In defense of CHO

rocky

My maintenance is around 2700 kcals that I split normally into 55%fat, 25% protein and 20% carbs. Didnt' really want to lose weight, more observing the diet's (as in what I eat, not in the restrictive sense of the term) impact on my appearance and mental state. I was feeling ok, missing some energy for workouts, but better than when I was heavier.

Then Matt Stone of 180degreehealth comes with these ideas on intuitive eating, eat the food etc. And Don Matesz comes with some articles on lowering the fat, increasing carbs. I wasn't eating low carb consistently, and having icecream, tiramisu and other treats almost daily.

In the last week I switched my macros to 50% carbs, 25% protein and 25% fat. Eating the same diet, only halving the fat portions (eggs, PB, fried lambs liver etc). Carbs coming mostly from homemade bread, jelly babies, orange juice and honey. I've also added around 20g gelatine to the OJ. The first 2 days even though I was eating at a 500kcal surplus, I lost weight (fat), increased definition, also had even more energy. Hold on this cannot be right...

Pro carb statements:
* never heard of anyone being allergic to sugar
* if you train anyway heavy and/or intense, carbs are a must.
* do you know of this thing called glycogen? It's a buffer for carbs, they get stored to fat only when glycogen stores are full and this almost never happens for an active person. It takes multiple days of CHO overfeeding for DNL (creation of fat from excess carbs) to become in anyway significant.
* they exercise pancreatic cells, what happens when the beta cells have nothing to do? Physiological insulin resistance, although it sounds benign, I just don't want to take the risk that after a few months/years on low carb, when inevitably I'd want to change my diet, find that I can't process carbs as well as I used to. Sure, people here say this diet is for life and all. Nothing is for life, no matter your current intentions . People get bored, forgetful, get to goal weight and relax, a myriad of reasons this will not work.
* if anything, recently I'm avoiding fats 'after 6pm'. Yes, the timing of meals and meal composition does not matter from a physiological standpoint, but if it helps me mentally increasing energy, adhering to the diet, why not? My last meal of the day is a selection of ham/chicken/bread/honey/jelly babies/coco pops/skim milk. Protein and carbs, which will be stored as fat by the bad ugly insulin? In my experience, none ! Because I train heavily between 9-10pm and all those carbs go nicely to muscle/liver glycogen.

I don't have a fear of fat (how many people can say they have 55% fat in their diet), I just 'know' that dietary fat intake is stored with an efficiency approaching 100%, carbs (when glycgen stores are full) with about 80% efficiency (IIRC), and protein almost never gets stored as fat. Why eat so much fat then? It's tasty, correct, but carbs can be tasty too

Anti carbs argumets:
* people with damaged metabolisms: If you're overweight and think you cannot tolerate carbs properly, lose the excess weight on a low carb diet, but do not persist on it. Add moderate carbs to the diet.

Hope this helps some orthorexics

As "a vegetarian in Indian is a bad hunter", "the Atkins/lo-carb craze is an orthorexia for the male". 2 jokes, but having some shred of truth. While males can do well initially on lo carb, and get closer to goal weight, the story is different for women. Long bouts of low carb definitely not recommended. In b4 EileenG


I'm off to a week in Tenerife, on an ad libitum donuts diet , so I won't be active for a while.

See you on the other side :cool:

Hope this helps motivating people to start researching other nutrition ideas and not taking the one and only as gospel.

Search for : Matt Stone, Carb Sane, Stephan Guyenet, Chris Masterjohn.

Good luck and remember: knowledge is power :eek:

Transform

there are sooo many holes in that i dont know where to start.

Lets just keep it simple and say that carbs IN GENERAL are an activity dependent food so of course if you are training more you should consume more e.g. sweet potato, butternut squash, some rice etc

Overall the post reads like a one person experience on nutrition which is great and what do ya know nutrition is an individual thing you need to discover what works best for you. This individual approach needs to be combined with optimal sleep, exercise and avioding excessive stress.

Is this simple, unsexy and it works? Yes!! Will people follow it? NO! Because many are too busy counting weight watcher points, wondering about those fat loss pills they saw, calling carbs evil and not having even the most basic understanding of nutrition.

boomtown84

rocky wrote: »

. The first 2 days even though I was eating at a 500kcal surplus, I lost weight (fat)

How did you measure this fat loss exactly?

blah88

boomtown84 wrote: »

How did you measure this fat loss exactly?

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-ltdfle.html I'd say that's what he experienced. It's happened me before, where I followed a really strict low carb diet for a while, then exams came along and I panicked and ate a load of carbs for a few days running, and looked leaner. I think it's called glycogen supercompensation or sumtin like that. Bodybuilders do it before contests I think. Not sure on that.

boomtown84

it's exactly what they do before contests and it's exactly what he experienced! i just wanna hear his method of calculating fat loss after two days...:D

El_Dangeroso

So hang on, calories don't count now Rocky?;)

I'm not surprised at the results of your experiment, it's called cycling, and your body loves it. Me, I cycle between moderate protein, high fat, low carbs and very low protein, high carbs, moderate fat. Nothing like a big ol' plate of spuds n' butter for dinner! The body loves variation of all kinds, it encourages adaptation.

The fact remains is that there are a lot of people out there who are sensitive to carbs, I was one of them and I can confidently say low-carb 'cured' me in that respect. Plus the hardest thing about losing weight is keeping hunger at bay and their ain't no hunger suppression like you get from low carb high fat. That's why you have low carb people claiming they're eating a tonne of cals and still losing weight, they're not but they think they are.

Also, please don't reference Matt Stone, the man is a loon, he thinks you're supposed to overeat everything in sight in order to chase some sort of mythic perfect body temperature. Patent nonsense. Plus if you've seen his latest videos, apparently the weight gain is all part of the 'healing process'.

Re: Don Matesz, his one point of reference is a little sculpture of a woman. Give me a break.

