# The Demonizing of Carbs



## exphys88 (Jul 13, 2012)

The Demonizing of Carbs​  Carbs are incorrectly labeled as the cause of fat gain and sometimes labeled as unhealthy for humans by food extremists.  I?m writing this with the intention of explaining why they have been falsely labeled as bad and to give ways we can manipulate them to cause fat loss, even though total fat loss is primarily determined by our caloric balance.


  There are 3 main points that I want to address:

1.      Fat loss is determined by how many calories we consume vs. how many calories we burn .

2.      Diets high in protein increase satiety, allowing tolerance of lower caloric intake.

3.      Diets high in protein result in more retention of lbm while dieting.


  What happens in the practical world of personal trainers is that they notice that when their clients are put on a high protein, low carb diet, their clients find more success in fat loss.  This success is the result of their clients being in a caloric deficit, increased satiety from high protein intake which increases the tolerance of fewer calories, and lbm retention caused by high protein.

  This is where the demonizing of carbs begins.  The personal trainer with little nutrition education falsely makes the assumption that carbs must be bad for us if cutting carbs results in fat loss.  They then begin a campaign to demonize all carbs, which quickly spreads to professionals with little understanding of human nutrition, which happens to be most personal trainers you find in a gym. 

  Whereas, as high protein, low carb diet is very effective at fat loss, it is not the only way to go about it.  Whole food carbohydrates are rich in vitamins, minerals, fiber and antioxidants and should be included in all diets.  Additionally, an athlete that is training at high intensities requires at least a moderate intake of carbohydrates to sustain his or her work level.  

  Just because a high protein, low carb diet is effective for fat loss, does not mean that carbs are unhealthy for humans.  Remember that low carb diets are just low calorie diets in disguise.

  exphys88

  References:

A high-protein diet induces sustained reductions in appetite, ad libitum caloric intake, and body weight despite compensatory changes in diurnal plasma leptin and ghrelin concentrations

A high-protein diet induces sustained reductions in appetite, ad libitum caloric intake, and body weight despite compensatory changes in diurnal plasma leptin and ghrelin concentrations

Hypocaloric high-protein diet improves glucose ox... [Metabolism. 1994] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## jadean (Jul 13, 2012)

Good post right here. It makes me smile when i hear trainers telling their clients to cut out carbs all together. The one rule with carbs i do abide by is very low carbs before bed. Sometimes just straight protein right before.


----------



## PushAndPull (Jul 13, 2012)

The biggest reasons for low carb diets becoming so popular is simplicity and satiety. The average person following a low carb diet won't have to count calories in order to lose weight (extremely simple) High protein and fat generally leads to greater satiety as well.
Also before low carb was popular, low fat diets were popular. Low fat diets are generally colossal failures, since you must still count calories. Not to mention problems with satiety. So people were still looking for something easy, but effective. I agree the problem is the types of carbs chosen, and lack of calorie counting that leads to failure. Yet it's expected that carbs would get a bad rap. If a person goes from low fat diet (eat anything low in fat) to a low carb diet (eat anything low in carbs) they will quickly realize that the low carb diet works and low fat does not. As far as the typical dieter goes, they only see _low carb_ and _low fat_ not *total calories*.
So called professionals should have more knowlege than the typical person. They should be able to create and explain an individualized diet for their client.


----------



## dirtbiker666 (Jul 13, 2012)

On that note people need to realize eating healthy fats are good too.


----------



## NVRBDR (Jul 13, 2012)

I _*love *_my carbs


----------



## exphys88 (Jul 13, 2012)

PushAndPull said:


> The biggest reasons for low carb diets becoming so popular is simplicity and satiety. The average person following a low carb diet won't have to count calories in order to lose weight (extremely simple) High protein and fat generally leads to greater satiety as well.
> Also before low carb was popular, low fat diets were popular. Low fat diets are generally colossal failures, since you must still count calories. Not to mention problems with satiety. So people were still looking for something easy, but effective. I agree the problem is the types of carbs chosen, and lack of calorie counting that leads to failure. Yet it's expected that carbs would get a bad rap. If a person goes from low fat diet (eat anything low in fat) to a low carb diet (eat anything low in carbs) they will quickly realize that the low carb diet works and low fat does not. As far as the typical dieter goes, they only see _low carb_ and _low fat_ not *total calories*.
> So called professionals should have more knowlege than the typical person. They should be able to create and explain an individualized diet for their client.



