Low carb just for J sixpack

[robblok]

Because we seem to fight all the time about low carb its better to get it in one topic.

I state that low carb:

- will help most people especially those who are insulin resistant.

- does not mean you can eat as much as you want (there are limits )

I wont deny that eating 3000cals sugar will get you fatter as 3000cals broccoli but Taking 3000 calls of nuts all the time will get you fat (but less fat as 3000 cals sugar). I am just against the you can all you eat as that is just not true.

- it can be taken to extremes and good explanations are given for extra weight loss

Those real low on carbs will loose extra water weight as they will get into ketose as there wont be any carbs and sugars in the body to bind water too.. could be as much as 7-10 lbs.. of water so not fat. Often low carb will advocate this as fat loss that is simply not true.

I am not against low carb, I have used it, just against the extremists.

[ozyjon]

I'm fat

[robblok]

I'm fat

Ok, not sure how to respond, if you want to loose it low carb is a way to do it.

[h90]

Well I am not sure what happens if you eat 8 kg broccoli per day to get 3000 kg.

Maybe you'll morph into a goat or cow?

[robblok]

Well I am not sure what happens if you eat 8 kg broccoli per day to get 3000 kg.

Maybe you'll morph into a goat or cow?

Not sure either, I am certainly not against low carb, just against the hype of you can eat what you want and still loose weight.

I am quite happy staying relatively low carb (still get carbs from oatmeal).

I tried zero carbs for a 10 days and was still hungry. I lost a lot of weight (gained most back as it was water weight).

But going lower carb did cure my insulin resistance. My blood test came back much better after going low carb.

[h90]

Well I am not sure what happens if you eat 8 kg broccoli per day to get 3000 kg.

Maybe you'll morph into a goat or cow?

Not sure either, I am certainly not against low carb, just against the hype of you can eat what you want and still loose weight.

I am quite happy staying relatively low carb (still get carbs from oatmeal).

I tried zero carbs for a 10 days and was still hungry. I lost a lot of weight (gained most back as it was water weight).

But going lower carb did cure my insulin resistance. My blood test came back much better after going low carb.

That hype is based on the idea that without carbs you aren't as hungry. I guess if you are really fat and go for no carbs (well you always get a few) you will loose weight no matter how much and how fat you eat.

But once you are down to a relative normal weight it won't work anymore.

Your liver makes sugar from the amino acids. Your kidney filters out all the nitrogen and beside having more workload on liver and kidney there is no shortage.

But if you than reduce fat the kg go away easily. The hunger comes from your exercise.....if you don't exercise of just aerobic things you don't get hungry. With heavy muscle training you need sugar to load the muscles and somehow more than the liver can produce easily.

[PaullyW]

http://eatingacademy.com/

[PaullyW]

Sugar The Bitter Truth

Edited January 12, 2014 by PaullyW

[PaullyW]

Another good one

Edited January 12, 2014 by PaullyW

[PaullyW]

There are not many laws that can be stated as true for everyone. The law of thermodynamics is one that probably can.

I lost more than 25 kilos by severely restricting carbs (and eating tons of fat). All my biomarkers are excellent.

I hold that the best thing to do is to try various methods of eating until you find one that works for your unique set of complex biological (and social) variables. Our bodies are too complex for every method to be equally effective across different people.

As an easy example, tests reveal that many people are I'll adapted (lacking the biological enzymes in sufficient quantity) to efficiently burn certain carbs/sugars. For these people, avoiding the macronutrient will be helpful.

Try things consistently for a significant period while regularly testing your biomarkers and risk factors. Find what works for you and be happy and healthy.

Good luck

Edited January 12, 2014 by PaullyW

[robblok]

@PaullyW

Great information i like this Peter Attia a million times more as Garry Taubes. At least this guy uses real research and data and does not dumb it down.

What kind of fats do you eat because when i restrict carbs i go for proteins and of course fats but more proteins (chickenbreast ect)

[PaullyW]

@PaullyW

Great information i like this Peter Attia a million times more as Garry Taubes. At least this guy uses real research and data and does not dumb it down.

What kind of fats do you eat because when i restrict carbs i go for proteins and of course fats but more proteins (chickenbreast ect)

Yeah, I too like Attia more. At first I was eating any sorts of fats, but there are indeed increased risks (according to the data) with certain fats -- like those from vegetable oils or those with a higher ratio of omega 6s/9s to 3s.