El_Dangeroso

Also if you're afraid of physiological insulin resistance, for the love of god DON'T FALL ASLEEP. Srsly, you'll like totally get diabetes from sleeping.:D

Sorry, couldn't resist

rocky

Let me point out again I wasn't really eating low carb before, only high(ish) fat. The percentages I gave in my first post are not day-in, day-out, just in general, my fitday shows that, but it could go up to 30% carbs (which I understand is still considered low carb by the people eating a 'normal' 'SAD' (SID?) diet.

Transform, what are all the anti carbs posts in this forum if not personal experiences? There's no study that shows that low carb diets are more effective at losing weight, when total calories and protein is controlled. Some people find low carb blunts their appetite, but for some (see the sites I suggested above), their weight loss stalls before reaching an ideal weight.

I'm not saying read all those sites and believe them to be the new gospel, only keep your mind open and read alternative opinions. Yes Matt Stone has some dubious recommendations, but they are for people with 'damaged metabolisms'. I get most of the useful info on that site from the comments.

This is the Nutrition & Diet forum, not only for losing fat. So do not be afraid of carbs IN GENERAL.

boomtown, I didn't measure body fat, only the mirror appearance changed for the better. I'm not claiming a huge amount of fat lost in the first 7 days, only that I appeared more 'toned' (:rolleyes:)

El D, I wasn't following Don Matesz's blog, except for the last couple of articles. I believed him to be huge in the low carb community, not necessarily by the amount of followers, but from his anti-vegetarian and pro meat articles, and I was surprised of his changed stance on carbs, that's all.

Of course calories matter. But explain to me how eating protein and fat 'after 6pm' is better than eating carbs + protein, if people's goal is weight loss? Not saying you give this advice, but the fear of carbs on this forum is amazing. Assume hunger triggered by carbs is not a factor. Or is this the only reason not to eat carbs?

boomtown84

rocky wrote: »

Or is this the only reason not to eat carbs?

Don't forget the big bad antinutrients in grains that cause scitzophrenia and cancer!:rolleyes:

oh and in response to your measurement....i thought as much:D!

El_Dangeroso

I'm not anti-carb by any means, you can see I changed my position on that over a year ago.

In fact it just seems silly to talk about macronutrients anymore in the context of health. It says nothing of food quality, or the micronutrients value of the diet which is way more important.

I've found it's very hard to get a good level of micronutrients when my fat dips below 40% cals, I also get hungrier and my skin gets drier.

It's definitely horses for courses, some people do better on higher carb but there are a LOT of people who do spectacularly well on high-fat.

Don Matesz is well known for being contrarian for the sake of it so his latest series of posts doesn't really surprise me, he came out with one a while ago where he said omega-6 is fine and he quickly u-turned on that. His latest posts are based on out-dated anthropology and weak anecdata.

Matt Stone has some downright dangerous recommendations damaged metabolism or no. His latest thing is a two week long orange juice and gelatin fast. How can you give any credence to his recommendations when he continues to gain weight? Edit: Oh I see you're doing this now..

The fact remains is that most carbs people eat are derived from bad food, so when the general recommendation to cut down carbs is given, they generally end up eating a healthier diet. Most people replace carbs with vegetables.

Homemade brown bread is still made with improperly treated flour, and jelly babies are part of a healthy diet now?? Really??

rocky

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Matt Stone has some downright dangerous recommendations damaged metabolism or no. His latest thing is a two week long orange juice and gelatin fast. How can you give any credence to his recommendations when he continues to gain weight? Edit: Oh I see you're doing this now..

The fact remains is that most carbs people eat are derived from bad food, so when the general recommendation to cut down carbs is given, they generally end up eating a healthier diet. Most people replace carbs with vegetables.

Homemade brown bread is still made with improperly treated flour, and jelly babies are part of a healthy diet now?? Really??

Hey I only added gelatin and OJ to my diet to test it, I can report no ill effects so far. I'm NOT eating only these 2 foods . At most, 25g gelatin and 500ml OJ a day. I was intrigued by the supposed anti-inflammatory properties of gelatin. In my first week of the change (before the holiday :eek:), I think I can make better use of the calories in jelly babies than OJ. Individual variance. This does not mean that you HAVE to eat jelly babies as part of a healthy diet, only that they are not dangerous (for me) (so far). Maybe it's just a honeymoon period while muscle/liver glycogen fills up, I'll make sure to report if this changes as I re-instate a somewhat controlled experiment (no, I wasn't counting the calories or macro comp of choc pancakes, if you're wondering )

I can agree that 'for most people', if they don't care about the intricacies of diet, a blanket recommendation of low carb works. Low fat also works. Restricting any food that they were eating a significant proportion before, works. It works not because there's a problem with carbs per se (or fat), but because these simple rules to follow will lead to caloric reduction without paying much attention to details. I'm saying that for me (and other people that like the details), there are a few nuances that can make the diet more interesting without ill effects (and some positive ones). And while the WW thread or low carb recipes can be interesting (;) ), I'm here to discuss the intricacies

rocky

boomtown84 wrote: »

Don't forget the big bad antinutrients in grains that cause scitzophrenia and cancer!:rolleyes:

oh and in response to your measurement....i thought as much:D!

I wasn't disagreeing with you a few months ago, but now after having cut out gluten, I feel much better (less knee pain, for one). In the last week I wasn't excluding grains though, and my symptoms haven't worsened, so I'm almost back to square one. It must be some combination of coffee, coke zero, and grains that aggravate them (didn't have any of the first two on my holidays)

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

Hey I only added gelatin and OJ to my diet to test it, I can report no ill effects so far. I'm NOT eating only these 2 foods . At most, 25g gelatin and 500ml OJ a day. I was intrigued by the supposed anti-inflammatory properties of gelatin. In my first week of the change (before the holiday :eek:), I think I can make better use of the calories in jelly babies than OJ. Individual variance. This does not mean that you HAVE to eat jelly babies as part of a healthy diet, only that they are not dangerous (for me) (so far). Maybe it's just a honeymoon period while muscle/liver glycogen fills up, I'll make sure to report if this changes as I re-instate a somewhat controlled experiment (no, I wasn't counting the calories or macro comp of choc pancakes, if you're wondering )

I can agree that 'for most people', if they don't care about the intricacies of diet, a blanket recommendation of low carb works. Low fat also works. Restricting any food that they were eating a significant proportion before, works. It works not because there's a problem with carbs per se (or fat), but because these simple rules to follow will lead to caloric reduction without paying much attention to details. I'm saying that for me (and other people that like the details), there are a few nuances that can make the diet more interesting without ill effects (and some positive ones). And while the WW thread or low carb recipes can be interesting (;) ), I'm here to discuss the intricacies

I freaking LOVE gelatin. I keep meaning to do a post on it. Amazing for the skin. I like to get mine from stock when I can though as you get lots of other goodies along with it.

