Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
I am getting a bit frustrated with some nutritionists who promote their program by knocking down a long-dead strawman: the high-carb, low-fat diet. I have not seen anyone advocate such a diet in many years, but even someone who is a certifiable genius, like Cosgrove, has on his blog today talking as if this was still the "conventional wisdom".
Everywhere I read about a more balanced approach and now it seems that we are just arguing about the fine details. Am I missing something, is there still a large contingent of high carb advocates out there that I am not seeing?
My suspicion is that it is easier to advocate the benefits of your program when you have something diametrically different to compare it to, rather than explain why your variation is different than the dozen others that are along the same lines.
While people who actively investigate a "diet" to help them lose weight, rarely use the dietary strategy outlined by the USDA, kids are taught to eat that way by the govt and parents.
They (people like Cosgrove, CB, etc.) write these things because their target new customer is likely eating this way, now.
I can't calculate what the percentages at the USDA site, roughly what percentage of calories from carbs are they recommending? I would consider anything over 55 or 60% high carb, but I don't know what the ratios are there, only the total grams of each "type" of food.
But I do think it is very true that the average joe could be eating WAY too many carbs. But Cosgrove is not really writing to the average joe, is he? He seems to have a pretty sophisticated following. Still, if there is still some ongoing misunderstanding, then I would definitely support more people getting the word out.
I think the average American is eating a lot of carbs. USDA recommends 6-11 servings of bread and cereal a day. Go to the average restaurant and try to find something that's reasonably low carb. Everything comes with potatoes, pasta, rolls, pancakes, or muffins, and then there are all those desserts. It's even worse with fast food. Sugar in various forms turns up everywhere -- bread, condiments like ketchup, soda pop, even fat-free salad dressing.
The average person tends to think that the "fat free" products all over the place are "healthier" -- stuff like mayo, ice cream, salad dressing, cookies, etc. That stuff is loaded with sugar.
Unfortunately, most people don't put a lot of thought into what they eat. They depend on the label to tell them if it's "healthy" or not.
__________________ The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same. -- Carlos Castaneda
you see that a lot. it's like knocking runners for not weight training...when the vast majority of running "stuff" promotes weight training. the majority of people may "think" something. The majority of people that went through a little effort to learn about something think something else entirely.
I think that you need to be willing to accept the data that says the Mediteranian diet (high carb) is proven to be associated with decreased morbidity and mortality. Not many diets can say that. Will you get the best body composition? Probably not. So you have to choose your goals.
I think that you need to be willing to accept the data that says the Mediteranian diet (high carb) is proven to be associated with decreased morbidity and mortality. Not many diets can say that. Will you get the best body composition? Probably not. So you have to choose your goals.
to the contrary I think most diets can say that. the food selection plays too big a role there. you could drop the pasta\bread and do as well if not better. you eat a ton of olive based products, seafood as your primary meat, and all the fruit and vegis you want and you're going to be doing just fine. whether your goal is to look good or be healthy. you could call it whatever you want. "gobbla diet" really has a ring to it though...go with that!
One of the Seattle papers has a syndicated columnist who sounds generally good and accurate. Except for one thing: the great judge of everything is Calories and grams of fat. Lower on both is always better. No discussion, per Atkins (and he is right here), on getting enough Calories. A 300 Cal. hamburger is ALWAYS betting than a 600 Cal. one. Regardless of how many Calories you need per meal to maintain or lose weight. The implication of his whole damn system would put everyone on a 1000 Calorie diet per day. Check the ADA for their rec. 50% carbs as I recall.
The word is NOT out that carbs, and particularly the white ones are killers. Or at least not to the general population in any way that is affecting the eating habits of the majority of the population.
I am getting a bit frustrated with some nutritionists who promote their program by knocking down a long-dead strawman: the high-carb, low-fat diet. I have not seen anyone advocate such a diet in many years, but even someone who is a certifiable genius, like Cosgrove, has on his blog today talking as if this was still the "conventional wisdom".
I think more than anything, Alwyn was pointing the reader in the direction of a well-written article that raised some interesting questions. He really didn't go into detail about his personal stance or recommendations.
Quote:
Everywhere I read about a more balanced approach and now it seems that we are just arguing about the fine details. Am I missing something, is there still a large contingent of high carb advocates out there that I am not seeing?
No, not really.
Quote:
My suspicion is that it is easier to advocate the benefits of your program when you have something diametrically different to compare it to, rather than explain why your variation is different than the dozen others that are along the same lines.
Yeah, you're right about that, except the focus of this article was on diabetics, not the disease-free. That would be a different discussion. the point was more along the lines of, why doesn't the ADA take the same aggressive stance on diabetics lowering their carbs as it does on promoting diabetic medication?
