Carbs are Killing You (infographic)

Yes, when I stopped doing the same thing (drinking craft beers every night and not exercising nearly enough)-Even when I didn't change what I ate at all that much but instead juts did two things... stopped drinking beer and exercised (strength mostly) for just 20-40 mins. a day (it varied) I lost... in the course of about three months... about 58 pounds.
I have since realized that beer, to me anyways, even in pretty small amounts and not everyday, always turns pretty much directly into weight gain.

 

If you're inclined towards putting on weight, beer is probably one of the worst things. We've all seen those middle aged guys who drink several pints of beer per night with their big beer bellies..

 

How about chicken and turkey?

 

Beer is pretty much the only thing that makes me put on weight.

When I was a kid- a teenager, I was a swimmer for many years and was 5'10'' or 5'11'' (very tall for a female)- so yes, I was active.... but I ate WHATEVER I wanted, when ever I wanted.... I weighed only 110 pounds which is not much for someone that tall and also I had A LOT of muscle from swimming. Anyways I would see pics of myself from then and everyone who would see them would just be like "you were WAY too skinny!"--- it was only after years of drinking beer that I started to put on weight.
Now I gain weight A LITTLE easier than when I was a teenager (of course) but I pretty much stay the same weight without trying because I don't drink beer. If I ever needed or wanted to gain weight, I'd just drink beer. I have hardly even gained any weight with this pregnancy ... doctors aren't worried though. Baby is healthy weight and I have gained some. (I've pretty much gained the weight of the baby plus 2 or 3 lbs, which is placenta and extra blood). I don't eat a lot of sweets though or anything. I pretty much eat healthy overall.

 

Relatively inexpensive. For example I could buy a whole chicken ranging from about £2.20 ($3.6) per Kg if I wanted the lowest price, or up to £6, getting on for 10 USD, per kilo for an organically raised bird at my local supermart. If I shopped around the low end food retailers I could probably pay less.

For a joint of beef to roast I'd have to pay at least £12 ($19.9) per kg for good quality.

How does that compare to the US?

 

I can buy a pound of boneless chicken for about $5.

 

This makes you a living example of a point I made earlier. Anybody who starts exercising and cuts back on excess consumption of an unhealthy item is going to lose weight. No exotic diet or sophisticated, detailed medical knowledge is required.

This works for some people, but not everyone. Some people cut their consumption, exercise more, and still don't lose weight. If they do, it's often very little and is often quickly gained back. Other people lose weight as soon as they up their activity level and/or reduce their overall caloric intake (much of which probably came from carbs).

Every time I get into an honest conversation with an obese person, it comes out that they are doing / not doing things that are common knowledge to anybody who understands the most basic facts of nutrition.

But there are plenty of obese people who are seemingly doing all the right things (eating less, exercising more), and yet they continue to struggle with their weight. The point I am trying to make is that it is not all about calories in vs. calories out. Again, that is very oversimplified.

Also, there are no "basic facts" of nutrition that are commonly known. Most of these basic facts are outdated and have been regurgitated for decades, yet are fundamentally wrong. More and more is learned about obesity as time goes on, and it's being learned that it's not simply a matter of energy intake and expenditure. Not all people have the same metabolism, and therefore some people have a propensity to gain and retain weight more easily than others. It would appear that most people with metabolic issues, which is pretty much anyone who is overweight, have differences in how their bodies handle carbohydrates in particular compared to the rest of the population is who of normal weight (which may or may not eat the same amount of calories).

 

Because Italian foods are high in carbs maybe??

 

Here is a clip from the documentary Fat Head (2008), which does a good job explaining the point I am trying to make:

http://youtu.be/KE2_V-DpjQg

 

Acknowledgment of an energy budget is not a dismissal of the effects of hormones on body weight. The hormones play an important role in body weight, as they control the perception of hunger, which can cause people to consume more than what is needed to maintain current weight. They affect metabolism which is part of the energy budget.

