Carbs are Killing You (infographic)

The formation of acrylamides at high temperature is another concern. Foods of interest include french fries and potato chips.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/acrylamide-fact-sheet

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=122

 

My trainer has actually suggested that I add carbs and fats to a protein snack I've been enjoying (veggie burger patty by itself with lettuce). What should I add? (I don't want to add bread!) I asked if just adding onion would be enough/ok and he did a sort of halfway nod which tells me I'm doing it wrong Lol.

 

Results of recent study by Kevin Hall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUyjMjuLl0&feature=youtu.be&t=311

 

I've been reading a bit about a ketogenic diet as a cancer treatment. It seems.to starve the cancer initially but does not prevent a relapse later down the road, from what I have read.

 

^
Definitely wouldn't put my money on that option if I had cancer.

 

Well the idea behind it is cancer feeds on glucose. It does seem to have a decent success rate in shrinking tumors.

I wouldn't put my money on it and completely disregard traditional therapy, but I do think eating a high quality organic, high fat low sugar/carb diet is probably a good idea in conjunction with traditional medicine.

 

Kevin Hall publications.

http://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/staff-directory/intramural/kevin-hall/pages/publications.aspx

 

In the Hall video posted earlier, the chart shows a rapid weight loss just after test subjects were switched from a high-carb, low-fat (35% energy intake from fat) to a low-carb, high-fat diet (80% energy intake from fat), presumably due in part to water-glycogen loss. The weight loss rate was much slower after the initial rapid loss.

What seems unusual is the upwards of 500 calorie higher energy expenditure per day per person when being outside of the metabolic chamber compared with being inside the chamber. Hall attributed it to higher activity energy expenditure. That's a large difference. It's questionable whether that was real or partly due to the differences between the way energy expenditure was measured by the metabolic chamber and the way it was measured outside the chamber using doubly labeled water. Outside the chamber was a metabolic ward where conditions were controlled so that people would expend about as much energy outside the chamber as inside the chamber. Test subjects inside the metabolic chamber were exercising about 90 minutes per day on a cycle ergometer according to Hall. Yet there was as much as a 500 calorie higher energy expenditure outside the chamber.

It might be good to do an entire experiment of using the doubly labeled water energy expenditure measurement method inside the chamber to see if there are any major differences between the way the chamber is measuring energy expenditure and the DLW method. It's not clear from the preliminary presentation by Hall how all of the expenditure measurements were done. An error due to differences in energy measurement method could be detected indirectly by looking at the weight loss data carefully, as a 500 calorie difference would have a significant effect on weight loss.

If the hundreds of calorie increase in expenditure outside the chamber is real, it is large and ongoing compared with the temporary 100 calorie increase in resting energy expenditure (the so-called metabolic advantage) that lasted only a week or two after the switch to a very high-fat diet and then waned toward zero. In the pragmatic context of trying to solve the obesity problem, I'd be more interested in the large ongoing higher activity energy expenditure that was related to the living environment of the test subjects than the small transient increase in REE that required a 45% increase in percentage energy intake from fat which most of the public is never going to do anyway.

There may be things that I and others are misinterpreting because Hall's data was preliminary and it was a short verbal presentation. Hall will be publishing the actual paper in 2016.

 

Intermittent fasting is a good way. Exercise is another way of increasing insulin sensitivity of skeletal muscle and lowering basal insulin levels. Numerous clinical trials on people have shown that even mild exercise a few times per week increases insulin sensitivity significantly. This isn't surprising considering that skeletal muscle comprises a large fraction of body mass and is normally an insulin-responsive tissue. Having a continuous restful sleep is another way. Disrupted sleep patterns are known to decrease insulin sensitivity by as much as 50% and disrupt leptin sensitivity which effects hunger. It can be seen informally how modern industrial lifestyle with disrupted sleep and sedentary behavior could cause unusual hunger and obesity.