I now use more coconut oils, grass-fed butter and medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oils. I use the butter and MCT oil in my coffee in the morning. My macronutrient percentages are normally 75% fat, about 20% protein and 5% carbs. The high percentage of fats allows me to eat very well under my maintenance caloric level without being hungry. Athletically, I perform OK, although I do sometimes have trouble with very high intensity stuff unless I ramp up the carb a bit appropriately.

[robblok]

@PaullyW

Great information i like this Peter Attia a million times more as Garry Taubes. At least this guy uses real research and data and does not dumb it down.

What kind of fats do you eat because when i restrict carbs i go for proteins and of course fats but more proteins (chickenbreast ect)

Yeah, I too like Attia more. At first I was eating any sorts of fats, but there are indeed increased risks (according to the data) with certain fats -- like those from vegetable oils or those with a higher ratio of omega 6s/9s to 3s.

I now use more coconut oils, grass-fed butter and medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oils. I use the butter and MCT oil in my coffee in the morning. My macronutrient percentages are normally 75% fat, about 20% protein and 5% carbs. The high percentage of fats allows me to eat very well under my maintenance caloric level without being hungry. Athletically, I perform OK, although I do sometimes have trouble with very high intensity stuff unless I ramp up the carb a bit appropriately.

To be honest that is one of my fears.. I do a lot of high intensity stuff. When i lift weights I do stuff like deadlifts near my max. I never take it easy when using weights. That is the only thing i worry about a bit. But will see what small changes will do for me. I have already dropped carbs a bit more (did result in some brain fog and ramped it up as this month i need a clear brain) I heard it will go away after a few days.

Anyway I am in great shape and so are my health markers.. but i might want to drop to extreme low fat % and then i might result in going real low carb for a while.

[PaullyW]

@PaullyW

Great information i like this Peter Attia a million times more as Garry Taubes. At least this guy uses real research and data and does not dumb it down.

What kind of fats do you eat because when i restrict carbs i go for proteins and of course fats but more proteins (chickenbreast ect)

Yeah, I too like Attia more. At first I was eating any sorts of fats, but there are indeed increased risks (according to the data) with certain fats -- like those from vegetable oils or those with a higher ratio of omega 6s/9s to 3s.

I now use more coconut oils, grass-fed butter and medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oils. I use the butter and MCT oil in my coffee in the morning. My macronutrient percentages are normally 75% fat, about 20% protein and 5% carbs. The high percentage of fats allows me to eat very well under my maintenance caloric level without being hungry. Athletically, I perform OK, although I do sometimes have trouble with very high intensity stuff unless I ramp up the carb a bit appropriately.

To be honest that is one of my fears.. I do a lot of high intensity stuff. When i lift weights I do stuff like deadlifts near my max. I never take it easy when using weights. That is the only thing i worry about a bit. But will see what small changes will do for me. I have already dropped carbs a bit more (did result in some brain fog and ramped it up as this month i need a clear brain) I heard it will go away after a few days.

Anyway I am in great shape and so are my health markers.. but i might want to drop to extreme low fat % and then i might result in going real low carb for a while.

Not sure if you've read about or tested out the product called Superstarch (Attia discusses it here: http://eatingacademy.com/sports-and-nutrition/introduction-to-superstarch-part-i).

It is a starch that is supposed to have negligible impact on insulin. Developed and used by professional athletes. I ordered it and have found it to be pretty good.

[robblok]

@PaullyW

Great information i like this Peter Attia a million times more as Garry Taubes. At least this guy uses real research and data and does not dumb it down.

What kind of fats do you eat because when i restrict carbs i go for proteins and of course fats but more proteins (chickenbreast ect)

Yeah, I too like Attia more. At first I was eating any sorts of fats, but there are indeed increased risks (according to the data) with certain fats -- like those from vegetable oils or those with a higher ratio of omega 6s/9s to 3s.

I now use more coconut oils, grass-fed butter and medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oils. I use the butter and MCT oil in my coffee in the morning. My macronutrient percentages are normally 75% fat, about 20% protein and 5% carbs. The high percentage of fats allows me to eat very well under my maintenance caloric level without being hungry. Athletically, I perform OK, although I do sometimes have trouble with very high intensity stuff unless I ramp up the carb a bit appropriately.