There is always an energy budget where calories are being consumed by the person and calories are being expended. For the body to gain caloric weight, an energy surplus is needed. A surplus doesn't arise from nothing. If it's not an increased consumption that's causing weight gain, then a decrease in expenditure is occurring (lack of physical activity, lowered metabolism). There isn't any way around this conservation of energy requirement.

Metabolic changes don't make the calories-in-calories-out equation bogus. If a lifestyle is changed to one that is more sedentary, chances are good that the basal metabolic rate will decline. The calories-out number will decline because of that metabolic change, which will favor a calorie surplus. There is also the decrease in calories expended on physical activity because of the change to a sedentary lifestyle which also reduces the calories-out and favors a surplus.

 

There are cultures that eat a high carb diet and in general don't have problems with obesity and insulin resistance, as mentioned earlier in the thread. The problem isn't carbs in general. Part of the problem is foods that are low in satiety and fiber. The island cultures mentioned earlier eat 70% or more carbs including fresh fruit and vegetables that have high satiety because of the fiber. The fiber also slows the digestion, which is different than the low-fiber, highly-refined, sugary and oily carb foods that are typical of fast foods. There are other diets such as the Mediteranean diet that are approximately equally divided in carbs, protein, and fat. The protein gives satiety. People on a high-fiber, satiating, high-carb diet and on a Mediterranean diet will also say that they can eat to satisfaction and still maintain body weight or lose weight.

 

That is not italian food.

 

But aside from hormones like ghrelin and leptin, one of which controls hunger and the other which controls satiety, there is insulin, which is the most important hormone of all when it comes to determining if a person becomes obese. Levels of insulin have a direct influence on ghrelin and leptin. So not only does insulin have an effect on these hormones, which in turn influence the consumption of calories and how much, it also has an effect on how said calories are utilized once in the body. So it really depends less on the amount of calories consumed, and more on the quality of those calories. A body that is sensitive to carbohydrates or insulin resistant will be much more likely to store and accumulate these calories as fat instead of immediately use them for energy, as is the case when carbohydrates are restricted in the diet.

On the other hand, some people can tolerate carbohydrates quite well, even the fast-digesting ones which don't come from fiber-rich fruits and vegetables. For these people, even large amounts have little effect on weight gain.

It would appear with most westerners, many of whom suffer from some degree of metabolic derangement as a result of excess sugar and refined carbohydrates, they have a tendency to fall into the former as opposed to the latter category.

The biggest reason people overeat is because of carbohydrates, most of which come from heavily refined, processed sources when the word carbohydrates is referred to in the context of the Standard American Diet. As I have said before, on a low carb diet blood sugar levels are normalized, so the ability to overeat becomes much harder. Furthermore, fat and protein are much more satiating. A person simply is not going to need to eat every four hours as the average American is accustomed to. I myself can eat once a day and suffer no ill effects or hunger issues.

 

Right, and these countries do not consume the amount of sugar (in particular fructose) and refined carbohydrates that Americans do, so it makes sense they're not going to have these problems since they're eating a natural diet. Not only that, but it's a diet their ancestors have been eating for thousands and thousands of years, so these people have evolved to eat a high carbohydrate diet and tolerate it well. The same might not hold true for other ethnic groups.

The only time things like rice, potatoes and fruit might cause a problem with weight is when a person suffers from metabolic derangement as the result of eating the diet I referred to in the first sentence of the previous paragraph. In this case, it may be necessary to restrict even these naturally occurring carbs in order to adequately bring a person's insulin levels down so they actually begin burning body fat.

But you're not telling me anything I don't already know regarding some of the skinniest countries being the highest consumers of carbohydrate. This is a pretty well known fact, and nobody is arguing that.

Conversely, there are some cultures, such as the Inuit, that consume a diet of almost total fat. They were some of the healthiest, leanest people in the world before junk food from the developed world began to infiltrate their diets.

 

When these people are scrutinized, it often turns out they really aren't doing the right things. They are not getting enough activity and they are cheating on their diets. Barring disorders of the thyroid and metabolic system, it really is about 'calories in vs calories out'.

