Carbs are Killing You (infographic)

1) I already have. I also consider myself a work in progress, and have not yet attained the body fat percentage I seek. I was also 265 lbs just a few years ago and have lost over 100 lbs and kept it off. I would say I am doing pretty damn well considering.

2) If you're implying that you have little body fat, I would say that isn't a very accurate statement, at least based on the picture you posted. There is a difference between being skinny or thin, and toned and fit. I would not say you're overweight, but I wouldn't exactly say you're toned or have little body fat either. There are lots of skinny and thin people out there, but they're soft and don't really have much in the way of lean mass. What I am seeing looks more soft as opposed to lean. Not that I am saying there is anything wrong with this, but don't use a picture of yourself as an example of having low body fat while calling into question my own if you don't have low body fat.

 

Some people and groups on the web are neglecting the overall calorie budget and are making it sound as if a higher carb diet that has the same amount of consumed calories as a lower carb diet is somehow going to make the person gain more weight compared with a low-carb diet. They haven't produced any convincing evidence to support this.

Some, like Taubes, are arguing that insulin spikes are causing calories to be stored more easily as body fat, as if this is somehow going to make the person gain weight for the same amount of consumed daily calorie intake which is needed to maintain constant body weight. Such calories taken from the daily calorie intake budget, if diverted and converted into body fat, are no longer available to maintain the person's body weight and other functions, and they will be returned shortly to the body for energy, all else being the same. This is the other half of the story that Taubes ignores in his infographic. Hence, no weight gain, unless the person starts consuming more calories each day than needed. Consuming more calories than needed is an issue of over-eating. That's different than the unsupported claim that insulin spikes supposedly take a portion of a day's calories and convert them into body fat and somehow, without over-eating, the same amount of calories magically appear from nowhere and are inserted into the overall calorie budget that's needed to run the body.

Carbohydrate foods are blamed when instead the blame should be placed on calorie-dense, low-satiety foods that cause some people to consume more calories than they need. Such low-satiety foods could be carbs or fats or a mix of both. Many packaged sweet snack foods perceived as being mostly carbs are actually half or more fat by calorie contribution. The sugar and fat together make them calorie dense. They also make the food appealing to taste, causing people to eat more than they need, which causes weight gain.

 

Standard bullshit answer.

My doctor disagrees. He says he never sees any women over 40 who are doing better. He says it's not realistic to try and match the girls who are 25. I'd say he knows a lot more about it than a night shift nursing home custodian.

 

I think this is a great discussion (which takes both 'sides' ) but haven''t you seen pics of Rat over the last few years? He has made a fucking amazing effort! This doesn't make him automatically right with everything food related of course but if you'd have noticed I don't see how you can view him working on his body as a work in progress as standard bullshit...

 

Some people and groups on the web are neglecting the overall calorie budget and are making it sound as if a higher carb diet that has the same amount of consumed calories as a lower carb diet is somehow going to make the person gain more weight compared with a low-carb diet. They haven't produced any convincing evidence to support this.

I don't think anyone is neglecting calories, but in the context of a low carb diet, calories mean much less because the calories are not being stored and accumulated in the body due to elevated insulin levels. It's pretty much an irrefutable fact that a person who eats a high carb diet (particularly one consisting of refined, high-glycemic carbs, such as the Standard American Diet), who does not have the metabolism to handle these carbs, is going to gain more weight than a person with the same metabolism, who eats the same amount of calories on a low carb diet. Almost all low carb experts will tell you that you can eat to satiety and not count calories while losing weight, and for most people it works. I know firsthand it works, because it has worked for me, and it has worked for many other people I know. There are some days I might eat in excess of 3,000 calories, and I might gain a pound or two, but it usually gets burned off within a day or two because I am always in fat burning mode. This is simply not the case for a person who eats a diet high in carbohydrates, especially if they are carbohydrate sensitive and/or insulin resistant. These people will always be in fat storage mode,

Some, like Taubes, are arguing that insulin spikes are causing calories to be stored more easily as body fat, as if this is somehow going to make the person gain weight for the same amount of consumed daily calorie intake which is needed to maintain constant body weight. Such calories taken from the daily calorie intake budget, if diverted and converted into body fat, are no longer available to maintain the person's body weight and other functions, and they will be returned shortly to the body for energy, all else being the same. This is the other half of the story that Taubes ignores in his infographic. Hence, no weight gain, unless the person starts consuming more calories each day than needed. Consuming more calories than needed is an issue of over-eating. That's different than the unsupported claim that insulin spikes supposedly take a portion of a day's calories and convert them into body fat and somehow, without over-eating, the same amount of calories magically appear from nowhere and are inserted into the overall calorie budget that's needed to run the body.

But if a person's body has a tendency to store and accumulate fat, that fat is never going to be used by for energy if a person's insulin levels remain high. It will only be stored and accumulated, leading to weight gain. Otherwise obesity would not be an issue for so many people. Furthermore, if obesity was simply a matter of overeating, which it's not, this doesn't explain the many obese people who eat less than people who are of a normal weight. Nor does it explain those who regularly eat excess calories but don't gain weight.

So obesity is primarily a hormonal issue (the hormone in question being insulin), and not simply one that has to do with overeating. This is the outdated view as to why people get fat, and probably the biggest reason why people continue to struggle with their weight despite efforts to lose weight.

And as far as overeating, it is much harder to do when a person keeps their carbs low and consumes the majority of calories from fat. So even if overeating was a leading cause of obesity, a low carb diet could only benefit those who have a tendency to overeat.

Also, it is not Taubes' infographic. I don't know why you keep claiming it is. I believe the infographic was simply referencing the information Taubes' puts forward in his books in a clear and concise way.