To be honest that is one of my fears.. I do a lot of high intensity stuff. When i lift weights I do stuff like deadlifts near my max. I never take it easy when using weights. That is the only thing i worry about a bit. But will see what small changes will do for me. I have already dropped carbs a bit more (did result in some brain fog and ramped it up as this month i need a clear brain) I heard it will go away after a few days.

Anyway I am in great shape and so are my health markers.. but i might want to drop to extreme low fat % and then i might result in going real low carb for a while.

Not sure if you've read about or tested out the product called Superstarch (Attia discusses it here: http://eatingacademy.com/sports-and-nutrition/introduction-to-superstarch-part-i).

It is a starch that is supposed to have negligible impact on insulin. Developed and used by professional athletes. I ordered it and have found it to be pretty good.

Yes I heard about it (in the video you posted). I am not sure it is what i need. For now i think i want to see what cutting out 1 carb meal more has. (used to have 2 meals with carbs) dropped one recently. Both were of course high quality carbs but still.

Tried to drop all 3 but that made me letargic in the brain (i know it will pass) but cant use that this month.. who knows next month.

But the thing about ketose is that its hard to stay in if you eat out.

[JSixpack]

I state that low carb:



- will help ALL people NO MATTER if they insulin resistant and will help prevent insulin resistance and metabolic disorder in the first place; those who have insulin resistance didn't follow the low carb diet early enough, so it's funny to find any of them attacking it now.



- does mean you can eat as much as you want FOLLOWING LOW CARB GUIDELINES and frees one from counting calories (but nobody says there are NO limits--that's just a robblok misunderstanding and silly misinformation)



I wont deny that eating 3000cals sugar will get you fatter as 3000cals broccoli, and so I recognize that ALL CALORIES ARE NOT EQUAL, hence calories in/calories out MUST be wrong, and anyway nobody will ever take 3000 calls of nuts all the time ON A LOW CARB DIET--esp since low carb diets explicitly restrict nuts. That robblok would use nuts as an example in this case merely shows he doesn't know ANY low carb diet.

You can eat all you want FOLLOWING LOW CARB GUIDELINES because you WON'T eat excessive calories from bad carbs OR good carbs. Automatic calorie reduction is usually an expected part of low carb diets--but it doesn't have to be. Case in point: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2459915/Could-low-fat-diet-make-EVEN-FATTER-As-experts-question-conventional-wisdom-diets-extraordinary-results-mans-experiment.html


- it can be taken to extremes if one follows robblok's misinformation, and good explanations are given for extra weight loss



Those real low on carbs will loose extra water weight (AND from body fat then and thereafter) as they will get into ketose as there WILL BE FEWER (not NO) carbs and sugars in the body to bind water too and raise insulin levels to drive fat into cells.. could be as much as 7-10 lbs.. of water that is not fat. To say that low carb advocates claim water weight loss is fat loss is simply not true, and robblok should stop trying to spread this misinformation, too. No low carb diet ever said any such thing OR anything about ZERO carbs--clear evidence that robblok totally misunderstands the low carb diet. In fact all low carb advocates include carbs in any low carb diet. To imply that 7-10 lbs is the total weight loss achievable from following a low carb diet is also utterly ridiculous, as anyone can discover by simply googling low cab weight loss success stories.



I am not against low carb, I have used it, just against the extremists, but I don't know any extremists, except perhaps for robblock and his imaginary low carb diet.

Edited January 16, 2014 by JSixpack

[h90]

I state that low carb:

- will help ALL people NO MATTER if they insulin resistant and will help prevent insulin resistance and metabolic disorder in the first place; those who have insulin resistance didn't follow the low carb diet early enough, so it's funny to find any of them attacking it now.

- does mean you can eat as much as you want FOLLOWING LOW CARB GUIDELINES and frees one from counting calories (but nobody says there are NO limits--that's just a robblok misunderstanding and silly misinformation)

I wont deny that eating 3000cals sugar will get you fatter as 3000cals broccoli, and so I recognize that ALL CALORIES ARE NOT EQUAL, hence calories in/calories out MUST be wrong, and anyway nobody will ever take 3000 calls of nuts all the time ON A LOW CARB DIET--esp since low carb diets explicitly restrict nuts. That robblok would use nuts as an example in this case merely shows he doesn't know ANY low carb diet.