Well said.  It's much easier for my clients and myself to be in a caloric deficit w lots of protein.
I've tried low fat, high carb and literally felt like I was starving all day.


----------



## Anabolic5150 (Jul 13, 2012)

Good read and info fellas, thanks!


----------



## sassy69 (Jul 13, 2012)

Cliff Notes:

Carbs good!

Lazy ass bad.


----------



## exphys88 (Jul 13, 2012)

sassy69 said:


> Cliff Notes:
> 
> Carbs good!
> 
> Lazy ass bad.



Lol


----------



## Powermaster (Jul 19, 2012)

Shouldn't this thread be titled the demonizing of personal trainers?

I mean it's pretty basic common knowledge that not all carbs are good and that there are allot of bad ones out there same with all food groups.

Pretty sad state when an internet PT throws cheap shots at other PT's.


----------



## exphys88 (Jul 19, 2012)

Powermaster said:


> Shouldn't this thread be titled the demonizing of personal trainers?
> 
> I mean it's pretty basic common knowledge that not all carbs are good and that there are allot of bad ones out there same with all food groups.
> 
> Pretty sad state when an internet PT throws cheap shots at other PT's.



I'm an exercise physiologist with actual nutrition education and a masters degree.  Far from your typical gym personal trainer who has a certification from ACE.  

I regularly hear or see the recommendation that carbs are bad for us, even carbs from good sources.  I see it on the boards all the time, in fact I'm currently debating this topic with someone who claims to be a professional contest prep coach.  Unfortunately, in this field, it's not common knowledge.  It's usually those with some education that agree with me.

I stand by my criticism of personal trainers.


----------



## deadred (Jul 28, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The Demonizing of Carbs​  Carbs are incorrectly labeled as the cause of fat gain and sometimes labeled as unhealthy for humans by food extremists.  I?m writing this with the intention of explaining why they have been falsely labeled as bad and to give ways we can manipulate them to cause fat loss, even though total fat loss is primarily determined by our caloric balance.



Kinda confused.  Doesn't carb intake increase blood insulin levels?  And, doesn't higher levels of insulin in our blood cause our muscles to burn glucose for energy vs. fat, thus indicting carb intake as a cause of fat gain/retention?


----------



## exphys88 (Jul 28, 2012)

deadred said:


> Kinda confused.  Doesn't carb intake increase blood insulin levels?  And, doesn't higher levels of insulin in our blood cause our muscles to burn glucose for energy vs. fat, thus indicting carb intake as a cause of fat gain/retention?



The literature is very solid on the concept that calories consumed vs calories burned is the most important factor in fat loss.  In fact, I posted a study along w this article that compared diets of different macronutrients portions and they all resulted in similar weight loss.


----------



## deadred (Jul 28, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The literature is very solid on the concept that calories consumed vs calories burned is the most important factor in fat loss.  In fact, I posted a study along w this article that compared diets of different macronutrients portions and they all resulted in similar weight loss.



Still confused - that study doesn't directly address my questions about the carb/insulin/fat retention questions above.  You say "weight loss" was the same between the two groups. It wasn't fat loss.  Could it be assumed that, since you say the two groups weight loss was similar, one group lost muscle tissue (_conversely, a hypocaloric high-polysaccharide-CHO diet decreases insulin sensitivity and is unable to spare muscle tissu_e) ​whereas the other was fat?


----------



## exphys88 (Jul 28, 2012)

deadred said:


> Still confused - that study doesn't directly address my questions about the carb/insulin/fat retention questions above.  You say "weight loss" was the same between the two groups. It wasn't fat loss.  Could it be assumed that, since you say the two groups weight loss was similar, one group lost muscle tissue (_conversely, a hypocaloric high-polysaccharide-CHO diet decreases insulin sensitivity and is unable to spare muscle tissu_e) ​whereas the other was fat?