Jelly babies, I'm not saying OMG you'll die of JB overdooose! But they are bad for you, in tiny cumulative increments sure, but still bad for you.

Low carb works ad libitum, low fat requires the restriction of cals, of course you'll lose the same amount of weight if the calories are the same, but people on low carb diets spontaneously, voluntarily, reduce their calories (Even rats!). Correct me if I'm wrong but people on low fat diets don't do this (if they do I've never seen a paper showing it.)

If it's working for you all well and good, but you're body will probably get used to what you're doing and you'll want to change again, that's good, I change things up constantly too.

rocky

I'm catching up on blog posts, and in the last week Stephan Guyenet has a couple on carbs, insulin and fat loss:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/healthy-skeptic-podcast-and-reader.html#more

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/clarifications-about-carbohydrate-and.html

I like his level-headed approach to nutrition, although he has a theory of food reward that's supposed to improve our understanding of 'why we get fat'. Some food tastes good, so we eat more of it? Hopefully his theory will cover more than that .

Why are gelly babies unhealthy, is it the sugar? What are the negatives of eating 50-100g of them daily (150-300 Calories) for an active person with no carb intolerance?

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

I'm catching up on blog posts, and in the last week Stephan Guyenet has a couple on carbs, insulin and fat loss:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/healthy-skeptic-podcast-and-reader.html#more

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/clarifications-about-carbohydrate-and.html

I like his level-headed approach to nutrition, although he has a theory of food reward that's supposed to improve our understanding of 'why we get fat'. Some food tastes good, so we eat more of it? Hopefully his theory will cover more than that .

Why are gelly babies unhealthy, is it the sugar? What are the negatives of eating 50-100g of them daily (150-300 Calories) for an active person with no carb intolerance?

I'm enjoying that series too. Stephan has always been a high carb guy, he said on a podcast with Chris Kresser that he tried low carb but couldn't keep his weight up and he's a skinny guy to begin with.

I think the most compelling part of the theory is not 'eat bland food and you'll eat less', but the fact that lean people don't eat less when they eat bland food, but obese people do.

Are you familiar with Seth Roberts? He's been banging on about food reward for years. His diet says you can eat anything you want as long as you take tablespoons of flavourless oil at regular intervals. I keep meaning to try it but chugging oil..ugh. If anyone else is intrigued:

http://sethroberts.net/

Optimal amount of jelly beans? I have no idea! I do know that when nature gives us sugar it tends to pack it along with other nutrients, probably for a good reason. We know that mice don't have the same ill-health from honey as they do from refined sugar. What's in honey that's protective? We have no idea, that's why nutritionism is so dangerous, it requires far more knowledge than we currently have. I'm also deeply suspicious of food additives, most are petroleum derived which we don't really have a long history of consuming.

You might be fine, you might not. If those jelly beans give you lots of joy and no tooth decay, I suppose it might be a net benefit!

rocky

I've heard of Seth Roberts, but didn't look into his articles. The name of the Shangri-La diet put me off. Shallow, I know. But I may check it out, now that I see diet supporters on this forum support their choice with religious fervor (yes, even the low-carb talibans - (c) Berkhan )

Tbh, I got my fill of jellies in the last 2 weeks and may temper my intake, and base my carbs around honey and OJ.

In the end, I feel it's a personal journey for each of us, we have to reach some stages to be able to see further ahead, and the stages may be different for different people. I was a boredom eater, that's how I put on the weight. Started with restricting calories below maintenance, eating high fat in the process for 6 months, all the while eating small portions of cakes and ice cream, basically not ruling out any single food or macronutrient. That's when I also started eating more organ meats, butter, coconut oil, eggs. How many here eat chicken hearts / liver on a regular basis? I still want to get into bone broths but not sure where I'd get the bones , do I just walk into a butchers and ask for them?

There's no single food that can make or break a diet. Even if Transform recommends sweet potato, a normal potato is not worse in any way (and I'm still waiting for all the holes in the OP to be pointed out to me). An all potato diet will produce fat loss (Chris Voigt is the name of the guy that tried it and had an interview on Guyenet's site)

After reaching 83kg (at 188cm) and not losing anymore weight at 2000 Calories, I decided I should switch to maintenance and a slow bulk around winter holidays 2010. Of course the path was not without bumps, I had days eating 3500 Calories mostly from home made cheese cake, but I'm now maintaining 87kg without counting calories, even after last weeks holiday - I was probably moving more in the tropical sun which accounted for something; my Vit D production must have been through the roof . I'm now at a stage where I think I can maintain eating whatever I want (I normally like eating lots of meat anyway)(and the quantities are adjusting themselves, I 'learned' not to make emotional decisions regarding food, I wish I could say it was a conscious process, but one day [or over the course of a week/month] something just clicked - this is why I say it's a personal journey, I cannot really teach anybody else how to reach the clicked state, I can only give pointers of what works for me and the science that supports some of my decisions).

Anyway, this post is pour encourager les autres

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

I've heard of Seth Roberts, but didn't look into his articles. The name of the Shangri-La diet put me off. Shallow, I know. But I may check it out, now that I see diet supporters on this forum support their choice with religious fervor (yes, even the low-carb talibans - (c) Berkhan )

Haha! You're not the first person to comment that they didn't like the name weirdly. Also, please don't name call, it doesn't help anything or anyone.

rocky wrote: »

Tbh, I got my fill of jellies in the last 2 weeks and may temper my intake, and base my carbs around honey and OJ.