You can eat all you want FOLLOWING LOW CARB GUIDELINES because you WON'T eat excessive calories from bad carbs OR good carbs. Automatic calorie reduction is usually an expected part of low carb diets--but it doesn't have to be. Case in point: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2459915/Could-low-fat-diet-make-EVEN-FATTER-As-experts-question-conventional-wisdom-diets-extraordinary-results-mans-experiment.html

- it can be taken to extremes if one follows robblok's misinformation, and good explanations are given for extra weight loss

Those real low on carbs will loose extra water weight (AND from body fat then and thereafter) as they will get into ketose as there WILL BE FEWER (not NO) carbs and sugars in the body to bind water too and raise insulin levels to drive fat into cells.. could be as much as 7-10 lbs.. of water that is not fat. To say that low carb advocates claim water weight loss is fat loss is simply not true, and robblok should stop trying to spread this misinformation, too. No low carb diet ever said any such thing OR anything about ZERO carbs--clear evidence that robblok totally misunderstands the low carb diet. In fact all low carb advocates include carbs in any low carb diet. To imply that 7-10 lbs is the total weight loss achievable from following a low carb diet is also utterly ridiculous, as anyone can discover by simply googling low cab weight loss success stories.

I am not against low carb, I have used it, just against the extremists, but I don't know any extremists, except perhaps for robblock and his imaginary low carb diet.

I don't fully understand what you mean...."In fact all low carb advocates include carbs in any low carb diet.". Obviously the best is to go to zero carbs as close as possible with normal food. To eat carbs isn't necessary at all.

It is a great way to reduce weight fast and easy. How difficult it is afterwards to hold it, is another topic. It is pretty common that people diet very hard for 2-7 days, loose a lot weight, of course mostly water.

Than eat a lot again and end with the same weight they had before within 1-2 days and tell the complete diet is crap. I think there is no need to even discuss that. No one is really that silly, people just searching for excuses why they are so fat...They aren't wrong, the diet is wrong....

[Tolley]

I state that low carb:

- will help ALL people NO MATTER if they insulin resistant and will help prevent insulin resistance and metabolic disorder in the first place; those who have insulin resistance didn't follow the low carb diet early enough, so it's funny to find any of them attacking it now.

- does mean you can eat as much as you want FOLLOWING LOW CARB GUIDELINES and frees one from counting calories (but nobody says there are NO limits--that's just a robblok misunderstanding and silly misinformation)

I wont deny that eating 3000cals sugar will get you fatter as 3000cals broccoli, and so I recognize that ALL CALORIES ARE NOT EQUAL, hence calories in/calories out MUST be wrong, and anyway nobody will ever take 3000 calls of nuts all the time ON A LOW CARB DIET--esp since low carb diets explicitly restrict nuts. That robblok would use nuts as an example in this case merely shows he doesn't know ANY low carb diet.

You can eat all you want FOLLOWING LOW CARB GUIDELINES because you WON'T eat excessive calories from bad carbs OR good carbs. Automatic calorie reduction is usually an expected part of low carb diets--but it doesn't have to be. Case in point: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2459915/Could-low-fat-diet-make-EVEN-FATTER-As-experts-question-conventional-wisdom-diets-extraordinary-results-mans-experiment.html

- it can be taken to extremes if one follows robblok's misinformation, and good explanations are given for extra weight loss

Those real low on carbs will loose extra water weight (AND from body fat then and thereafter) as they will get into ketose as there WILL BE FEWER (not NO) carbs and sugars in the body to bind water too and raise insulin levels to drive fat into cells.. could be as much as 7-10 lbs.. of water that is not fat. To say that low carb advocates claim water weight loss is fat loss is simply not true, and robblok should stop trying to spread this misinformation, too. No low carb diet ever said any such thing OR anything about ZERO carbs--clear evidence that robblok totally misunderstands the low carb diet. In fact all low carb advocates include carbs in any low carb diet. To imply that 7-10 lbs is the total weight loss achievable from following a low carb diet is also utterly ridiculous, as anyone can discover by simply googling low cab weight loss success stories.

I am not against low carb, I have used it, just against the extremists, but I don't know any extremists, except perhaps for robblock and his imaginary low carb diet.

If you have time this link is well worth reading.

It supports a no grain low carb diet and goes a bit further.

It is primarily focussed on those with candida or leaky gut which is probably a high number of people anyway and which of course is directly related to sugars of any type including fructose in the diet and it is a modern day epidemic and the cause of a multitude of health problems.

