heard? Excercise is bad for you.

moonage

khrystyna100 wrote: »

On second thoughts I think I'll go chisel the eyes out of my face today...

If this thread annoys you so much, just ignore it.

--Kaiser--

Yay, you're back!:D

Sapsorrow

moonage wrote: »

If this thread annoys you so much, just ignore it.

It's nothing personal moonage, it's jsut we've had this debate over and over and over again and it is so predictable.

I'm actually glad you're back too, you liven the place up a bit

moonage

ULstudent wrote: »

Try training 10-12 hours every week and see if you can live without any carbs.

Im all for lower carb, nice bit of fat and protein.

There's some evidence that fat-loading may be superior to carb-loading in certain circumstances:

http://health.iafrica.com/fitness/30631.htm

Iristxo

Not attacking you really but what exactly is your motivation to start all these threads? Mostly when I came in here I am asking for people's opinions on something or whatever but if you already know the answer, why bother posting at all? Are you trying to preach, or convince us or what? Just curious

moonage

khrystyna100 wrote: »

It's nothing personal moonage, it's jsut we've had this debate over and over and over again and it is so predictable.

I'm actually glad you're back too, you liven the place up a bit

Thanks for the comment about livening the place up.

As I said before if you find it predictable it's best if you ignore the thread or else you might start hitting you head off a wall, chewing your face off or gouging your eyes out!

Sapsorrow

moonage wrote: »

As I said before if you find it predictable it's best if you ignore the thread or else you might start hitting you head off a wall, chewing your face off or gouging your eyes out!

Lol I'm only messing though don't ever take those comments seriously!

Usually these carb debates end up with people getting very frustrated and p*ssed off in the end, I don't think we ever had one that didn't end up like that and it always ends up going round in circles. I think if people are interested there must be at least 10 debates on carbs and their health effects already in this fourm from the last few months that people can dig up without needing to start a new one.

moonage

Iristxo wrote: »

Not attacking you really but what exactly is your motivation to start all these threads? Mostly when I came in here I am asking for people's opinions on something or whatever but if you already know the answer, why bother posting at all? Are you trying to preach, or convince us or what? Just curious

I just find it interesting to hear what others have to say. As regards convincing people, if someone questions their beliefs about something, that's a good thing isn't it?

Do you think a forum should just be about asking questions?

moonage

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I think if people are interested there must be at least 10 debates on carbs and their health effects already in this fourm from the last few months that people can dig up without needing to start a new one.

I'd agree if it was a fairly minor issue but how much carbs we eat is crucial to our health and well being.

metamorphosis

moonage wrote: »

There's some evidence that fat-loading may be superior to carb-loading in certain circumstances:

http://health.iafrica.com/fitness/30631.htm

Thanks for the link.

Iv tried cutting the carbs before and upping the fat and proteins and i found it great when i was just hitting the gym but as a long distance runner it does not work for my body at all at all. I have tried and my body didn't like it. Especially marathon training - just not all that practicle for me, especially during 18mile training run, let alone when im running 26.2 miles.

Sapsorrow

moonage wrote: »

I'd agree if it was a fairly minor issue but how much carbs we eat is crucial to our health and well being.

I agree it's an important issue but you should read previous threads and continue them on if you want to debate some more points or have unasnwered questions rather than starting another new one and asking everyone to re-explain their opinions on the issue. It's just forum etiquette. Maybe a mod could merge this thread with the last one?

moonage

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I agree it's an important issue but you should read previous threads and continue them on if you want to debate some more points or have unasnwered questions rather than starting another new one and asking everyone to re-explain their opinions on the issue. It's just forum etiquette. Maybe a mod could merge this thread with the last one?

No one has to give their opinions or debate points if they don't feel like it.

ApeXaviour

ULstudent wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

Iv tried cutting the carbs before and upping the fat and proteins and i found it great when i was just hitting the gym but as a long distance runner it does not work for my body at all at all. I have tried and my body didn't like it. Especially marathon training - just not all that practicle for me, especially during 18mile training run, let alone when im running 26.2 miles.

I'm an advocate of low carb in terms of its impact on health. I've read and read and it just seems much more scientifically grounded (just try discern the nutters from the rest, it's a science, not a faith). Most others appear to have ulterior influence other than health (environment, economy, animal rights, capitalism). Nutrition is a science in its infancy though.