I thought it was a good article, but it was biased in the anti-carb direction. The sensationalistic slant may have been necessary for the entertainment factor, as well as the underlying point of the article: a simple inexpensive solution, versus an expensive solution lucrative to big pharma.
My beef with the whole approach is the bias toward removing carbs, while not even mentioning the alternate therapy of progressive increase in muscular work. Why focus on cutting off intake when you can split the difference between that & increasing output? The latter protocol actually welcomes carbs, although not to the same degree in non-diabetics. There's a host of negatives (hormonal & other) to perpetually scraping by on trace carbs, regardless of population. That all-or-nothing deal with carbs is not only unnecessary with diabetics, it simply isn't optimal.
I've personally counseled more diabetics than I can count. I've never EVER had to make anyone adopt the extreme carb-free lifestyle to cause drastic improvements in glucose metabolism. In many cases I've been able to help folks achieve the complete weaning off of exogenous insulin -- while keeping all types of carbs in the diet.
In short, both extremes are incorrect, & you can't leave exercise, energy balance, & food types out of the equation when talking about improving the status of diabetics.
this is what irks me; over consumption of food is bad for you regadless of the macro source.
A diet in deficit where carbs are the main constintuent ie 60% of macro is not. Its tieing up the obesity easy fix lifestyle with a eating healthy and almost like saying you shouldnt have carbs because we know you wont stick to a healthy level so best avoid it!
You wouldnt say Vitamin C is bad for you but overconsuming it can have a whole raft of ill health consequences.
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
"Fat is bad" is still very entrenched in the minds of many or most, and there's little understanding in the general public of bad fat versus good fat. But I agree that low fat/ all-carbs-are-great-in-any-amount diets are not promoted these days (except by the USDA as Lost Dog pointed out!).
I think a GobblaDiet style presentation of a healthy diet might be helpful to the general public. Here's your healthy foods. Eat as much of these as possible and limit things outside these groups as much as you can. I tend to use this approach personally. I don't ever count carb, fat, or protein grams. I keep a mental tab of daily calories and make sure I'm getting decent portions of protein, Omega-3's, other healthy fats, and as many veggies and fruits as possible without worrying about specific macro% breakdowns.
Alan, I agree and I was not really dissing Alwyn's article itself, but that opening line:
"High carb and low fat has been the fat loss and health recommendation for years."
I guess I have been reading so much decent advice lately that I may be out of touch with what the general public is hearing about a healthy diet. While most nutrition experts I have heard are equally hard on Atkin's level low carb, most seem to accept that there are good fats, that carbs should be limited to the good type and that protein is good for you.
Personally, I try to keep my carbs around 50% or less.
Alan, I agree and I was not really dissing Alwyn's article itself, but that opening line:
"High carb and low fat has been the fat loss and health recommendation for years."
I guess I have been reading so much decent advice lately that I may be out of touch with what the general public is hearing about a healthy diet. While most nutrition experts I have heard are equally hard on Atkin's level low carb, most seem to accept that there are good fats, that carbs should be limited to the good type and that protein is good for you.
Personally, I try to keep my carbs around 50% or less.
50%, That would be 300-400 grams of carbs a day. OK if your body handles it. Having my sugar levels, even with about 50 grams of carbs/day giving me a bout with retinopathy I certainly wish I had gone low carb ten years ago. My blood sugar level on one test regularly shows marginal, and that obviously can be enough for damage to occur. Interestingly while most Drs. were not for, or even against, low carbs then, both optholomogist and internist encourage me to stay what you would call 'extreme low carb'.
Well, for me it is not that many carbs, since I am still taking in 2000 to 2200 calories a day. My last 7 day average (which is given by CalorieKing) is as follows:
"Daily averages for the past 7 days
Energy Gained Through Food:
2017 cals
Energy Burnt Through Exercise:
-211 cals
Net Energy:
1806 cals
Carbs:
247.1 g (47%)
Protein:
184.7 g (36%)
Fat:
38.1 g" (17%)
I have lost 57 pounds in 5 months with this breakdown (although my fat is usually a tad higher). And, with the new weight training, I have more muscle as well. So far, this has been a winning combination for me.
My blog post was to draw attention to Adam's article which I felt was well written and highlighted an approach to a disease that is largely being ignored in favor of medication prescription.
As far as recommending exercise - well the ADA already do recommend exercise, in addition to their dietary recommendations.
However the USDA, ADA and AHA still recommend high carb and low fat. And have for years.
