LONGECITY

I like reading your posts Marc and I have a high opinion of your nutrition knowledge, but I have to wonder what country you live in. My observations in the States is that the majority of the obesity epidemic is the result of carb consumption. I know someone posted here a graph of carb consumption vs. obesity and the two matched nearly perfectly. I'll look around.

Also for me, carb consumption=hunger. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Eat 1 cookie and I am very soon hungry for 2 or 3 more. Eat a small portion of spaghetti and I am very soon hungry for 2 or 3 more servings. When I eat my moderate fat/moderate protein main course with a big helping of leafy greens, broccoli, whatever, then I am full and I stay full.

thanks

respectfully, your observations don't match up to what i've been taught. (most) any professor or professional would agree with me.

carbohydrate consumption in and of itself is not the cause of obesity, period. this is most easily seen in that, in dieters, moderate carb, high protein, low fat diets almost always produce the greatest reduction in weight (1). carbohydrates have their role in obesity, especially with their over-consumption in the west, but saying they are causal in and of themselves just doesnt match up with the science...

i'll point you to walter willet's(thee prominent nutritional research of this century)/HSPC's opinions on carbohydrates, weight loss and specifically low/no carb diets as a source of credible scientific information vs the abstract-only reading, theory making style of the proponents of the paleo style diet.


1. Sacks FM, Bray GA, Carey VJ, et al. Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets with Different Compositions of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360:859-873.

carbohydrate consumption in and of itself is not the cause of obesity, period. this is most easily seen in that, in dieters, moderate carb, high protein, low fat diets almost always produce the greatest reduction in weight (1).

I'm pretty sure on short term low-carb high-protein diet always are producing the greatest reduction in weight. In the long term there does not seems to be a difference. Every papers that I have read comparing low-carb/high prot with low-fat/moderate prots are always behind, at least short time.

A low-carbohydrate as compared with a low-fat diet in severe obesity
The effects of low-carbohydrate versus conventional weight loss diets in severely obese adults: one-year follow-up of a randomized trial
Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 mo
Effects of low-carbohydrate vs low-fat diets on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial
Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A TO Z Weight Loss Study: a randomized trial

the abstract-only reading, theory making style of the proponents of the paleo style diet.

I really doubt guys like Eades or Cordain or Guyenet or Davis are only abstract readers
Edited by oehaut, 16 December 2009 - 12:08 AM.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

I'm pretty sure on short term low-carb high-protein diet always are producing the greatest reduction in weight. In the long term there does not seems to be a difference. Every papers that I have read comparing low-carb/high prot with low-fat/moderate prots are always behind, at least short time.

short term yes, but this generally equalizes as time goes by... long term is what counts. water loss accounts for a large part of the short term weight loss in <20% cho diets. there were problems with some of the studies you posted, which were discussed in the links i posted... adherence issues etc. adherence being the biggest issue with low cho diets and the general public. good luck getting the average person to drop their cho below 20%

you also cant use stats for morbidly obese for the average obese or overweight person... there are a LOT of other issue with the severely obese.

i think its important to note that theres a big difference between <20% cho, no grain/starch style diets and <30-40% cho diets which would still be considered lower in contemporary settings... i wouldnt advocate much more than 40-50% cho for non-competitive athletes and even loss for sedentary people.

also a lot is unknown... there's a good amount of research showing negative health effects from no/low carb style diets. just scan the first page of the nutrition forum.

i also believe there is a genetic component... as mind said, carbs make him hungry. but for me, no carbs make me hungry even if my belly is full.
Edited by ajnast4r, 16 December 2009 - 12:27 AM.

short term yes, but this generally equalizes as time goes by... long term is what counts. water loss accounts for a large part of the short term weight loss in <20% cho diets. there were problems with some of the studies you posted, which were discussed in the links i posted... adherence issues etc. adherence being the biggest issue with low cho diets and the general public. good luck getting the average person to drop their cho below 20%

Oh absolutly I also believe that there is no difference in long term and that it's gets boring. That's why I couldnt keep being low-carb for more than 6 months. I was just not sure if what you said was for a life-long choice.

you also cant use stats for morbidly obese for the average obese or overweight person... there are a LOT of other issue with the severely obese.

I also agree.

i think its important to note that theres a big difference between <20% cho, no grain/starch style diets and <30-40% cho diets which would still be considered lower in contemporary settings... i wouldnt advocate much more than 40-50% cho for non-competitive athletes and even loss for sedentary people.