In the end, I feel it's a personal journey for each of us, we have to reach some stages to be able to see further ahead, and the stages may be different for different people. I was a boredom eater, that's how I put on the weight. Started with restricting calories below maintenance, eating high fat in the process for 6 months, all the while eating small portions of cakes and ice cream, basically not ruling out any single food or macronutrient. That's when I also started eating more organ meats, butter, coconut oil, eggs. How many here eat chicken hearts / liver on a regular basis? I still want to get into bone broths but not sure where I'd get the bones , do I just walk into a butchers and ask for them?

Bones are hard to get, I drive an hour out of town for marrow bones as most butchers don't, well, butcher anymore. Marrow is soooooo good though.

rocky wrote: »

There's no single food that can make or break a diet. Even if Transform recommends sweet potato, a normal potato is not worse in any way (and I'm still waiting for all the holes in the OP to be pointed out to me). An all potato diet will produce fat loss (Chris Voigt is the name of the guy that tried it and had an interview on Guyenet's site)

After reaching 83kg (at 188cm) and not losing anymore weight at 2000 Calories, I decided I should switch to maintenance and a slow bulk around winter holidays 2010. Of course the path was not without bumps, I had days eating 3500 Calories mostly from home made cheese cake, but I'm now maintaining 87kg without counting calories, even after last weeks holiday - I was probably moving more in the tropical sun which accounted for something; my Vit D production must have been through the roof . I'm now at a stage where I think I can maintain eating whatever I want (I normally like eating lots of meat anyway)(and the quantities are adjusting themselves, I 'learned' not to make emotional decisions regarding food, I wish I could say it was a conscious process, but one day [or over the course of a week/month] something just clicked - this is why I say it's a personal journey, I cannot really teach anybody else how to reach the clicked state, I can only give pointers of what works for me and the science that supports some of my decisions).

Anyway, this post is pour encourager les autres

I would say there's no single unprocessed food that can break a diet but having been on diets a thousand times before, there are foods that lead me down to the path of wanting more and more. Some can moderate, most cannot (at least initially).

Ooh, also, I was wrong on the ad libitum low fat thing, they do reduce their calorie intake spontaneously:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126204

Not as much as low carbers do, hence why in short term free eating studies, low carbers lose more compared to low fatters, but it must be said that the effect evens out slightly over time.

Thanks to Stephan for that. I'm still not 'there' with his theory.. French and Italian food is unbelievably good tasting and they don't get fat eating traditional fare, but I do believe it does work in reverse.

I think bottom line, many roads to Rome. My only goal is to let people know that it's OK and healthy to lose the weight with low carb if that suits them best.

Red Cortina

Hey Rocky,
I really enjoy reading what you have got to say and also reading your story.:)

With regard to this:

rocky wrote: »

That's when I also started eating more organ meats, butter, coconut oil, eggs. How many here eat chicken hearts / liver on a regular basis? I still want to get into bone broths but not sure where I'd get the bones , do I just walk into a butchers and ask for them?

I am the opposite! I make lots of bone broth (plus soup) but I really cannot stand liver. Where to do get your chicken livers from? The butchers I go to seem to have only lamb's liver and I have read that chicken liver is a bit more palatable. I get my marrow bones from the butchers. It seems that the 'chain' butchers don't have any but if you go to a craft one then they will give you some.

Roger Marbles

I would argue that the framework of your argument is flawed e.g. weight loss.

It's not about weight loss for me. It's about body composition. I couldn't care less how much I weight, it's all about how much bodyfat I carry.

And understanding the basic biochemistry behind bodyfat storage is the relationship between dietary carbohydrate, insulin, and fatty acid conversion into triacylgylcerol. Other things like hepatic resistance due to fructose come in at another level.

So for me eating carbohydrate sources that are nutritious such as veg and fruit are much more important than eating rubbish sources such as bread etc. These may cause me to eat "low carb" in some people's eyes but that is a side product of an altogether different first intention.

rocky

Red Cortina wrote: »

Hey Rocky,
I really enjoy reading what you have got to say and also reading your story.:)

With regard to this:

I am the opposite! I make lots of bone broth (plus soup) but I really cannot stand liver. Where to do get your chicken livers from? The butchers I go to seem to have only lamb's liver and I have read that chicken liver is a bit more palatable. I get my marrow bones from the butchers. It seems that the 'chain' butchers don't have any but if you go to a craft one then they will give you some.

There are a couple places in Galway that sell chicken liver (dunno about Dublin), one is a butchers near Dunnes in the Eire Sq Shopping center, but more recently I get it (and hearts) from the Meat Market in Terryland.

rocky

Roger Marbles wrote: »

I would argue that the framework of your argument is flawed e.g. weight loss.

It's not about weight loss for me. It's about body composition. I couldn't care less how much I weight, it's all about how much bodyfat I carry.

And understanding the basic biochemistry behind bodyfat storage is the relationship between dietary carbohydrate, insulin, and fatty acid conversion into triacylgylcerol. Other things like hepatic resistance due to fructose come in at another level.

So for me eating carbohydrate sources that are nutritious such as veg and fruit are much more important than eating rubbish sources such as bread etc. These may cause me to eat "low carb" in some people's eyes but that is a side product of an altogether different first intention.

I'm not arguing only for weight loss, if anything, I'm trying to put on weight at the moment. And you're a bit misguided to believe that carbs, by eliciting an acute insulin spike post-prandially, will store more fat. You have to see past the acute effects of carb intake on insulin, and look over a 24h period (or more).

With regards to hepatic resistance, are you talking about insulin resistance? Who eats fructose in isolation, try eating honey, it's not got the deleterious effects of fructose. And it's sweeeeetttt

Red Cortina

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Bones are hard to get, I drive an hour out of town for marrow bones as most butchers don't, well, butcher anymore. Marrow is soooooo good though.

I have to drive out of my out to get them too! There is a great craft butchers in Rathfarnham which gives them to me. It is beside a great fishmongers (Feeney's) which also gives me fish bones:)

My only problem with making broth is that my husband doesn't like the smell in the kitchen:pac:

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Thanks to Stephan for that. I'm still not 'there' with his theory.. French and Italian food is unbelievably good tasting and they don't get fat eating traditional fare, but I do believe it does work in reverse.