Someone like yourself Vance, who is a part of an internet forum on fitness and has educated yourself on the differences between carbohydrates and different fats is not really the majority. As Gobbla said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbla
The majority of people that went through a little effort to learn about something think something else entirely.
The fact that it's the "majority of people who went through a little effort to learn about something" means we're no longer talking about the majority!
Yes, I am coming to see that the "good news" has not spread to the masses yet. Sounds like you and the others still have some work to do getting the word out!
When you get dialed in to the people who know what they are talking about (whether they accept their genius status or not!), and you hear them often enough, you tend to forget that there is a wider world out there which may not be getting the same information.
When I mention the word 'fat' people seem to step back and look at me funny. This one girl really wanted me to write her a fat loss plan so I did. She saw it and looked at me funny... The next day she was telling me about her bagel and salad diet.
I think some people take it to far with droping the carbs, droping even fiberous veggies. But, personally I am having great success with <50g of fiberous carbs per day. I wouldnt recomend this as a lifestyle neccesarly, but periods of low carb seem drop the fat off of me (lower calorie of course too...) I have more energy as well.. Of course once I reach my desired leanness I plan on bringing up the carbs..
I think some people take it to far with droping the carbs, droping even fiberous veggies. But, personally I am having great success with <50g of fiberous carbs per day. I wouldnt recomend this as a lifestyle neccesarly, but periods of low carb seem drop the fat off of me (lower calorie of course too...) I have more energy as well.. Of course once I reach my desired leanness I plan on bringing up the carbs..
This is the way I'm going about it. Mainly fruit and vegetable carbs. It's doing well for me.
something I find quite funny when people say on other forums "I eat a good balanced diet or a low carb diet etc" they then list the diet and negate half the carb sources. Now this is probably through lack of knowledge and understanding and they also do the same for protein and then over supplement in this regard as well.
There also seems to be a theme that those dieting who dont strictly monitor calorie intake over-estimate and those bulking under-estimate. I dont know if others have also found this through interacting with others?
When talking about the masses there are a hell of alot out there that just dont understand the basics of nutrition and diet, its frighteninly worrying and it makes you wonder where this shortfall and lack of knowledge comes from. I cant speak for the US but when I was at school food science and nutrition was in the curriculum all the way from age 5 to 13 and then it was dropped.
I believe it should be carried on as mandatory from that age and especialy so as people move closer to adult hood and fending for themselves.
Alwyn I have a question for you as much as there seems to be a fatophobia faction of dieters do you not feel we are slightly in danger of becoming carbophobic as a generation of fitness enthusiasts (this isnt a criticism of anyone in particular just a question)?
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
BFG Its OK to eat as much carbs as you tolerate. But that is the question. Some people tolerate very few carbs. And in some cases that very few, is very very few indeed. Eating 10-12 servings of low carb veggies can give you all the carbs you need as well as veritable platefuls of other healthy contributions to your good nutrition. Being pre-diabetic, and having a couple other symptoms, leaving carbs behind is not an extreme thing to do. I never followed the Adkins diet closely, but one of the parts of that diet is adding carbs back into your diet until you start gaining weight. Then drop back. You have found your limit. Logical. Simple.
BFG Its OK to eat as much carbs as you tolerate. But that is the question. Some people tolerate very few carbs. And in some cases that very few, is very very few indeed. Eating 10-12 servings of low carb veggies can give you all the carbs you need as well as veritable platefuls of other healthy contributions to your good nutrition. Being pre-diabetic, and having a couple other symptoms, leaving carbs behind is not an extreme thing to do. I never followed the Adkins diet closely, but one of the parts of that diet is adding carbs back into your diet until you start gaining weight. Then drop back. You have found your limit. Logical. Simple.
I see what you are saying and follow you on this and agree it aint that difficult to leave them out at all, it takes a bit of adaption but no biggie.
But this view on carb intolerance does seem to be more focussed on in the US as a nutritional issue.
Adding excess calories back into your diet will cause the gain of weight not just adding carbs though so I dont follow your thought process on that. The source of those additional calories could be any macronutrient.
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
Adding excess calories back into your diet will cause the gain of weight not just adding carbs though so I dont follow your thought process on that. The source of those additional calories could be any macronutrient.
This is exactly correct. The vast majority of overweight folks who come to seek my help are chronic low-carb yoyo commandos. There's a ton of fat folks who are low carbing. Back to my original point, there's more to it than carb intake.
I believe in some health reasons for reducing carbs (chiefly the acid/base balance issue), but for me, they do nothing but cause me to crave more carbs. Whether this is purely mental (likely) or has some physiological component, I don't know.
I know that I lost plent of weight doing low fat, high carb. I lost plenty doing TAP (moderate everything, but low carb by comparison). I lost the last plenty eating low carb.