We're on the same page. I really don't think it is necessary to go less than 30% if your carbs are mostly vegetable fruits and REAL whole grains. (how can pasta and bread, even if brown, can be consider healthy? Flour is refined so I don't see how this can be healthy)

i also believe there is a genetic component... as mind said, carbs make him hungry. but for me, no carbs make me hungry even if my belly is full.

There clearly is different individual responses. Being insulin resistant is one thing that seems to make a difference although not every studies find that it does.

One thing i'm wondering tho. But I don't know if it can make a difference in real world.

Carbs and fats are mostly making serotonin aren't they?

Protein mostly dopamine I think.

I think nuts are rich in choline which promote acetylcholine.

Willet, in the post you link, says to start the day with carbs. Isnt a bad idea to start your day with something that promote the secretion of serotonin? i'd rather have protein for breakfast to have good concentration and don't feel asleep in the morning.

I'd rather have acetylcholine and dopamine secreted in the beggining of my day.

But I don't know if the effect is strong enough to make a difference.

What do you think?

I couldn't find anything related to this on pubmed.
Edited by oehaut, 16 December 2009 - 12:41 AM.

i also believe there is a genetic component... as mind said, carbs make him hungry. but for me, no carbs make me hungry even if my belly is full.

That might be true. I'm more like Mind, at least with sugars. If I eat something sweet, I want more. If I skip the sweets, I'm fine. Honestly, this feels like addiction to me. I was doing really well for a long time, then I got hooked again. I'm not going to let it get me though; I'm fighting back.

The Willett/HSPH/Sacks et al. diet comparison excluded diabetics and people with poor motivation, and provided participants a meal plan that used low-GI forms of carbohydrate. Because of these things, I'm not sure we can take it as the last word in terms of how diets might work in the real world. They were using motivated participants, giving them a defined diet, and providing support, so this experiment doesn't really show you which diet is easiest to stick to on your own. Also, the "high carb" diet here was actually a very good diet, in that it was low-GI carb. Further, the only metric here was weight loss, but most of us aren't interested in weight loss. We are interested in long term health, and most of us are only interested in not gaining weight rather than losing it.

To get back to the title of this thread, maybe it should be "High GI Carb-Ass" instead of just Carb-Ass. But Carb-Ass has a nice ring to it.

i thought most american were fat because they ate insane amounts of animal meat + carbs, not just cuz of carbs themselves. i've yet to see a 'fat ass' vegetarian who lives on rice, lentils or carbs + veggies, etc.

Prince Fielder, vegetarian, 5'11", 270 pounds! Just think how heavy he would be if he didn't play professional baseball. I would say most vegetarians are in good shape wrt BMI, but I personally know a few that are definitely overweight.

People keep ignoring the question of are these people reallly vegetarians or a junk foodetarian who happens not to eat meat?
Edited by TheFountain, 16 December 2009 - 03:30 AM.

I think there's something to what Duke is saying,

There's something to what everyone is saying. Agreeing with Duke ad infinitum is not going to move the discussion forward. He knows some things, which i actually agree with. But he is blissfully ignorant about other's. Which I am beginning to think is a conscious decision. Such as the IGF-1-animal protein link.

People keep ignoring the question of are these people reallly vegetarians or a junk foodetarian who happens not to eat meat?

Ok. What's your definition of junk food ?

diet comparison excluded diabetics and people with poor motivation, and provided participants a meal plan that used low-GI forms of carbohydrate.

Wouldn't you expect them to use healthy carbs instead of unhealthy carbs, just as you would expect a high-fat diet study to use healthy fats instead of hydrogenated vegetable fat? Why must they use unhealthy carbs? To prove what? That eating unhealthy carbs is less healthy than eating healthy fats? Well duh!
Edited by TheFountain, 16 December 2009 - 03:54 AM.

People keep ignoring the question of are these people reallly vegetarians or a junk foodetarian who happens not to eat meat?

Ok. What's your definition of junk food ?

Pizza, pasta, rice, high glycemic breads (pumperknickel and low carb, low GI breads are ok), hydrogenated fats, a ton of dairy, processed cereals and fruit juices etc.

I know so many 'vegetarians' who eat this way and assume they are 'vegetarian' by virtue of simply not consuming meat. I have lectured many of them about it.

I consume legumes like chick peas, oatmeal and low carb veggie wraps and do not think these foods are unhealthy and have not gained an ounce of visceral fat because of them. Get off the 'all carbs are bad' whine. Just as some fats are bad, so are SOME carbs. Not all and not even most. You guys hate when negative high fat studies use trans fatty acids in a sample diet. You should hate when carb-centric dietary studies use bleached, processed, bad carbs as well.

diet comparison excluded diabetics and people with poor motivation, and provided participants a meal plan that used low-GI forms of carbohydrate.