From reading his blog I had come to the impression that he is very cautious about anything he says. But he is remarkably gung-ho wrt the reward hypothesis which he has put forward recently.

I think that the obesity issue is extremely complex and to think that there is only one reason why this epidemic has occurred doesn't sit well with me. I think that there is probably more to it that just this. At the same time when I read the account by that guy who lived with some modern day remote tribes on the PaNu blog, he talked about those people eating the same thing day in day out. So in that regard the reward hypothesis seems to fall in line there.

I'm not going to pretend here that I have the first clue about anything, nutrition-wise. But something that struck me when I was reading N&PD was that Price discussed the fact that sometimes the people he met were hungry, but not in the context of energy, but in relation to hungry for various different micro-nutrients, and I think that that is an interesting concept...

Red Cortina

rocky wrote: »

There are a couple places in Galway that sell chicken liver (dunno about Dublin), one is a butchers near Dunnes in the Eire Sq Shopping center, but more recently I get it (and hearts) from the Meat Market in Terryland.

Man I need to move to Galway (or Cork!):pac:

El_Dangeroso

Red Cortina wrote: »

I have to drive out of my out to get them too! There is a great craft butchers in Rathfarnham which gives them to me. It is beside a great fishmongers (Feeney's) which also gives me fish bones:)

My only problem with making broth is that my husband doesn't like the smell in the kitchen:pac:


From reading his blog I had come to the impression that he is very cautious about anything he says. But he is remarkably gung-ho wrt the reward hypothesis which he has put forward recently.

I think that the obesity issue is extremely complex and to think that there is only one reason why this epidemic has occurred doesn't sit well with me. I think that there is probably more to it that just this. At the same time when I read the account by that guy who lived with some modern day remote tribes on the PaNu blog, he talked about those people eating the same thing day in day out. So in that regard the reward hypothesis seems to fall in line there.

I'm not going to pretend here that I have the first clue about anything, nutrition-wise. But something that struck me when I was reading N&PD was that Price discussed the fact that sometimes the people he met were hungry, but not in the context of energy, but in relation to hungry for various different micro-nutrients, and I think that that is an interesting concept...

Oh the smell of bone broth cooking is horrible, but the taste is lovely. Go figure!

Yeah, Stephan does say it's a dominant factor, but I'm not convinced. I think food quality plays a huge part. Lots of people in Mexico who work on farms all day are obese, and they don't have any access to hyper palatable junk food.

Food quality correlates with leanness in populations across the board.

Roger Marbles

rocky wrote: »

I'm not arguing only for weight loss, if anything, I'm trying to put on weight at the moment. And you're a bit misguided to believe that carbs, by eliciting an acute insulin spike post-prandially, will store more fat. You have to see past the acute effects of carb intake on insulin, and look over a 24h period (or more).

With regards to hepatic resistance, are you talking about insulin resistance? Who eats fructose in isolation, try eating honey, it's not got the deleterious effects of fructose. And it's sweeeeetttt

I never spoke once about post prandial insulin spikes. My main contention is that if you study the various biochemical pathways in the body then you will immediately recognise how diet affects both bodyfat accumulation and satiety levels through hormones such as insulin, ghrelin, adiponectin etc.

A diet geared to take advantage of this knowledge will be well placed to reconfigure body composition, weight loss aside.

It doesn't neceassarily have to be the definition of low carb either.

rocky

We know that protein also elicits an insulin response, whey + milk being particularly worrisome (if you're afraid of insulin, that is)

Also fat can be stored without raised levels of insulin, checkout ASP http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/search/label/Acylation%20Stimulating%20Protein%20%28ASP%29

And some people have shown that insulin can blunt the hunger response (check out Guyenet's last article linked above)


All of which points to insulin not being the scary fat storage hormone that some people think it is. It's a bit more complicated than that.

I thought when you said this:

And understanding the basic biochemistry behind bodyfat storage is the relationship between dietary carbohydrate, insulin, and fatty acid conversion into triacylgylcerol. Other things like hepatic resistance due to fructose come in at another level.

you were specifically referring to carbs and insulin. Maybe you can clarify, how can you manipulate the macro composition to influence insulin, and what effect is insulin having on body composition?

rocky

On the bone broth, what animals are you looking for? chicken, lamb, any others?

Red Cortina

rocky wrote: »

On the bone broth, what animals are you looking for? chicken, lamb, any others?

Think you can make broth out of any bones but I would go for beef, chicken or fish.

I would ask the butcher for marrow bones. Also it seems that using joints make for particular good broth.

Here are some interesting articles: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/11/real-food-x-roasted-marrow-bones.html and http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cooking-with-bones/

Khannie

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Food quality correlates with leanness in populations across the board.

What is a quality food? Like vegetables = quality? corn flakes = not quality? Or is it Kelloggs = quality. Lidl = not quality? Genuine question.

El_Dangeroso

Khannie wrote: »

What is a quality food? Like vegetables = quality? corn flakes = not quality? Or is it Kelloggs = quality. Lidl = not quality? Genuine question.

Generally quality is nutrients minus antinutrients.

Macros ain't got nothing on vitamins and minerals.

rocky

If you're going to overeat, better results (less bad?) to overeat carbohydrates than fat.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/62/1/19.full.pdf+html

People overeating carbs, even though they had higher fasting insulin, stored a lesser proportion of extra calories as fat when comparing to fat overfeeding (75-85% compared to 90-95%)

"At the same calorie levels, the subjects with the lowest insulin levels (because they were eating more calories as fat and thus not spiking insulin as high) stored more fat, had less of an increase in thermogenesis (heat production), and less of an increase in lean body mass."

Khannie

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Generally quality is nutrients minus antinutrients.

Macros ain't got nothing on vitamins and minerals.

Ok....This has been picking away at the back of my brain for a while. I moved office there a while ago from probably the poorest area of Dublin city to probably the wealthiest area of Dublin city. The thing that struck me *instantly* (apart from the lack of pyjamas in the local newsagent) were the lower bodyfat levels in the wealthy area. The difference was shocking to be honest.