However if you're doing the above training I'd say ffs eat some carbs! If you kept a maintenance low carb diet, then loaded with high density carbs for a day or two before you run.

Ketogenic cycling with exercise is a great way to keep lean and looking great too.

moonage

ApeXaviour wrote: »

However if you're doing the above training I'd say ffs eat some carbs! If you kept a maintenance low carb diet, then loaded with high density carbs for a day or two before you run.

This article suggests that instead of just concentrating on carbs, athletes should try to strike a balance between carbs and fat:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKA/is_n7_v58/ai_18453779/?tag=content;col1

Tristram

Tristram wrote: »

I'd love to have a breakdown of what % of my diet here is carb/protein/fat. I imagine it would come out quite carb heavy as with most of the natives. One of the lowest rates of obesity and one of the longest life expectancies in the world.

(If anyone does have data on Asian - or specifically Japanese - diet please share!)

Online food trackers will give you this breakdown.
I use sparkpeople, fitday is also supposed to be good.

El_Dangeroso

Sigh.. the answer to the question is a categorical NO!

Zero carbers are the Hezbollah of the low carb movement. They're the equivalent of extreme vegans who assert that humans are natural herbivores. Just as extreme and doing their cause no favours at all.

There are 'bad' fats, 'bad' proteins and 'bad' carbs, but to call an entire macronutrient group unhealthy is just reductionist and frankly retarded.

There is a reason why there's not one single studied hunter-gatherer tribe that is completely carnivorous. Not a one. It's not like some of them don't have the option either.

Say it with me.. Om-ni-vore.

I've been studying nutrition for years now, I'm constantly (and I'm sure Khystyna will agree) coming across evidence that completely contradicts something I previously held as gospel. It's really annoying and disillusioning, but I try not to bury my head in the sand like most prominent nutrition researchers. This is how you learn how much we really don't know. I used to be far more gung ho in my carbophobia, now I realise it is the processed carbohydrate (including 'brown' processed carbs), processed fats and processed protein that's the culprit. But some (in the western world I would say A LOT) people have buggered their glucose metabolism permanently, so they can't even handle fruit anymore. That's not to say that fruit would cause it, to use a similar logic, that's like saying that an egg allergy is the result of eating too many eggs, which is just not true.

Nutrition science is still in it's infancy, and although I think low carb an excellent way of restoring health and insulin sensitivity (IF you do it properly), tis not the ultimate solution to all the world's problems. I think you'll find its a little bit more complicated than that.

corkcomp

^^^^^ what she said. And hit a very important point re the effect of carbs on a normal individual vs someone who already has glucose regulation issues.

moonage

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

There are 'bad' fats, 'bad' proteins and 'bad' carbs, but to call an entire macronutrient group unhealthy is just reductionist and frankly retarded.

Did you actually read my original post? I never said we needed to totally cut out carbs, just limit our intake.

If you've been studying nutrition for years maybe you could answer whether there is or isn't a biological need for carbs, provided we are getting enough protein and fat.

To say that it's only processed carbs that are the problem seems very naive. Simple carbs are worse than complex one but to imply that eating 250g or 300g of low GI complex carbs per day is healthy is deluded. Eating too much "good" carbs will cause the same health problems as eating "bad" ones; it'll just take a bit longer.

corkcomp

moonage wrote: »

to imply that eating 250g or 300g of low GI complex carbs per day is healthy is deluded..

wrong

metamorphosis

Its very clear that the OP doesn't engage in frequent high intensity exercise or long endurance sports.

tinkerbell

How are you supposed to exercise with no carbs? I mean get real here, you need carbs for energy. And you don't have to cut out a food group, everything in MODERATION and plenty of exercise = healthy person.

El_Dangeroso

moonage wrote: »

Did you actually read my original post? I never said we needed to totally cut out carbs, just limit our intake.

If you've been studying nutrition for years maybe you could answer whether there is or isn't a biological need for carbs, provided we are getting enough protein and fat.