Wouldn't you expect them to use healthy carbs instead of unhealthy carbs, just as you would expect a high-fat diet study to use healthy fats instead of hydrogenated vegetable fat? Why must they use unhealthy carbs? To prove what? That eating unhealthy carbs is less healthy than eating healthy fats? Well duh!

I'm on your side on this. The fact that they used good carbs is the reason that the "high carb" diet looked about as good as the "high fat" diet. In the real world, a high carb diet would be high GI. I'm not paleo or ketogenic; I just think that "low fat" is bad, and bad carbs are bad, and bad lipids are bad, and too much protein is bad. I think very high fat is problematic. If you are in ketosis, it's ok; I'm not sure it's great. Outside of ketosis, I think it could be a problem. Taking all of this into consideration, what's left in my diet is a moderate level of good fats, "enough" protein, and the balance in good carbs. Good carbs are kind of hard to find. The world is awash in bad carbs. They are everywhere. It's no wonder that so many Americans are blimpoid.

I think there's something to what Duke is saying,

There's something to what everyone is saying. Agreeing with Duke ad infinitum is not going to move the discussion forward. He knows some things, which i actually agree with. But he is blissfully ignorant about other's. Which I am beginning to think is a conscious decision. Such as the IGF-1-animal protein link.

There was more to that post than you quoted. Can you point out a few of the myriad examples of my "agreeing with Duke", you know, ad infinitum? And I wouldn't say there's something to what everyone is saying. One of the flaws of the internet is that you don't have to know what you're talking about in order to post.

"High GI Carb-Ass"

i can vibe with that

Forget fat-ass, my new term for overweight people is carb-ass. Because you get fat by eating carbs.

Basically, fat--especially animal fat--has a bad rap. And it's because we allow our intuition to get the best of us: We get fat, with fat, therefore, fat must be the culprit. But, the reality is much less intuitive: We get fat with fat, because we eat too many carbs.

So, I propose carb-ass in place of fat-ass, so that we lay blame on the right type of food.

They eat too many of the wrong sort of carbs in too large a quantity. They get way too many calories not just carbs. The only other fuel is fat and protein. You want most of your calories to come from carbs in the healthy form. Vegetables and fruits for instance are healthy carbs.
Edited by Esoparagon, 16 December 2009 - 06:16 AM.

Vegetables and fruits for instance are healthy carbs.

Potatoes and pears?

Carbs and fats are mostly making serotonin aren't they?

Protein mostly dopamine I think.

I think nuts are rich in choline which promote acetylcholine.

Willet, in the post you link, says to start the day with carbs. Isnt a bad idea to start your day with something that promote the secretion of serotonin? i'd rather have protein for breakfast to have good concentration and don't feel asleep in the morning.

I'd rather have acetylcholine and dopamine secreted in the beggining of my day.

But I don't know if the effect is strong enough to make a difference.

What do you think?

I couldn't find anything related to this on pubmed.

I'm wondering where you've read these connections?

In the real world, a high carb diet would be high GI.

Isn't that the same for a high fat diet though? Isn't that the very reason high fat diets got a bad rap? Because hydrogenated fats are the culprit as opposed to SFA? Well isn't the same exact thing true of carbs? Why do you think it is more difficult for people to be on a high healthy carb diet than to be on a high healthy fat diet?

It's no wonder that so many Americans are blimpoid.

The reason is both bad carbs AND bad fats. Not one nor the other. This is why I find Dukes reasoning fallacious. It's quite simple really. Bad carbs+bad fats=bad diet. Next.
Edited by TheFountain, 16 December 2009 - 08:40 AM.

The reason is both bad carbs AND bad fats. Not one nor the other. This is why I find Dukes reasoning fallacious. It's quite simple really. Bad carbs+bad fats=bad diet. Next.

I've been on a "healthy" low-fat high carb diet. It did not work for me.

Usual n=1 disclaimer.
Edited by rwac, 16 December 2009 - 11:27 AM.

I am going to come in on this from another angle...