Even though consuming carbs increases insulin, the effect on fat loss/gain must be insignificant, considering the mountains of literature showing that caloric balance is the biggest determinate of fat loss/gain.  

It's similar to the idea of a "fat burning zone.". Even though working at a low intensity results in a higher percentage of the fuel being fat, the total calories burned matters most.  
In other words, doing 30 minutes of high intensity exercise will result in more fat loss than 30 minutes of low intensity, even though the low intensity exercise utilizes a higher percentage of fat as fuel.


----------



## hypo_glycemic (Jul 28, 2012)

Carb groups are, monosaccharide, d.isaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides. 
All are used in different cells for different purposes.
Carbs also produce glucose which gives you energy but cells DO NOT use all glucose so it reserves some and stores it in the liver and muscles as glycogen.


----------



## deadred (Jul 28, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Even though consuming carbs increases insulin, the effect on fat loss/gain must be insignificant, considering the mountains of literature showing that caloric balance is the biggest determinate of fat loss/gain.
> 
> It's similar to the idea of a "fat burning zone.". Even though working at a low intensity results in a higher percentage of the fuel being fat, the total calories burned matters most.
> In other words, doing 30 minutes of high intensity exercise will result in more fat loss than 30 minutes of low intensity, even though the low intensity exercise utilizes a higher percentage of fat as fuel.



I understand what you're saying about calories in/burned with regards to fat loss, but dang.. consuming carbs (certain types), thereby increasing insulin, has a negligible effect on fat loss/gain??   Now my head hurts.  =)

What if that person doing the 30 minutes of exercise drank a Gatorade or ate a banana before or after they exercised? Would the carb's effect be the same as if they ate a chicken breast?  Would the bodies use of fuel (glucose vs fatty acids) be different?

I'm reading a book by Gary Taubes that says this with regards to how carbs play a (significant role he argues) part in fat accumulation, he breaks it down like this:

1. You think about eating a meal containing carbohydrates. 
2. You begin secreting insulin. 
3. The insulin signals the fat cells to shut down the release of fatty acids (by inhibiting HSL) and take up more fatty acids  (via LPL) from the circulation. 
4. You start to get hungry, or hungrier. 
5. You begin eating. 
6. You secrete more insulin. 
7. The carbohydrates are digested and enter the circulation as glucose, causing blood sugar levels to rise. ? 
8. You secrete still more insulin. 
9. Fat from the diet is stored as triglycerides in the fat cells, as are some of the carbohydrates that are converted into fat in the liver. 
10. The fat cells get fatter, and so do you. 
11. The fat stays in the fat cells until the insulin level drops.


Taubes, Gary (2010-12-28). Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It (Kindle Locations 1899-1911). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Do you think any of that has any validity?


----------



## Arra (Jul 28, 2012)

deadred said:


> I understand what you're saying about calories in/burned with regards to fat loss, but dang.. consuming carbs (certain types), thereby increasing insulin, has a negligible effect on fat loss/gain??   Now my head hurts.  =)
> 
> What if that person doing the 30 minutes of exercise drank a Gatorade or ate a banana before or after they exercised? Would the carb's effect be the same as if they ate a chicken breast?  Would the bodies use of fuel (glucose vs fatty acids) be different?
> 
> ...


We don't argue that carbohydrates don't raise insulin, that insulin doesn't store fat, or any of that. We're talking about the fact that caloric restriction is the only way to create a fat-derived fat loss. Also, look up the insulin index of some protein-containing foods, they usually create more of an insulin response than a good friggen amount of carbohydrates. And it has been shown (the 80/10/10 diet, the potato diet, the twinkie diet, 30 bananas a day, and in the literature) that a calorie is a calorie, and don't give me any of this Fine/Feinman "Thermic Effect of Food" crap.