To say that it's only processed carbs that are the problem seems very naive. Simple carbs are worse than complex one but to imply that eating 250g or 300g of low GI complex carbs per day is healthy is deluded. Eating too much "good" carbs will cause the same health problems as eating "bad" ones; it'll just take a bit longer.

I did read your original post, but the title screamed a lot louder, but I think that was your intention right?

Carbs aren't biologically necessary (in the short term, as far as we know, and we don't know that much), but they are metabolically critical, google the randle cycle. Why on earth would we have developed amylase to digest starch unless it gave us an evolutionary advantage.

The amount is debatable, but hunter-gatherers eat anything from 15-69% of energy intake from carbs depending on location and availability, and they all have excellent straight teeth, perfect eyesight, vanishingly small rates of cancer, heart-disease and diabetes compared to the so-called 'first' world, so what's the difference between them and us?

In a word, quality. They don't eat the three so-called 'post-industrial agents of disease' namely:

Industrial seed oils - They all keep polyunsaturated fats at less than 4% of total calories, that's omega 3 and 6 combined.
Gluten grains - The healthiest tribes eat no grains at all
Excess fructose - They don't tend to have access to a lot of sugar year round like we do.

They also eat a diet low in phytic acid, high in vitamins (especially A, D and K2), rich in trace minerals (esp. iodine and magnesium).

You'll notice I never said complex or simple, low or high GI, both concepts are irrelevant in my eyes. The kitava eat 69% of cals as high gycemic simple carbs and they have perfect health.

If you have a big belly or insulin resistance, then yes, you need to cut down on carbs, but if you're at a perfect weight and healthy, then eating real food is actually enough and cutting out potatoes or fruit won't harm but it probably won't help either. You'd be surprised at how rare real food actually is.

Iristxo

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I did read your original post, but the title screamed a lot louder, but I think that was your intention right?

Carbs aren't biologically necessary (in the short term, as far as we know, and we don't know that much), but they are metabolically critical, google the randle cycle. Why on earth would we have developed amylase to digest starch unless it gave us an evolutionary advantage.

The amount is debatable, but hunter-gatherers eat anything from 15-69% of energy intake from carbs depending on location and availability, and they all have excellent straight teeth, perfect eyesight, vanishingly small rates of cancer, heart-disease and diabetes compared to the so-called 'first' world, so what's the difference between them and us?

In a word, quality. They don't eat the three so-called 'post-industrial agents of disease' namely:

Industrial seed oils - They all keep polyunsaturated fats at less than 4% of total calories, that's omega 3 and 6 combined.
Gluten grains - The healthiest tribes eat no grains at all
Excess fructose - They don't tend to have access to a lot of sugar year round like we do.

They also eat a diet low in phytic acid, high in vitamins (especially A, D and K2), rich in trace minerals (esp. iodine and magnesium).

You'll notice I never said complex or simple, low or high GI, both concepts are irrelevant in my eyes. The kitava eat 69% of cals as high gycemic simple carbs and they have perfect health.

If you have a big belly or insulin resistance, then yes, you need to cut down on carbs, but if you're at a perfect weight and healthy, then eating real food is actually enough and cutting out potatoes or fruit won't harm but it probably won't help either. You'd be surprised at how rare real food actually is.

Do you personally eat high-carb veg like onion, mushrooms, sweet potato and the likes? Just curious

corkcomp

Iristxo wrote: »

Do you personally eat high-carb veg like onion, mushrooms, sweet potato and the likes? Just curious

off topic alert .. but I would never count mushrooms as high carb .. they have good whack of protein too (for a vegetable)

moonage

ULstudent wrote: »

Its very clear that the OP doesn't engage in frequent high intensity exercise or long endurance sports.

My original post related to the 95%+ of the population who don't engage in this sort of exercise.

It's only relatively recently that people have taken up these extreme forms of exercise.

metamorphosis

Actuay im pretty sure that hunter gatherers went through pretty intense activity ... walking for days on end, sprinting to survive out of harms way.

Anyway - i am outy. I like a debate but when the OP will not even entertain any other ideas but their own, it gets a bit boring and we have had this debate 200 times before.

Off to have some carbs and coffee.

Later.

ApeXaviour

tinkerbell wrote: »

How are you supposed to exercise with no carbs?