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/intro2.php#s25a

[robblok]

J sixpack,

Find me a lab controlled test (not self reporting of food so one where the lab prepared the meals) showing that low carb is better. I found one (have to look it up) that showed there is absolutely no metabolic advantage. We are talking lab controlled test for food intake (gold standard of lab tests) there are not many of those as they are expensive.

A for that a calorie is not a calorie.. that has been known for a long time as protein takes about 25% more energy as fats or carbs to be digested. Guess what low carb are usually higher in protein. An other thing is low carb claims less hunger (might be true for some) but it is not because of the low carb but because of the higher protein as protein is the stuff that makes us the fullest. Id love a counter here SixPack

Now I have read about an experiment Garry Taubes is going to run. He wants to get people in a lab and control their food intake (great idea no self reporting) and then when they neither gain nor loose weight ( energy balance as he calls it the same calories in vs out you don't believe in) wants to pull out the carbs and see if they will loose weight.

The experts predict a lot of water weight loss and are curious if he will make a distinction between fat loss and water loss (you know be fair or take any weight loss as a win for his program). They also expect some weight loss if they up the proteins (as i said before they take a bit more to digest) but all in all don't expect anything spectacular.

If this experiment is done (and i should shoot myself that I did not link the page where i found it) it will for once and always give proof or destroy proof to the low carb hype.

[chiang mai]

Maybe I'm having a thick day but I've read this thread twice and I still don't quite any significant difference between you both, I'll read it all again but suspect the gap in thinking is miniscule!

[robblok]

Maybe I'm having a thick day but I've read this thread twice and I still don't quite any significant difference between you both, I'll read it all again but suspect the gap in thinking is miniscule!

Maybe, we are just stubborn.

I just don't believe that low carb without limiting portion size too will work. I believe low carb and limiting portion size will work. I just don't believe that a sensible diet some good carbs, some good proteins and good fats at the same caloric levels as low carb (both have the same protein amount) will give any different results in weight loss.

Low carbs usually seem to say you can eat what you want and loose weight, I am of the opinion you can still overeat on low carb if you want.

[JSixpack]

I don't fully understand what you mean...."In fact all low carb advocates include carbs in any low carb diet.". Obviously the best is to go to zero carbs as close as possible with normal food. To eat carbs isn't necessary at all.

That's your own spin based on your own thinking. Read any low carb expert; none of them suggests or advocates zero carbs (i.e, NO veggies) except for an extremely limited time within certain parameters.

But you may read up on the Inuit Paradox. The Inuit did better than people normally do on the standard Western high carb diet at least.

[robblok]

I don't fully understand what you mean...."In fact all low carb advocates include carbs in any low carb diet.". Obviously the best is to go to zero carbs as close as possible with normal food. To eat carbs isn't necessary at all.

That's your own spin based on your own thinking. Read any low carb expert; none of them suggests or advocates zero carbs (i.e, NO veggies) except for an extremely limited time within certain parameters.

But you may read up on the Inuit Paradox. The Inuit did better than people normally do on the standard Western high carb diet at least.

Ah the inuit paradox.. lets forget about environmental variables like much more body exercise (compared to couch potatoes in the west) and a rough life and put it all down to diet.

[Tolley]

The more I read the more I think that low carb is better but not just for weight control but a whole range of modern diseases.

The link I copied in my previous post deals with the results of grains, sugar and fructose in the diet implicating a whole range of disorders.

So even people without weight issues may be well advised to follow such a diet for general overall health.

Of course I will add the proviso you should be getting organic meats, eggs , and veggies if possible for maximum benefit.

[JSixpack]

J sixpack,

Find me a lab controlled test (not self reporting of food so one where the lab prepared the meals) showing that low carb is better.

You don't need that, wouldn't read it, wouldn't understand it, wouldn't believe it, would ignore it, distort it, and lie about it. What would be the point?

My point is that rather than starving themselves and working their butts off in the gym (both unnecessary and unlikely to work very long for most people) while waiting until robblok(!) gives the "all clear" signal for the low carb diet, people who want to lose weight should simply try the low carb diet for themselves following one of its respected and well-reviewed advocates. It has a few variations. Why just take robblok's assurance that it "won't work?"

I used to think as robblok, but I was smart enough to wise up and I'm glad I did. Countless others will affirm the same. Now, if doesn't work for you, then, hell, just go back to starving and sweating! What do I care? Starving and sweating WILL work for weight loss if you can do enough of it, keep it up, and don't injure yourself.