Carbs from seeds/grains are not in any way required as part of a healthy diet. Let's put aside for a moment if they are a negative or not. If you are maintaining a generalised 'healthy paleo' type diet there is no benefit from adding grains/seeds into your diet. There is nothing special in them that you cannot/would not be getting from other foods. Now I don't think that is a very controversial statement. But with that base, what we have is generally a 'low carb' diet. We can knit pick all day about honey or carrot-almond milkshakes but for most people this is low carb. So flip it around and then look at all the potentially bad aspects about a moderate/high carb consumption diet (anyone arguing against low carb is really arguing for grains); anti-nutrients, negative effects on insulin, potential for abuse and addictiveness, and more. All of which are really just resulting from our metabolisms lack of exposure to them throughout most of our evolved history. I think then you have a very good case for why a low carb diet is the best diet for health and body composition on the whole. Now you can still make a case for an individual diet to have some grains that have been specially prepared or what not, and that is fine. But for the general population who doesn't seem all too concerned about optimum nutrition, low carb is the key.

What is particularly bad is high-carb + high-fat together. Now when you consider that fat is never going to leave us cause its fundamentally required for our health, then carbs are the ones that have to go. Imagine a fastfood high-fat low-carb mcdonalds (maybe of the future!), say a beef burger meat wrapped in bacon, deep fried and then covered in cheese or something to that nature... Probably far healthier than the wheat-buns and corn-fructose being washed down now!

And I think the personal anecdotes given so far are very compelling, and ring true with myself regarding the increased hunger from carbs. I think this is significant because we are individuals posting online about nutrition, so obviously interested and informed in these matters. And yet we have hunger or 'will power' issues when consuming carbs. So when you take this over-feeding mechanism and the laymen population you have a problem. I remember reading a study Art de Vany posted (back when his members forums were accessible by google!) about bears overeating on a high-carb diet.
edit:found it
Edited by icantgoforthat, 16 December 2009 - 01:27 PM.

Carbs and fats are mostly making serotonin aren't they?

Protein mostly dopamine I think.

I think nuts are rich in choline which promote acetylcholine.

Willet, in the post you link, says to start the day with carbs. Isnt a bad idea to start your day with something that promote the secretion of serotonin? i'd rather have protein for breakfast to have good concentration and don't feel asleep in the morning.

I'd rather have acetylcholine and dopamine secreted in the beggining of my day.

But I don't know if the effect is strong enough to make a difference.

What do you think?

I couldn't find anything related to this on pubmed.

I'm wondering where you've read these connections?

Well, in these kind of studies.

Effects of normal meals rich in carbohydrates or proteins on plasma tryptophan and tyrosine ratios

Carbohydrate to protein ratio in food and cognitive performance in the morning

Effects of protein and carbohydrate meals on mood and performance: interactions with sex and age

I'm not sure, but obviously a high-GI breakfast with no protein certainly isn't a good choice. I don't know what a low-GI meal without protein does. It's seems like a balance diet does best tho.

Not enough studies are out there looking at this quite important question. Neurotransmitter are big players in our behaviors.
Edited by oehaut, 16 December 2009 - 01:17 PM.

The reason is both bad carbs AND bad fats. Not one nor the other. This is why I find Dukes reasoning fallacious. It's quite simple really. Bad carbs+bad fats=bad diet. Next.

I've been on a "healthy" low-fat high carb diet. It did not work for me.

Usual n=1 disclaimer.

What kinds of carbs were you consuming? Bleached flour? Other garbage? I eat legumes and they do not do a damned thing wrong to me. Same with oatmeal and veggie wraps.

What kinds of carbs were you consuming? Bleached flour? Other garbage? I eat legumes and they do not do a damned thing wrong to me. Same with oatmeal and veggie wraps.

No flour for the last few months. A fair amount of rice.

The interesting thing I found is that nothing gave me energy in the morning except whole eggs.
And eating even some oats or a tomato or a slice of sourdough would ruin the effect from the eggs ...

Pizza, pasta, rice, high glycemic breads (pumperknickel and low carb, low GI breads are ok), hydrogenated fats, a ton of dairy, processed cereals and fruit juices etc.

Pasta has extremely low GI/GL - very comparable to pumpernickel and far lower than oatmeal. It's a perfectly outstanding food for ad lib folks.

"Imagine a fastfood high-fat low-carb mcdonalds (maybe of the future!), say a beef burger meat wrapped in bacon, deep fried and then covered in cheese or something to that nature..." (icantgoforthat)
Hmm, if that ain't healthy, nothing really is!
Edited by kismet, 16 December 2009 - 06:43 PM.

Pasta has extremely low GI/GL - very comparable to pumpernickel and far lower than oatmeal. It's a perfectly outstanding food for ad lib folks.

kismet,

Apart from the snark, what do you believe to be the current scientifically supported diet plan ?

Pizza, pasta, rice, high glycemic breads (pumperknickel and low carb, low GI breads are ok), hydrogenated fats, a ton of dairy, processed cereals and fruit juices etc.