Now you could say this is due to any of a number of things: better education. more money to buy fancy schmancy salads at lunchtime. more access to health and leisure facilities. Whatever it is, I'm pretty confident that the quality of food (as you define it in the other post) eaten by the rich people around here is higher than that eaten by poorer people near the old office. That doesn't mean that the food quality is responsible though. It could be any of a number of factors. (people who eat higher quality food may also be better educated, exercise more, yada yada).

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

If you're going to overeat, better results (less bad?) to overeat carbohydrates than fat.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/62/1/19.full.pdf+html

People overeating carbs, even though they had higher fasting insulin, stored a lesser proportion of extra calories as fat when comparing to fat overfeeding (75-85% compared to 90-95%)

"At the same calorie levels, the subjects with the lowest insulin levels (because they were eating more calories as fat and thus not spiking insulin as high) stored more fat, had less of an increase in thermogenesis (heat production), and less of an increase in lean body mass."

The above is completely meaningless unless you factor in satiety. Carbs provide better short-term satiety (1-3 hrs - coincides nicely with insulin which we know provides satiety) but fat provides greater long term satiety (> 3hrs - due to the release of the hormone CCK) meaning fat will allow you to consume less calories in the long run.

Who counts calories when they 'decide' to overeat anyway? What would be a more meaningful experiment is to measure how much people eat when told to go nuts on a bunch of carbs or a load of fat. But in my experience, no-one overeats either in isolation. Usually overeating is on foods that have a fair amount of the two combined, usually with lots of salt.

I know in my own experience, if I add a load of butter and cream to mashed potato, I am much fuller for longer on a small portion than with an equivalent amount of calories but with less fat. But I'm relatively lean (BMI=22) and eat really nutritious food most of the time so YMMV.

rocky

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

TWho counts calories when they 'decide' to overeat anyway?

Bodybuilders on a bulk

They don't have to count calories, only add some extra carbs/protein to their diet, rather than fat.

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

Bodybuilders on a bulk

They don't have to count calories, only add some extra carbs/protein to their diet, rather than fat.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, 'cos I know feck all about bulking, isn't the purpose of a bulk to add extra energy calories? If so wouldn't fat be more a bang for your buck?

What's the science behind bulking anyway? Do you need to gain fat to put on muscle?

Do you put any weight (heh) in the theory that cycling carbs will boost anabolic growth hormones? As in eating low carb high fat for 5 days and then high carb low fat for two. Seems to be the basis of this book:

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/attachments/weight-loss/25305d1231358201-modified-ckd-normal-anabolic-diet.pdf

We need some controlled trials on this stuff, why do the majority of non-clinical trials answer questions no one seemed to want the answer to in the first place?

rocky

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

But, correct me if I'm wrong, 'cos I know feck all about bulking, isn't the purpose of a bulk to add extra energy calories? If so wouldn't fat be more a bang for your buck?

As long as you eat enough protein, the extra calories can be made up of any macro percentages. Whichever you prefer, but I can't see how extra fat is going to help me work out harder (which is needed btw on a bulk).

What's the science behind bulking anyway? Do you need to gain fat to put on muscle?

You need extra calories to gain muscle, how much fat you gain depends on how well calories can be partitioned to go to new muscle as opposed to fat. If you exceed calories by a certain amount, most extra will go to fat. But as the study above shows, extra calories from carbohydrates are stored as fat in a lower proportion than those from fat.

Do you put any weight (heh) in the theory that cycling carbs will boost anabolic growth hormones? As in eating low carb high fat for 5 days and then high carb low fat for two. Seems to be the basis of this book:
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/attachments/weight-loss/25305d1231358201-modified-ckd-normal-anabolic-diet.pdf

Don't know if it works or not, I haven't cycled carbs for anabolic reasons.

We need some controlled trials on this stuff, why do the majority of non-clinical trials answer questions no one seemed to want the answer to in the first place?

This one seems to show that carbs are not necessarily worse than fat. I know, there are multiple types of fat and carbs and ideally we wouldn't make such generalisations anyway. I'm only defending carbs from the bad paleo and primal people

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

You need extra calories to gain muscle, how much fat you gain depends on how well calories can be partitioned to go to new muscle as opposed to fat. If you exceed calories by a certain amount, most extra will go to fat. But as the study above shows, extra calories from carbohydrates are stored as fat in a lower proportion than those from fat.

But if their energy calories why does it matter? Lots of people bulking on high fat with intermittent high carbs.

rocky

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

But if their energy calories why does it matter? Lots of people bulking on high fat with intermittent high carbs.

It matters, if you care about the extra 10% that goes to fat.

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

It matters, if you care about the extra 10% that goes to fat.

Huh? That still makes no sense. Either you use the calories for energy or store as fat, are you saying there's some other way of disposing of them?*

*Beyond excretion which only happens with ketones and fat when insufficient bile is produced.

rocky

Carb calories can be used for energy/ build muscle/increased metabolism / increase in temperature (higher TEF than fat)

Carbs fill muscle and liver glycogen (unlike fat)

Carbs do NOT add significantly to fat stores (unlike fat)

Carbs (and protein) build new muscle (-||-)

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

Carb calories can be used for energy/ build muscle/increased metabolism / increase in temperature (higher TEF than fat)

Carbs fill muscle and liver glycogen (unlike fat)

Carbs do NOT add significantly to fat stores (unlike fat)

Carbs (and protein) build new muscle (-||-)

Ok so thought experiment time.

Lets say two body building twins on a bulk.

One (lets call him A) is eating 25% fat 50% carbs and 25% protein , the other (B) 55% fat. 25% protein and 20% carbs.

For A on what I would call a low fat diet will get 83g of fat on a 3,000cal diet.

If the bulk bumps calories up to 4,000 (all from carbohydrate) and lets say 500 cals are in excess to muscle building requirements, all the carb calories will be used up preferentially for energy and muscle building.

B will use his fat calories for extra energy.

Both will be left with 500 calories of extra FAT energy at the end of the day.