Low carbs usually seem to say you can eat what you want and loose weight

No low carb diet says any such thing. In that case, why would it be a diet? Why don't you quote any source saying that nonsense--MORE of your nonsense.

Well, robblok, I think it must boil down to your not having learned to read well in school, too blinded by your huge investment in being a gym rat, or just being too stupid. (Hence I'm not going to bother w/ further response, but simply link back to previous responses.) Low carb isn't perfect, and if you gave some of its actual downsides, I'd be happy to agree with you. But then you'd really have to know something. Not knowing anything except perhaps from some google snippet, you just distort and lie about it and make up nonsensical examples.

Since you don't like the low carb diet, don't know much about it, don't know any details of a particular low carb diet from an established authority, don't want to know, won't listen, and keep repeating the same nonsense about it, then why not just stay off the subject and stop misinforming and misleading overweight people who might want to give it a try? We've all heard you now--repeatedly.

There's not an overweight person on the planet who doesn't know, or hasn't already tried, your ol' starvation and sweat methods for the simple minded and masochistic.

If you really want to help people, as I do--what could possibly be any other motivation for my wasting my time here--it would be a lot more helpful for such people if you'd just stick to your expertise about how to do a proper deadlift, the best way to skin a chicken breast, drink a big glass of water before a meal to make yourself feel full, etc., etc. Good? I've got no problem with your advising how to starve and sweat--you're probably pretty good at it.

Edited January 17, 2014 by JSixpack

[h90]

I don't fully understand what you mean...."In fact all low carb advocates include carbs in any low carb diet.". Obviously the best is to go to zero carbs as close as possible with normal food. To eat carbs isn't necessary at all.

That's your own spin based on your own thinking. Read any low carb expert; none of them suggests or advocates zero carbs (i.e, NO veggies) except for an extremely limited time within certain parameters.

But you may read up on the Inuit Paradox. The Inuit did better than people normally do on the standard Western high carb diet at least.

There is one study, I am not digging it out again.....with zero carbs, which showed well that is has no negative side effects as the body can generate the sugar itself.

Practical you may get congested. But "as close as possible" means veggis which have very low carbs. Than there is no negative side effect....there is no reason for one.

But between very low and no carbs there won't be any advantage in matter of loosing weight. The low carbs doesn't lift the blood sugar over that level that you would generate anyway.

[robblok]

I don't fully understand what you mean...."In fact all low carb advocates include carbs in any low carb diet.". Obviously the best is to go to zero carbs as close as possible with normal food. To eat carbs isn't necessary at all.

That's your own spin based on your own thinking. Read any low carb expert; none of them suggests or advocates zero carbs (i.e, NO veggies) except for an extremely limited time within certain parameters.

But you may read up on the Inuit Paradox. The Inuit did better than people normally do on the standard Western high carb diet at least.

There is one study, I am not digging it out again.....with zero carbs, which showed well that is has no negative side effects as the body can generate the sugar itself.

Practical you may get congested. But "as close as possible" means veggis which have very low carbs. Than there is no negative side effect....there is no reason for one.

But between very low and no carbs there won't be any advantage in matter of loosing weight. The low carbs doesn't lift the blood sugar over that level that you would generate anyway.

Yes i read studies about that too the body will generate glucose under certain conditions.

Let me put this in perspective. Despite a lot of claims to the contrary, the actual conversion of carbohydrate to fat in humans under normal dietary conditions is small approaching insignificant (a topic I discussed at least briefly inNutrient Intake, Nutrient Storage and Nutrient Oxidation).

Make no mistake, the conversion of carbs to fat (a process called de-novo lipogenesis or DNL) can happen but the requirements for it to happen significantly are fairly rare in humans under most conditions (to discuss this in detail would require a full article, interested readers can search Medline for work by Hellerstein or Acheson on the topic).

At least one of those is when daily carbohydrate intake is just massive, fulfilling over 100% of the daily maintenance energy requirements. And only then when muscle glycogen is full. For an average sized male you’re looking at 700-900 grams of carbohydrate daily for multiple days running.

Which means that the odds of protein being converted to fat in any quantitatively meaningful fashion is simply not going to happen. Certain amino acids are processed to a great degree in the liver (as I discuss in The Protein Book) and this can produce glucose, ketones and a few other things. But triglycerides (the storage form of ‘fat’) isn’t one of them.