Carbohydrate foods are blamed when instead the blame should be placed on calorie-dense, low-satiety foods that cause some people to consume more calories than they need. Such low-satiety foods could be carbs or fats or a mix of both. Many packaged sweet snack foods perceived as being mostly carbs are actually half or more fat by calorie contribution. The sugar and fat together make them calorie dense. They also make the food appealing to taste, causing people to eat more than they need, which causes weight gain.

Foods are low satiety because they are high in carbs. If you take something that is high in fat and add sugar to it, it immediately will become less satiating because of its effect on blood sugar levels. Blood sugar levels are directly correlated with hunger and the urge to overeat.

 

It's still a cliché line. Credibility is lacking. Anybody can talk about how thin they're going to be in the future.

I've never cared about carbs, except to the extent that I keep everything in balance and don't over-consume any one thing. My doctor says I'm near the lower end of the acceptable healthy weight range for my height, and my legs are as hard as a rock. Weight control gets harder as you get older, as the metabolism slows and the body becomes increasingly unforgiving of our mistakes, so I'm proud of what I've done.

Some of these online diagrams remind me of the old bogus concept of a perpetual motion machine, where energy comes from nowhere. If everything you eat and drink goes straight to fat, then your muscles and vital organs are staying alive through magic. While the body can make fat more efficiently out of some things than others, that only matters when there is a calorie surplus. Otherwise, it would literally be possible to starve to death while gaining weight!

Too bad there can't be a diet book that explains why nobody needs diet books. There's no money in that. Americans have become convinced that weight management has to be hard, complicated, and fast. Truth is, if most people just made the incremental changes that they already know they should make, and be consistent, their weight would slowly return to the normal range and stay there. That's not an exciting subject for a book or TV interview.

 

Comparing my picture to yours, I would say I have a lower body fat percentage.

 

Go fuck yourself.

 

Except nobody is claiming that everything you eat and drink goes straight to fat, unless you're consuming excess carbs your body is unable to process. But if you understood insulin resistance, you would realize that it is essentially a body in starvation, since the body cannot effectively utilize glucose for energy. So what happens to that glucose? It is diverted to the liver where it gets converted to fat and then stored. This is just one among many reasons why obesity poses such a health risk. There is the aspect of carrying excess weight and the strain it has on the body (the heart, the musculoskeletal system, etc), but there is also the fact that essentially you are starving (despite being obese) because the cells of the body are not utilizing fuel effectively.

 

Classy, as usual.

 

This is my situation.

This discussion has sparked my interest (again) in making food choices that are better for me. Thank you.

It remains a challenge because of IBS; a challenge but not impossible.

 

That's type 2 diabetes.

When you can't come up with a legitimate insult, you make something up.

 

1) Type II diabetes is insulin resistance -- duh. Your body cannot efficiently use the insulin it produces, and over time it leads to type II diabetes. While not everyone who is insulin resistant has full blown type II diabetes, it is seen as a precursor to type II diabetes, and both are the result of the same thing (the same mechanisms at play), just to varying degrees. Type II diabetes marks a degree of advanced insulin resistance.

Insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and type II diabetes are pretty much synonymous with one another.

2) What a hypocrite. You launch into an ad hominem attack over the type of work I do, then tell me to come up with a legitimate insult after I respond to you telling me to go fuck myself. Amazing.

 

Why is it a bull shit answer?
It takes a great deal of time to get to where pressed rats at from where he was. A person whos body is a work in progress is striving to better them selves.


btw I have eaten less than 5 grams of carbohydrates today. The less carbs i eat, the better i sleep and feel.

Edited for spelling

 

Because everybody who needs to lose weight says they're going to do it later on.

 

What does that have to do with pressed rat? He already lost the weight.

idk why you would lump everyone together.. One of my buddies was overweight in high school in 11th grade. End of the year he said ill be skinny when we come back to school for senior year.. when i saw him 3 or so months later i honestly didnt recognize him.

Some people do have the drive..

 

Perhaps you lack reading comprehension skills, but I already stated that I was once 265 lbs. I lost over 100 lbs. I am now a normal, healthy weight for a male my age. My "work in progress" refers to my overall body composition, being a person striving for optimal fitness. I strive to eventually get into the single digits of body fat, so that is what I meant by work in progress. I was not speaking in terms of weight loss or health. I am in outstanding shape. Being a work in progress refers to anyone who is always looking to better themselves. That is unless you have have an overbloated ego and already see yourself as perfect, which you obviously do since you used a picture of yourself as the ideal of what a "low body fat" should look like, which I find to be, quite frankly, laughable.

 

I'm insulin resistant and it occasionally causes me to be hypoglycemic.

I've never had a high blood glucose reading. It runs in the perfect range unless it drops into the low range.

 

You're referring to reactive hypoglycemia, which is when the pancreas secretes more insulin than needed in response to carbohydrate consumption, driving blood sugar levels too low. It still can be treated/cured the same way type II diabetes involving hyperglycemia is treated, which is by drastically reducing carbohydrate intake.

Dr. Eric Westman, one of the nation's leading low carb doctors, has to reduce the amount of medicine his patients take for diabetes the same day they start the exact same diet I am on. That is how well this diet works for people with type II diabetes. It works so well that people can usually go off their medicine completely after just a few weeks on the diet, meaning they are essentially cured of their condition.

 

I think when he posted that he assumed you noticed some of his efforts over the years as well (like pretty much anybody on here has). You may have a point about that remark being an empty cliché if you were talking with a stranger but in this case it seems you are starting an argument for arguments sake. Sorry.