The idea that it's somehow better to overeat on carbs rather than fat ignores, satiety, the actual ability to overeat fat (bile issues) and the glucose tolerance of that individual.

Basically, it ignores reality.

Rocky, I don't see why you have to bag on fat in order to defend carbohydrate. Can't we say that both are ok in whatever proportion leads to the most nutritious and beneficial diet for the individual in question

rocky

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ok so thought experiment time.

Lets say two body building twins on a bulk.

One (lets call him A) is eating 25% fat 50% carbs and 25% protein , the other (B) 55% fat. 25% protein and 20% carbs.

For A on what I would call a low fat diet will get 83g of fat on a 3,000cal diet.

If the bulk bumps calories up to 4,000 (all from carbohydrate) and lets say 500 cals are in excess to muscle building requirements, all the carb calories will be used up preferentially for energy and muscle building.

B will use his fat calories for extra energy.

Both will be left with 500 calories of extra FAT energy at the end of the day.

If B has 500 extra calories from fat, and A has 500 extra calories from carbs, B will store those calories with 95%+ efficiency, and A will store them with 85% efficiency -> meaning A will have a small (10%) advantage in not gaining as much fat. Where does the 10% carb calories go to? As I said in my previous post, could be increased metabolism (temperature, TEF etc), extra energy (NEAT).

The idea that it's somehow better to overeat on carbs rather than fat ignores, satiety, the actual ability to overeat fat (bile issues) and the glucose tolerance of that individual.

Basically, it ignores reality.

Maybe your reality, science is fun for science's sake
Normally when one overeats, satiety is not a concern.

Rocky, I don't see why you have to bag on fat in order to defend carbohydrate. Can't we say that both are ok in whatever proportion leads to the most nutritious and beneficial diet for the individual in question

I agree with this statement.

But high fat diets are promoted by paleo/primal circles and I want to show that carbs are not as bad as they are making them out to be, see the other Sisson thread

I'm not even saying that fats are bad (as the people above are bad mouthing carbs), only that for certain goals, carbs are better.

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

If B has 500 extra calories from fat, and A has 500 extra calories from carbs, B will store those calories with 95%+ efficiency, and A will store them with 85% efficiency -> meaning A will have a small (10%) advantage in not gaining as much fat. Where does the 10% carb calories go to? As I said in my previous post, could be increased metabolism (temperature, TEF etc), extra energy (NEAT).

But you missed the point of my example, A will burn through all his carb calories first, as carbs are burned before fat, unless you're in uncontrolled ketoacidosis or something. 'A' won't have any carbs left to store only fat, same as B, both of their 'excess' 500 cals will be fat.

rocky wrote: »

Maybe your reality, science is fun for science's sake
Normally when one overeats, satiety is not a concern.

My reality is all there is surely? :cool: Now we're getting all metaphysical

Satiety may not as much of an issue when overeating, but crapping your pants might be!:D

rocky wrote: »

But high fat diets are promoted by paleo/primal circles and I want to show that carbs are not as bad as they are making them out to be, see the other Sisson thread

I'm not even saying that fats are bad (as the people above are bad mouthing carbs), only that for certain goals, carbs are better.

Replace goals with people and we have a deal.

El_Dangeroso

Ohh, also forgot to mention that saturated fat may increase testosterone, a muscle growth promoter so there's that confounder too.

I have to make sure I endorse saturated fat in at least every third post, or else I don't get my kickback from the meat and dairy industry.

rocky

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ohh, also forgot to mention that saturated fat may increase testosterone, a muscle growth promoter so there's that confounder too.

I have to make sure I endorse saturated fat in at least every third post, or else I don't get my kickback from the meat and dairy industry.

In fairness you don't need 55%+ sat fat to increase testosterone

But you missed the point of my example, A will burn through all his carb calories first, as carbs are burned before fat, unless you're in uncontrolled ketoacidosis or something. 'A' won't have any carbs left to store only fat, same as B, both of their 'excess' 500 cals will be fat.

I'm still not getting it, how can A's excess calories come from fat when he overate carbs? Or is it 'excess' as in body fat stores excess?

Let's say both A and B have the same meals up to 6pm, and their fat storage up to that point are the same.

Now, at 10pm, A eats 500kcals of carbs and B eats 500 kcals of fat and they go to bed.

B's calories will be stored with a 95% efficiency, so (I don't actually know if this conversion is correct, but it's the same for both, so the relative numbers will be correct) 52.7g of fat gets stored.

A's calories will be stored with 85% efficiency, 47.2g fat get stored, the other 10% (50kcals) are used in increasing body temp, increasing NEAT and having vivid dreams .

That's a difference of ~5g of fat/day in favour of carb overfeeding.

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

In fairness you don't need 55%+ sat fat to increase testosterone

True, but for the record no one eats that much sat fat. Most animal fat is monounsaturated. I manage maybe 18-19%?

rocky wrote: »

I'm still not getting it, how can A's excess calories come from fat when he overate carbs? Or is it 'excess' as in body fat stores excess?

Let's say both A and B have the same meals up to 6pm, and their fat storage up to that point are the same.

Now, at 10pm, A eats 500kcals of carbs and B eats 500 kcals of fat and they go to bed.

B's calories will be stored with a 95% efficiency, so (I don't actually know if this conversion is correct, but it's the same for both, so the relative numbers will be correct) 52.7g of fat gets stored.

A's calories will be stored with 85% efficiency, 47.2g fat get stored, the other 10% (50kcals) are used in increasing body temp, increasing NEAT and having vivid dreams .

That's a difference of ~5g of fat/day in favour of carb overfeeding.

Hmm, I thought you didn't buy into macronutrient timing, have you changed your mind?

I'll grant your above example re: a puny 50cal advantage, but bear in mind gluconeogenesis in ketosis uses an average 150cal a day. Score one more for high fat

But then there's the caveat that who would want to eat a surplus of calories as pure fat or pure carbohydrate on their own. The supposed 'food reward' would be quite low (if you buy into that sort of thing, which I haven't totally yet.), overeating when you don't want to is just torture. Just read about the Vermont prison experiment.

rocky

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Hmm, I thought you didn't buy into macronutrient timing, have you changed your mind?