It's puzzling that some who promote the insulin-obesity hypothesis so heavily also have a dismissive attitude toward exercise. A popular media diet writer and some of his adherents go so far as claiming that exercise works up an appetite and makes people gain weight when the insulin-obesity hypothesis predicts that exercise should promote the loss of body fat by lowering insulin levels. The preponderance of clinical weight loss studies on people has shown that regular vigorous exercise improves weight loss and reduces the likelihood of regain compared with those who are sedentary.

 

Results of a metabolic ward study by Kevin Hall undermine the carbohydrate-insulin-obesity hypothesis.

Insulin was lowered by nearly 50% in people by an abrupt change from 50% calorie intake from carbohydrate to 5%. It didn't cause a significant release of fat from body fat cells. Lean tissue was catabolized more and the rate of body fat loss was less on the low-carb diet compared with the high-carb diet.

Consistent with other controlled feeding studies, no significant metabolic advantage was observed for the low-carbohydrate diet longer term, which undermines claims by low-carbohydrate advocates of a metabolic advantage of hundreds or even thousands of calories per day.

The study generated useful data that characterize metabolism when transitioning to a ketogenic diet. A transient metabolic advantage that lasted about ten days was observed that peaked at about 150 calories per day as the body transitioned to dietary ketosis and then diminished toward zero.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/07/nusi-funded-study-serves-up_6.html

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/07/05/ajcn.116.133561.abstract

 

exactly!!

i discovered that in 2017 and ever since then stopped eating them. remember the food pyramid we have been taught where grains,bread was at the bottom? guess who designed that?

 

Thank CrossFit for pitching the carbs are evil nonesense - something they learned in their drive through “certification” probably.

 

well said kerri. apart from that, starchy carbs make you fat we should stay away from them. staying lean is so simple. dont need to exercise. all you need to do is stay away from carbs. most people dont know. muah

 

Yay, this thread is back

Classic PR this stuff

 

There’s much more to carbs than refined sugar. Carbs provide you with energy. No athlete can perform without carbs and they’re all essential part of legit elite nutrition programs for legit elite athletes. It’s all because these idiots have a war with Coca Cola over credentialing.

 

Corn Syrup seems to be the carbohydrate most linked to type 2 diabetes, but the soft drinks industry are trying to deny it.

 

kerri hun:

"No athlete can perform without carbs "
this is what i also used to believe. and , i would say 90% of people here. As I once posted, we must get rid off all the layers of lies that had been imposed on us from early on. I know its hard. But step by step we can.

"No athlete can perform without carbs "
I am an athlete! and i am doing pretty well for over 1 year .That is how long I have been a paleo rasta. Paleo. Google it. Thats a "diet" which is not a diet. It is a nutrition. Meaning you will never want to go off it. Because its not a diet. try it i promise . carbs is rubbish. all the pre-packaged foods. all the processed foods are CARBS. Its way easier to make money with it.Cheaper etc. These devils also designed that fake "food pyramide" remember ? to hell with them. say no to babylon little kerri . jah

 

I am extremely well versed in this area. I sure as hell don’t need mansolaining or google. I am 100% confident in my statement. The lies are from shill Greg Glassman

You also continue to equate carbs with processed foods. There’s a lot more to carbs than prepackaged crap

Also for the record there was no actual “paleo” diet. Prehistoric man ate what was available to him, and that differed wildly across the globe. And prehistoric man had a 20 year life expectancy

 

That one is something of a myth, the AVERAGE was certainly lower, but they have found fossils 70 year olds from tens of thousands of years ago

The no antibiotics also a bit of a fallacy, mould inhibits bacteria growth, topical applications at least, ancient greeks, romans, chinese used to do it. Who knows when humans first worked out putting mould on a cut stopped it getting infected

 

Life expectancy was 20 but sure there were outliers. That part is real

Good point on the antibiotics

It’s also true there is anthropological records of paleo man milling carbs to make bread