Quite easily because your blood sugar is stabilised, and you're getting plenty of protein and fat so you recover well. After about a week to adapt (carbs are addictive so it's somewhat like going cold turkey) you'll find yourself flyin' in the gym

Crossfit people (and they do some serious exercise) are very much into their Zone dieting.

tinkerbell wrote: »

I mean get real here, you need carbs for energy.

You need calories for energy. You don't need carbs, though a moderate amount of low density carbs is desirable.

Ciaran500

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Quite easily because your blood sugar is stabilised, and you're getting plenty of protein and fat so you recover well. After about a week to adapt (carbs are addictive so it's somewhat like going cold turkey) you'll find yourself flyin' in the gym

Crossfit people (and they do some serious exercise) are very much into their Zone dieting.

Zone diets are 40% carbs...

corkcomp

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Zone diets are 40% carbs...

exactly, and cross fit work outs are short(ish) in duration ..

Darkginger

The thing is, most people don't do high intensity or long duration exercise (although maybe they should). Many people take very little exercise at all. If you're an athlete, you tailor your diet to your needs. As a non-athlete who takes a moderate amount of exercise, and who gains weight very easily, I find eating low carb/high fat (NOT no carb) helps me control my weight far more easily than any low fat/low calorie diet.

I'm not going to the gym at the moment (due to lack of transport) - but when I was I had no problem doing an hour or so of moderate intensity aerobic exercise followed by 30 minutes or so of non-stop swimming. I didn't feel weak, I didn't find I lacked endurance - it was fine. I was eating very low carb (around 20g/day) at the time. I don't think I'm particularly special - so chances are most other moderate exercisers would find it perfectly possible to eat low carb and take exercise. Anything wrong with that?

dxhound2005

moonage wrote: »

I said I'd never post here again but I've, er, changed my mind!

Why are we told to get most of our calories from cabohydrates when it's debateable whether they're even biologically necessary? We'll die without protein and fat but there's little evidence of a carb deficiency syndrome.

Yet, too much carbs raise levels of a few hormones which can cause, or be a major factor in the development of, many diseases including obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

We have only one hormone to lower glucose levels (insulin) but several to raise it, which would indicate that we have evolved not to rely on carbs as our main energy source. Carbs were an emergency or back up source of energy, the primary source being directly from protein and fat.

Consuming too many carbs puts the body in a continual glucose control crisis. Insulin, cortisol and adrenalin levels rise which in time will probably lead to health problems. Deriving energy mostly from protein and fat will not cause these spikes in hormone levels. On a low carb diet the body can produce the required amount of glucose and other energy sources as and when needed.

Being told carbs should form the basis of our diet is bonkers. Keeping our carb intake low is more sensible and in line with what our bodies are designed for.

This site explains the dangers of carbohydrates:

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/foods12.php

Barry Groves' site explains why a high carb diet is bad for you health, all backed up with plenty of references to studies and research:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/

The two links you give are a mad woman trying to sell snake oil and our friend Barry Groves who bought his "doctorate" from a diploma mill. Anyone who wants to find out about healthy eating please ask your
doctor/dietician/nutritionist.

El_Dangeroso

Iristxo wrote: »

Do you personally eat high-carb veg like onion, mushrooms, sweet potato and the likes? Just curious

Like corkcomp says mushrooms are v low carb, I wouldn't even consider onions that high carb, something like 15g per onion I think, who eats a whole onion?:D

I seem to have 'fixed' my glucose metabolism somewhat. I used to get hypo (low blood sugar) after eating fruit, but now it doesn't affect me. I'll never ever be able to eat 370g odd carbs a day like the kitavans and not suffer serious health implications, neither would most victims of the food pyramid, your insulin sensitivity is determined largely in the womb and early childhood.

Remember that these people's diets are 100% clean, organic, grass-fed, line-caught etc and there's no such thing as a cheat day in their world!

But I can manage 100g carbs a day now, I don't count so that's an estimate, but it allows for a massive amount of variety, more than that and I start to gain weight. I'm still grain/veg oil/gluten free though..

Best way to figure out which carbs suit you and which don't is to get a blood glucose monitor. They're very cheap and then you get your own personal GI index! Just take the reading each hour for three hours after eating the item first thing in the day.