Pasta has extremely low GI/GL - very comparable to pumpernickel and far lower than oatmeal. It's a perfectly outstanding food for ad lib folks.

"Imagine a fastfood high-fat low-carb mcdonalds (maybe of the future!), say a beef burger meat wrapped in bacon, deep fried and then covered in cheese or something to that nature..." (icantgoforthat)
Hmm, if that ain't healthy, nothing really is!

That is simply wrong. Low gi -- yes. But extremely high gl.

In the real world, a high carb diet would be high GI.

Isn't that the same for a high fat diet though? Isn't that the very reason high fat diets got a bad rap? Because hydrogenated fats are the culprit as opposed to SFA? Well isn't the same exact thing true of carbs? Why do you think it is more difficult for people to be on a high healthy carb diet than to be on a high healthy fat diet?

No, it's not, because the only people eating a high-fat, low-carb diet are Paleos and other motivated, informed eaters. The default American diet these days is high-GI high carb, and is usually low(-ish) fat to boot. It may be difficult to be on either a high healthy fat diet or a high healthy carb diet, depending on the definition of "high".

It's no wonder that so many Americans are blimpoid.

The reason is both bad carbs AND bad fats. Not one nor the other. This is why I find Dukes reasoning fallacious. It's quite simple really. Bad carbs+bad fats=bad diet. Next.

I don't agree. Bad fats are not in massive excess in the average American diet, while bad carbs are. Bad fats are bad for reasons other than the promotion of weight gain. Consumption of fats have been falling over time, while consumption of bad carbs has been rising. Ending your statement with "Next." is dismissive and not very nice.

No, it's not, because the only people eating a high-fat, low-carb diet are Paleos and other motivated, informed eaters.

there are a considerable amount of uninformed people eating low-carb diets... atkins etc. much more less than more informed eating low-carb i would say.

Bad fats are not in massive excess in the average American diet

that's not really true... w6 polyunsaturates & saturated animal fats are def in massive excess in the SAD

Ending your statement with "Next." is dismissive and not very nice.

word

No, it's not, because the only people eating a high-fat, low-carb diet are Paleos and other motivated, informed eaters.

there are a considerable amount of uninformed people eating low-carb diets... atkins etc. much more less than more informed eating low-carb i would say.

Yeah, I thought about the Atkins people, but at least they are thinking about it, rather than all the people eating on autopilot. You are right that the degree of their informed-ness is variable.

Bad fats are not in massive excess in the average American diet

that's not really true... w6 polyunsaturates & saturated animal fats are def in massive excess in the SAD

w6 PUFAs are certainly present in much greater amounts than needed, but in terms of their caloric contribution, I didn't think that they were as significant a contributor as bad carbs. Do we have any data regarding the fraction of Calories in the SAD coming from the various macronutrients? There are a vast number of low fat or fat free foods that are loaded with sugars. Of course, all of these analyses depend upon the definition of "high". Since the ideal amount of sugars is probably close to zero, it seems like "high" doesn't have to be such a high bar there, whereas it would take more fat to constitute "high", relative to a reasonable quantity.

that's not really true... w6 polyunsaturates & saturated animal fats are def in massive excess in the SAD

It seems like total fat consumption and saturated fat consumption is going down for some time already


It don't seems like the SAD diet is really rich in saturated fat.

About 10% of calorie... isn't what we were telling people to acheive? Looks like we're there.

So far I think we can say the massive excess is defenitively from carbohydrate and as niner pointed, mainly refined and high GI one.


http://jama.ama-assn...ull/291/10/1193

During 1971-2000, the prevalence of obesity in the United States increased from 14.5% to 30.9%.1 Unhealthy diets and sedentary behaviors have been identified as the primary causes of deaths attributable to obesity.2 Evaluating trends in dietary intake is an important step in understanding the factors that contribute to the increase in obesity. To assess trends in intake of energy (i.e., kilocalories [kcals]), protein, carbohydrate, total fat, and saturated fat during 1971-2000, CDC analyzed data from four National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES): NHANES I (conducted during 1971-1974), NHANES II (1976-1980), NHANES III (1988-1994), and NHANES 1999-2000. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicate that, during 1971-2000, mean energy intake in kcals increased, mean percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased, and mean percentage of kcals from total fat and saturated fat decreased (Figures 1 and 2). An expert advisory committee appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is conducting a review of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.3 Revised guidelines will be published in 2005.

Here are the tables

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm5304a3.htm


By the way, did anybody saw this
Edited by oehaut, 17 December 2009 - 05:01 AM.