Just to be honest, I'm more likely to go off on a binge, now vs. my early days of dieting. There's always the change that it's my current dietary style. Or, is it just the slow progress that disheartens me and allows me to give in? Who can know?
I just got a pm whose answer I gave is very relevant to this discussion:
Quote:
Alan
I tend to value your nutrition advice over all others I have seen posted on here and other sites as I tend to find you have a more balanced approach and take the sensible route of not digressing into the extreme intricacies of bodily function when it comes to diet (trust me thats meant as a compliment just cant word it very well )
But I have a question I dont know if you can answer.
Now I tend to think people tend to focus way too much on insignificant details such as insulin sensitivity of whether they should eat peas or not (just one thread that sprung to mind) - now putting the argument of diabetes aside - would you really feel this makes that much difference in fat loss potential for a trainee? I tend to read up on the blogs on people approaches both diet and training and still see that after the initial weeks into a fat loss programme that most people tend to average out at 1 1/2 lbs to 2 lbs a week fat loss when on a long term regime. Now I havent really seen much to the contrary to this, (other than studies that give you a guide but dont really reflect real life).
In your experience would you see any great difference in training or diet approaches if say they were all adhering 100% to a well structured diet and training programme?
I hope you can workout what I am getting at there! And appreciate if you feel its a great unanswerable with so many variables.
1) Thanks very much, I really appreciate it.
2) Yes, people do tend to focus on the minutia, when it truly doesn't boil down to jack crap beyond the broader strokes & the basics. The little details are good to know, but it's all theory & incomplete data that people tend to jerk themselves into oblivion over. By the way, I favor a weight loss of 1%/month for the highly conditioned, 2%/mo for the average, 3 or more %/mo (rarely more than 4%) for the obese newb just starting a diet & exercise plan after years of neglect.
3) In my experience (and in research), for fat loss, as long as protein intake is sufficient & total cals are in check, there's very little difference if at all when carb & fat proportions are altered. The only difference in the lesser carb proportion is worse training performance and a lesser tendency to progress strengthwise.
I agree that anything that people are enthusiastic about can become obsessive and extreme. I lost a lot of weight eating fairly clean and balanced, but when I tell some purists that two of my daily meals usually consisted of a Lean Cuisine and a Progresso soup, they roll their eyes and shake their heads.
I see what you are saying and follow you on this and agree it aint that difficult to leave them out at all, it takes a bit of adaption but no biggie.
But this view on carb intolerance does seem to be more focussed on in the US as a nutritional issue.
Adding excess calories back into your diet will cause the gain of weight not just adding carbs though so I dont follow your thought process on that. The source of those additional calories could be any macronutrient.
Thanks for the comments. I think the procedure after any successful diet should be the same.
1. Don't go back to your old eating habits (most people do)
2. Correct any deficiencies in your diet, particularly veggies and protein
3. tweak your diet by adding back things you miss or want, but add only a little back at a time. If you start gaining you have tweaked too much!
4. Work at making sure your diet psychologically satisfies you. If you feel you are deprived you will probably go off it eventually. So come up with the treats, desserts, bigger meals that don't cause weight gain but give a lot of satisfaction.
I agree that anything that people are enthusiastic about can become obsessive and extreme. I lost a lot of weight eating fairly clean and balanced, but when I tell some purists that two of my daily meals usually consisted of a Lean Cuisine and a Progresso soup, they roll their eyes and shake their heads.
Excellent! I eat a lot of fast food, when I'm travelling, and get crap for it.
Wendy's chili and salads
Carl's Jr. salads and chicken sandwiches (with or without the whole wheat bun, depending).
McDonald's lettuce wrapped whatevers and a salad.
It's food. No food is perfect. But, who needs to be perfect?
To the "purist" an emergency meal might be jerky and nuts from the gas station. What makes that better than a lettuce wrapped burger and side salad? Personally, I think mine's better.
On a side not, my wife used to give me crap for letting the kids have Taco Bell when they were with me. Fast food is bad! Yet, she took them to a real Mexican restaurant. For the adult, who picks the right things, the restaurant wins. But, for kids?
Taco Bell: Bean burrito and a very small bag of chips and cheese
I agree that anything that people are enthusiastic about can become obsessive and extreme. I lost a lot of weight eating fairly clean and balanced, but when I tell some purists that two of my daily meals usually consisted of a Lean Cuisine and a Progresso soup, they roll their eyes and shake their heads.
Progresso's Minestrone with Chicken is a staple in my pantry too! It's a pretty good choice when you just aren't going to cook (and there are always those days).
The diet strawman?
Linear Mode