Also:
Whole Health Source: Is Sugar Fattening?
Whole Health Source: The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination
Search Results insulin taubes ? Weightology Weekly


----------



## deadred (Jul 28, 2012)

Arra said:


> We don't argue that carbohydrates don't raise insulin, that insulin doesn't store fat, or any of that. We're talking about the fact that caloric restriction is the only way to create a fat-derived fat loss. Also, look up the insulin index of some protein-containing foods, they usually create more of an insulin response than a good friggen amount of carbohydrates. And it has been shown (the 80/10/10 diet, the potato diet, the twinkie diet, 30 bananas a day, and in the literature) that a calorie is a calorie, and don't give me any of this Fine/Feinman "Thermic Effect of Food" crap.
> 
> Also:
> Whole Health Source: Is Sugar Fattening?
> ...



Not sure what you mean by  "fat-derived" fat loss?  If you're saying that the only way to lose fat is by caloric restriction, I would disagree.  

A calorie is a calorie??  So you're arguing that a person that ate 2000 calories worth of twinkies & potatoes, and a person who ate 1500cals of protein & 500 cals of fat would, let's say after 12 months, have the same body composition everything else being equal?


----------



## Arra (Jul 28, 2012)

deadred said:


> Not sure what you mean by  "fat-derived" fat loss?  If you're saying that the only way to lose fat is by caloric restriction, I would disagree.
> 
> A calorie is a calorie??  So you're arguing that a person that ate 2000 calories worth of twinkies & potatoes, and a person who ate 1500cals of protein & 500 cals of fat would, let's say after 12 months, have the same body composition everything else being equal?


*fat-derived weight loss.

Show me a study where low carb vs. low fat does not show that the calories were not sufficiently lower in the low carb group than in the low fat group.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Plenty of people (I believe Merkaba once had a 1000+ calorie junk food on a cut and continued to lose weight) here have anecdotes for this.


----------



## deadred (Jul 28, 2012)

Arra said:


> *fat-derived weight loss.
> 
> Show me a study where low carb vs. low fat does not show that the calories were not sufficiently lower in the low carb group than in the low fat group.
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Plenty of people (I believe Merkaba once had a 1000+ calorie junk food on a cut and continued to lose weight) here have anecdotes for this.



Okay, let me go back to your original statement.  If you're not saying that carbs don't raise insulin (which I'm saying they do, so we agree), and you're not saying that insulin doesn't store fat (I'm saying that it stops the body from using fatty acids for energy and has it use glucose instead) then we are basically in agreement.

I don't dispute the notion that starving oneself will cause you to lose weight, some of it being fat.  I also didn't say that protein doesn't have an effect on insulin, because it does.   I don't think it's as dramatic as carbs in general though.   From what I've read, carbs have an effect on what our bodies use for fuel: glucose vs fat.  I think that's a relevant point.

The study challenge seems to be a red herring.  Or, maybe I don't understand the challenge.  It is late and I'm tired so I apologize about that.

Would you say that your Merkaba example was the exception vs. the rule?


----------



## BFHammer (Jul 28, 2012)

Restricted calorie diet has a 2% long term effective rate.  Yes you will lose weight initially with restricted calories then like most diets you will stop losing and either be stuck or gain weight.  Studies also show the obese don't eat more than thin people though the "scientists" disbelieve it claiming they under report food intake.

Gary Taubes has a few interesting lectures you can watch.  

Jon Gabriel’s Method for Non-Diet Weight Loss  This guy is very interesting.  He lost 220 lbs when he STOPPED dieting.

I've done quite a variety of diets, though I told the vegan doctor at the VA to go fuck himself when he said eating squash and beans every day was the perfect diet.  The only dieting I haven't felt like shit doing is low carb and juice fasting.  
Yet low carb is not the whole answer either as even at 1800 calories I didn't drop weight on low carb.  

The not dieting Gabriel method makes the most sense and it's well researched noting it's a mixture of mind, emotions, and body that create obesity.  When your diet and your mind focuses on not eating or eating it puts your body into starvation mode.  Others gain fat as a mental protection regardless of what they consume.  Others because their body is starving for real nutrition that isn't in modern over processed garbage.  

Exercise isn't the answer either as once you go over 45 minutes your body goes into starvation mode and wants to build your battery.