It's not the timing that's important, only that the excess is carbs or fat. I thought it would help if I break it down...

I'll grant your above example re: a puny 50cal advantage,

and it worked

but bear in mind gluconeogenesis in ketosis uses an average 150cal a day. Score one more for high fat

I wasn't really talking about ketosis, but fair enough - ketosis has a metabolic advantage compared to other diets - at least in the beginning, before metabolism slow down and that statement "I'm never hungry in ketosis" will need to be payed attention to and transformed into "only eat when hungry" for continued weight loss

But then there's the caveat that who would want to eat a surplus of calories as pure fat or pure carbohydrate on their own. The supposed 'food reward' would be quite low (if you buy into that sort of thing, which I haven't totally yet.), overeating when you don't want to is just torture. Just read about the Vermont prison experiment.

I'm a bit (more than) skeptical myself of the explanatory power of the food reward theory. Unless Stephan can come up with a celular mechanism that's determined/influenced by it, I'll remain skeptical.

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

It's not the timing that's important, only that the excess is carbs or fat. I thought it would help if I break it down...

and it worked

It worked in that incredibly specific example, I still say the effect is irrelevant in mixed meals which is what most ppl eat and even then it's an insignificant difference easily obliterated by a miscalculation of calories.

rocky wrote: »

I wasn't really talking about ketosis, but fair enough - ketosis has a metabolic advantage compared to other diets - at least in the beginning, before metabolism slow down and that statement "I'm never hungry in ketosis" will need to be payed attention to and transformed into "only eat when hungry" for continued weight loss

Yep, ketosis hunger suppression wears off after 6 months, you can lose a lot of weight in that time though. Protein loses the satiety effect after that period of time too. I think you can probably prolong this effect by cycling macronutrients.

rocky wrote: »

I'm a bit (more than) skeptical myself of the explanatory power of the food reward theory. Unless Stephan can come up with a celular mechanism that's determined/influenced by it, I'll remain skeptical.

It's the same biochemical reason we keep doing anything that's probably not good for us: dopamine. We're a slightly more sophisticated version of a rat pressing a button for a pellet.:D

rocky

Changes in body weight, body composition, and energy intake in women fed high- and low-fat diets

low fat diet: 60% carbohydrate, 20% fat
high fat diet: 44% carbohydrate, 37% fat

By the end of the LF [low-fat] period, energy
intake had increased significantly in comparison with the HF
diet (119% of the HF intake, P < 0.0001). Results could not be
explained by changes in daily activity levels and suggest that
macronutrient composition plays a role in energy requirements
for weight maintenance.

On average, 19% more calories on the LF diet to maintain stable weight.




Nutrient balance in humans: effects of diet composition



High CHO diet (60/20/20 c/f/p) determines a negative net fat storage (intake minus oxidation), whereas in a high fat diet (20/20/60 cpf), fat balance becomes positive by day 7)

El_Dangeroso

37% Fat is not a high fat diet!

Plus again you are in this artificial environment of deliberately raising calories independent of satiety. Sure fat may provide more energy, but did you ever think that it also provides more satiety too? In fact we know it does.

Plus look at the low fat diet. Margarine, skim milk, plain spagetti with tomato sauce. Not very appetising compared to the supposed 'high fat' diet. I bet the low fat women over reported their food. You see this constantly on low carb and low fat studies, when you make the food more rewarding, people start to under report.

I find it very interesting that the paper acknowledges the unique effect wheat has on blood sugar independent of carb count and that was 1991!

How do you reconcile the above study with the following two studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21455123

I can't get access to the full text but from the abstract:

Following intervention, macronutrient composition of the diet was vastly different between the groups, reflecting the assigned diet. Both groups lost weight and body fat (P < 0.001), with effect in LC dieters greater than LF dieters (−9.1 kg vs. −4.97 kg weight, P < 0.05 and −5.45 kg vs. −2.62 kg fat, P < 0.001).

Double the weight loss. I can't wait to get a hold of the full text because at 6 months on these types of trials almost no one is eating ketogenic carbs, it's usually about 100g a day, way too much for any kind of gluconeogenesis advantage. But they are always eating a high fat diet.

Also this one:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/health/pdf/ACSM_2011.pdf

Unpublished as of now but presented at a conference recently.

Basically they advised two groups to cut cals by 750 and then timed how long it would take participants to lose 10lb.

It took the low fat group took an average of 70 days to lose 10lb but the low carb group took 45lb. Both groups of participants said they reduced calories by 750, do you see what I mean by under-reporting?

So, what have we learnt? If you want to gain weight eat a high fat diet, and if you want to lose weight, ehh, eat a high fat diet.

rocky

37% is higher than 20%. Imagine the results with a 60% fat diet :eek:

You keep going on about fat providing more satiety. This is not universal, some people are hungry without a significant proportion of carbohydrates and/or protein.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8862476

RESULTS:
Subjectively-rated pleasantness did not differ between the breakfasts, or any of the subsequent ad libitum meals. Subjective hunger was significantly greater during the hours between breakfast and lunch after the HF (26) treatment relative to the HP (18) or HC (18 mm) meals (P < 0.001), although the HP treatment suppressed hunger to a greater extent than the other two treatments over 24 h.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9683329

The HP meal was the most thermogenic (P < 0.001) and it determined the highest sensation of fullness (P=0.002). There were no differences in the sensations [of fullness] and thermic effect between fat and carbohydrate meals.

VLC did indeed reduce my appetite (too much I might say), but it also reduced my joie de vivre. It's an effect I didn't like. I probably wasn't "fat adapted"...

So the low fat dieters tend to underreport more than the low carb dieters.
That explains it

Going back to the thread title, carbs are not really worse than fat in general. Sure, there are specific carbs one would do best to avoid (agave syrup , wheat in some cases), but there are also fats in this category (transfats, [partially] hydrogenated fats, vegetable oils). The Paleo/Primal fear of carbs is unwarranted.

Get dat der rice into you.