Your brain doesn't run on fat you know, it needs glucose. Cut out carbs completely and your brain is going to get sluggish, effecting your decision making and overall judgment. Carbs make you happy and give you the get up and go you need to solve lifes little problems, so cheer up, have a nice plate of tortellini and some crusty hearth bread, it's the kind of things that make life worth living!!

 

I wouldn't eat that brain rotting garbage if you paid me to. I see that and I see almost pure sugar (and some fat and maybe a small amount of protein), since that is what it gets broken down to in your body.

The brain needs a very small amount of glucose to function, and this glucose can be readily produced by the liver when needed by the process of gluconeogenesis, whereby dietary protein is broken down and converted into glucose. The brain is actually found to function much better, however, when it is fueled primarily by ketones produced by fat metabolism. While the brain DOES need a small amount of glucose to function, it does not need glucose as its primary energy source.

Carbohydrates are the only one of the three macronutrients your body does not need to stay alive. Without fat or protein, you would be dead, but the body can do just fine without ANY carbohydrates.

There is a basal amount of approximately ONE TEASPOON of glucose in the blood at any given time, and again this is maintained even during prolonged periods of fasting by the liver.

Glucose is proven to have a destructive effect on the brain, whereas ketones are shown to have a therapeutic effect, and are being researched in the treatment of depression, anxiety, Alzheimer's, and many other neurological and neurodegenerative diseases. I am convinced based on the research I've done that much of the dementia suffered by elderly people (and a growing number of non-elderly people) is the result of a lifetime of excess sugar and carb consumption. All evidence shows that diet plays a huge role in your cognitive functioning as you become older, and sugar/carb consumption is a big culprit in many people's decline.

Ketogenic diets have also long been used to treat seizures and epilepsy. In fact, they were used for this before they were used for weight loss or anything else.

If anything, low carb and ketogenic diets would appear to have a protective effect on the brain.

 

When these people are scrutinized, it often turns out they really aren't doing the right things. They are not getting enough activity and they are cheating on their diets. Barring disorders of the thyroid and metabolic system, it really is about 'calories in vs calories out'.

Oh really? And you've scrutinized every one of them I suppose?

Pretty much anyone who is overweight has some degree of metabolic dysfunction. This is why not everyone is affected the same way by caloric intake, and why some people can eat 4,000 calories in a day and not gain a pound, whereas other people will eat less than half of that and gain weight. I think if you really look at the hardcore research, you will see that it depends largely on one's ability to handle not calories but rather carbohydrates.

At the very least, look at the studies which prove that low carb/high fat diets almost always work better for weight loss than high carb/low fat diets. The proof is in the pudding.

From a purely metabolic perspective, 2,000 calories of Twinkees and candy bars is not the same as 2,000 calories of steak, fish and vegetables. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.

 

My broke ass is thinking about the $120 shopping spree in the meat department after I throw myself on the dozen glazed to save my buddies...

 

Some entrées in Italian restaurants have more calories than I allow myself in an entire day. In general, it's really hard to eat in restaurants and stay under 1800 for the day. You can get more than 1000 just from breakfast.

...assuming that they aren't tracking their calorie numbers. For women, those hormone levels will peak shortly after ovulation, and decline continuously during the month. Birth control pills significantly magnify this effect.

Right. A calorie is nothing but a measurement unit for energy, so they all have to be accounted for, one way or another. It's a basic law of science.

Calorie burn from exercise can be managed, but calorie burn from other natural body processes will decline somewhat with increasing age, and can't be directly measured. It can be indirectly measured by finding the balance point where calorie intake produces no change in your weight. A number determined from your personal diet journal is much more valuable than estimates you can find in published tables. There are a number of factors that can influence metabolism, including genetics, so you have to find a daily intake limit that works for you as an individual, rather than relying on national averages.

 

A new study suggests that under-exercising, rather than overeating, may be at the heart of America’s obesity epidemic.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/jul/08/study-not-enough-exercise-likely-cause-of-obesity/