----------



## exphys88 (Jul 28, 2012)

BFHammer said:


> Restricted calorie diet has a 2% long term effective rate.  Yes you will lose weight initially with restricted calories then like most diets you will stop losing and either be stuck or gain weight.  Studies also show the obese don't eat more than thin people though the "scientists" disbelieve it claiming they under report food intake.
> 
> Gary Taubes has a few interesting lectures you can watch.
> 
> ...



You do realize that when you look at the content of low carb diets, that they are also low calorie?

Can you cite the research on the "not dieting gabriel method?"


----------



## Arra (Jul 29, 2012)

deadred said:


> Okay, let me go back to your original statement.  If you're not saying that carbs don't raise insulin (which I'm saying they do, so we agree), and you're not saying that insulin doesn't store fat (I'm saying that it stops the body from using fatty acids for energy and has it use glucose instead) then we are basically in agreement.
> 
> I don't dispute the notion that starving oneself will cause you to lose weight, some of it being fat.  I also didn't say that protein doesn't have an effect on insulin, because it does.   I don't think it's as dramatic as carbs in general though.   From what I've read, carbs have an effect on what our bodies use for fuel: glucose vs fat.  I think that's a relevant point.
> 
> ...


I suggest you read the two links by Dr. Stephan Guyenet and the multipart series by James Krieger to see where we differ in opinions.



> Whole Health Source: Is Sugar Fattening?
> Whole Health Source: The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination
> Search Results insulin taubes ? Weightology Weekly


----------



## deadred (Jul 29, 2012)

Arra said:


> I suggest you read the two links by Dr. Stephan Guyenet and the multipart series by James Krieger to see where we differ in opinions.



Read the Whole Health Source: Is Sugar Fattening? article, very fascinating.  I haven't heard the "food reward value" hypothesis before - he does indict sugar-sweetened beverages pretty forcefully.  I'll try and read the other one's in the very near future (especially the Taubes one, although it will be a long and engrossing read).

*Conclusions

Here are the take-home points from this post:


Sugar, including fructose, is not inherently fattening relative to other calorie sources, and unrefined sugar is compatible with fat loss in the context of simple whole food diets.
Sugar can be fattening in certain contexts, specifically if it is added to foods and beverages to increase their palatability, reward value and energy density.
Sugar-sweetened beverages are probably one of the most fattening elements of the modern diet.
Fruit is not fattening, and it may actually be slimming.
In excess, refined sugar can cause body fat to redistribute from the subcutaneous depot (under the skin, where you want it) to the visceral depots and the liver (where you don't want it). It can also cause insulin resistance in the liver and increase blood pressure, all components of the 'metabolic syndrome'.  This is caused specifically by the fructose portion of the sugar.
Here are the implications:


Avoiding sugar-sweetened foods, and particularly sugar-sweetened beverages (soda, punch, sweetened coffee, cocktails, maybe fruit juice as well?) can prevent and to some extent reverse fat gain and metabolic dysfunction.
I see no reason to believe that refined and unrefined sugars, used in the same context (e.g. muffins baked with white vs. brown sugar), would have different effects on body fatness.  However, unrefined sugars may be less harmful to other aspects of health, because they contain other substances that may be protective.  Mark Sisson discussed this idea in a recent post on honey (38).
Eating fruit does not contribute to fat gain in most people, but instead probably favors leanness.  Fruit is a whole food with a low energy density and a moderate palatability and reward value.
*
So don't add sugar (simple refined carbs) to food to make them taste better so you eat more of them (which is the primary purpose of adding it to food); don't drink cokes especially and the like.  Consuming excess amounts of said carbs has negative effects on health, specifically related to where the body distributes fat.  Whole fruit is okay, but fruit juice is to be avoided.

All in all, seems like he's saying that eating fruit is okay, but the way that western civilization uses sugar can and does have negative consequences.

I still am of the mindset that limiting carbs (starch foods, refined flour & sugar specifically) can help the body burn more fat.  I didn't read anything in that article that persuaded me otherwise.  

Think I might go eat an apple now though.  =)

Thanks for sharing information!


----------



## foster33 (Aug 3, 2012)

Jimmyusa said:


> I _*love *_my carbs


Me too LOL


----------