I imagine that if protein were going to be converted to fat, it would first have to be converted to glucose and only if the amount produced were then in excess of daily maintenance requirements would there be conversion to fat. But as noted above, this simply isn’t going to happen under any even reasonably normal circumstances. No human could eat enough protein on a daily basis for it to occur.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excess-protein-and-fat-storage-qa.html

[chiang mai]

Is it not the case that the definition of "low Carb" is to reduce the number of calories derived from carbs per meal and to reduce the ratio of carbs to protein and fat per meal? For some that might mean reducing the percentage of carbs per meal from 60% to 40%, for others it might mean going from 50% to say 30%, we're all going to be slightly different I suspect.

That being the case it seems not relevant whether portion size is reduced or not as long as the criteria above is met.

But it would seem to me that nobody would sensibly go zero carb, for more than a very short time, we're just not designed to do that.

[robblok]

J sixpack,

Find me a lab controlled test (not self reporting of food so one where the lab prepared the meals) showing that low carb is better.

You don't need that, wouldn't read it, wouldn't understand it, wouldn't believe it, would ignore it, distort it, and lie about it. What would be the point?

My point is that rather than starving themselves and working their butts off in the gym (both unnecessary and unlikely to work very long for most people) while waiting until robblok(!) gives the "all clear" signal for the low carb diet, people who want to lose weight should simply try the low carb diet for themselves following one of its respected and well-reviewed advocates. It has a few variations. Why just take robblok's assurance that it "won't work?"

I used to think as robblok, but I was smart enough to wise up and I'm glad I did. Countless others will affirm the same. Now, if doesn't work for you, then, hell, just go back to starving and sweating! What do I care? Starving and sweating WILL work for weight loss if you can do enough of it, keep it up, and don't injure yourself.

Low carbs usually seem to say you can eat what you want and loose weight

No low carb diet says any such thing. In that case, why would it be a diet? Why don't you quote any source saying that nonsense--MORE of your nonsense.

Well, robblok, I think it must boil down to your not having learned to read well in school, too blinded by your huge investment in being a gym rat, or just being too stupid. (Hence I'm not going to bother w/ further response, but simply link back to previous responses.) Low carb isn't perfect, and if you gave some of its actual downsides, I'd be happy to agree with you. But then you'd really have to know something. Not knowing anything except perhaps from some google snippet, you just distort and lie about it and make up nonsensical examples.

Since you don't like the low carb diet, don't know much about it, don't know any details of a particular low carb diet from an established authority, don't want to know, won't listen, and keep repeating the same nonsense about it, then why not just stay off the subject and stop misinforming and misleading overweight people who might want to give it a try? We've all heard you now--repeatedly.

There's not an overweight person on the planet who doesn't know, or hasn't already tried, your ol' starvation and sweat methods for the simple minded and masochistic.

If you really want to help people, as I do--what could possibly be any other motivation for my wasting my time here--it would be a lot more helpful for such people if you'd just stick to your expertise about how to do a proper deadlift, the best way to skin a chicken breast, drink a big glass of water before a meal to make yourself feel full, etc., etc. Good? I've got no problem with your advising how to starve and sweat--you're probably pretty good at it.

Ok your point is that a lab test the one thing that is reliable is something you don't want to read as it proves you wrong. You like to ignore those tests when even your example mr Taubes is going to test it to prove his right as he knows this is the only way scientifically to win. So hard facts from a controlled lab test are nothing to you.. i think our argument is done as you don't listen to reason and facts.

I have read such a test and it showed low carb had no metabolic advantage over other diets. The only tests that came out otherwise were self reported (thus unreliable). Sorry to believe science and facts.

Now you are saying also low carb also means restricting your intake.. how is that different then what I am saying that you should always restrict intake to loose weight. If low carb makes you feel good while doing it so be it. But if high protein and carb work for others so be it too. But fact is without restricting to a certain degree nothing works. That was the point i was trying to make good to see we agree about it.

Starvation will never work we agree on that too.

[JSixpack]

Now you are saying also low carb also means restricting your intake..

Of CARBS!!! Of CARBS!!!

Even the very name LOW CARB is just incomprehensible.

DUH.

how is that different then what I am saying that you should always restrict intake to loose weight.

It's TOTALLY different from some of your ignorant "critical points." Get somebody with a brain to explain it to you. No more spoonfeeding, remember?

Edited January 17, 2014 by JSixpack