Re: activity levels, apparently the average hunter-gatherer tribe spends 16hrs per week in search of food, that time largely being composed of walking (no running - *ducks*:)), so they have a 16hr work week and spend the rest of the time hanging out and smoking dope or whatever they have access to!

Don't you ever feel that working 39hrs is highly unnatural? I know I do!:D

Flamed Diving

Yet they have sustained the human race for thousands of years.

Sapsorrow

ULstudent wrote: »

Anyway - i am outy. I like a debate but when the OP will not even entertain any other ideas but their own, it gets a bit boring and we have had this debate 200 times before.

Well said, I was trying to pin point my thoughts on this recent string of threads and that was the conclusion I came to, that the OP is only interested in considering the opinions of posters that seem to agree with him/her regardless of how well preseneted anyone elses arguements are. Whats the point in starting a thread if you only want people to agree with you? You learn f*ck all about anything that way.

Sapsorrow

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The two links you give are a mad woman trying to sell snake oil and our friend Barry Groves who bought his "doctorate" from a diploma mill. Anyone who wants to find out about healthy eating please ask your
doctor/dietician/nutritionist.

I agree while I don't necessarily disagree with the overall points groves makes after looking at his website a few times I noticed that often the papers he sources are crap examples for the points he tries to make and don't actually prove anything at all and he doesn't seem very objective. The writing is very unprofessional too you really get the written by a journalist vibe off it. Anyway rant over I'm out had enough of these low carb debates for a lifetime, see ya in the food diary forum for coffee and biccies UL student! :pac::pac:

ApeXaviour

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Zone diets are 40% carbs...

Yeah like I said, a moderate amount from fruit and veg, not high-density carbs.

Flamed Diving wrote:

Yet they have sustained the human race for thousands of years.

Being sustained and being healthy are not the same thing.

Flamed Diving

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Being sustained and being healthy are not the same thing.

Oh, so you mean eating only carbohydrates? This is quite a trivial thread, in that case...

ApeXaviour

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Oh, so you mean eating only carbohydrates?

No, that would kill you

Iristxo

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I agree while I don't necessarily disagree with the overall points groves makes after looking at his website a few times I noticed that often the papers he sources are crap examples for the points he tries to make and don't actually prove anything at all and he doesn't seem very objective. The writing is very unprofessional too you really get the written by a journalist vibe off it. Anyway rant over I'm out had enough of these low carb debates for a lifetime, see ya in the food diary forum for coffee and biccies UL student! :pac::pac:

I apologize in advance to the people that have discussed this a thousand times before but frankly right now I have no time to go digging so I'd appreciate it if someone commented on this. On making some more deep investigation about the "low carb issue" it seems to me that: deriving energy out of carbs is the easy and efficient way of functioning for humans and the "ketosis" state that the low carbers seek (and presumably achieve) is not the natural way of functioning for the body as it puts the body under strain and in fact it seems that it produces some toxins? Regarding all of this "paleo" diets that seem to seek getting the body into the same state as humans in the paleo era it seems to me that they do not take into account the fact that in the paleo era food was much more scarce and therefore total calorie consumption was a lot lower plus our bodies have "presumably" evolved since then to work better on carbs consumption as per the theory at the start of my post.

Can anybody comment, does the above make sense?

Again, apologies to all those who have discussed this a thousand times before.

dxhound2005

Makes sense to me.

The best diet for people who have type 1 diabetes is a diet that is also healthy for everyone: low in fat, low in cholesterol, low in salt and low in added sugars. It includes lots of complex carbohydrates (such as whole-grain breads, cereals and pasta), fruits and vegetables. This type of diet will help you control your blood sugar level, as well as your blood pressure and cholesterol levels. It's also important to watch your portion size so you can control your blood sugar and maintain a healthy weight.

The above quote is from advice for people who have Type 1 Diabetes (it is not caused by food) who have to inject insulin. The insulin injection is meant to mimic the natural process in non diabetic people so it stands to reason that a balanced diet including all the food groups and with carbohydrates as part of every meal is the natural way of things. Of course this will be shot down by all the Atkins people here.

Flamed Diving

ApeXaviour wrote: »

No, that would make you right...

We can all do that...