"Carbophobes"

  • Thread starter Deleted member 26533
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 26533

Guest
Just posted this in a thread on the smb and thought I may aswell make a thread as it will be useful information to people.

"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.

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."
 


Titus said:
What isn't entirely true?
Click to expand...

You claim that calorific deficit is the only out.. it isn't.

Changing how your body is exposed to insulin can dramatically change your weight, even with a higher calorie intake. Wor lasses brother is testament to that, lost 8 stone in 14 months by reducing his carb intake by 75% He ate like a horse, just the right things, he did little exercise either.
 
ayesane said:
You claim that calorific deficit is the only out.. it isn't.

Changing how your body is exposed to insulin can dramatically change your weight, even with a higher calorie intake. Wor lasses brother is testament to that, lost 8 stone in 14 months by reducing his carb intake by 75% He ate like a horse, just the right things, he did little exercise either.
Click to expand...

If you have a healthy insulin response, there is little reason to even think about it unless you are trying to manipulate exogenous injections of it.

Reducing his carb intake in turn made it easier for him to reduce his overall calorie intake. You aren't going to lose weight in a caloric surplus, that just doesn't make sense.

Since his carb intake was reduced by 75%, what was his 'before' and dieting carb intake and overall calorie intake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Titus said:
If you have a healthy insulin response, there is little reason to even think about it unless you are trying to manipulate exogenous injections of it.

Reducing his carb intake in turn made it easier for him to reduce his overall calorie intake. You aren't going to lose weight in a caloric surplus, that just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

are you discounting the metabolism? i.e. skinny people who eat what they want (like me, slight beer belly aside) vs fat people who cannot look at a bag of crisps without gaining weight.
 
ayesane said:
are you discounting the metabolism? i.e. skinny people who eat what they want (like me, slight beer belly aside) vs fat people who cannot look at a bag of crisps without gaining weight.
Click to expand...

Discounting metabolism? I'm simply stating that you cannot lose weight in a calorie surplus, apart from ofcourse water-weight. Metabolism has an effect on your energy requirements obviously, that's why some skinny bastards require 4000+ calories to even maintain, despite doing very little throughout the day.
 
Titus said:
Discounting metabolism? I'm simply stating that you cannot lose weight in a calorie surplus, apart from ofcourse water-weight. Metabolism has an effect on your energy requirements obviously, that's why some skinny bastards require 4000+ calories to even maintain, despite doing very little throughout the day.
Click to expand...

The point I'm trying to make is many things dictate how you process your food into fat or energy. Insulin is the hormone which regulates this, and can be influenced, just as your metabolism can be.
 
ayesane said:
The point I'm trying to make is many things dictate how you process your food into fat or energy. Insulin is the hormone which regulates this, and can be influenced, just as your metabolism can be.
Click to expand...

I have never disagreed that hormones effect how food is processed, I did disagree that you don't need to be in a caloric defecit to lose weight.

"In the same way that generating fat loss requires the creation of a caloric deficit, gaining any sort of body mass (whether muscle or otherwise) requires a caloric surplus." - Lyle McDonald

"Calories my friend, calories. In theory, gaining weight is simple. If you eat more calories than you burn, then you gain weight due to calorie surplus" - Layne Norton

The point of this thread was for people to disregard the idea that 'carbs are the enemy', by the way. Some people can reduce bodyfat on what is considered large amounts of carbs, I'm 'cutting' on around 450g carbs at the moment.

I'd also like to point out that carbohydrates aren't the only macronutrient that stimulates an insulin response, infact a lot of sources of protein infact result in a very significant insulin respone.

To end this post I'd also like to say that if you're reducing carbs very low, your body is only going to break down protein and turn that into glucose via gluconeogensis, so you may aswell of eaten the carbohydrates in the first place, as they're generally cheaper and taste nicer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Titus said:
I have never disagreed that hormones effect how food is processed, I did disagree that you don't need to be in a caloric defecit to lose weight.

"In the same way that generating fat loss requires the creation of a caloric deficit, gaining any sort of body mass (whether muscle or otherwise) requires a caloric surplus." - Lyle McDonald

"Calories my friend, calories. In theory, gaining weight is simple. If you eat more calories than you burn, then you gain weight due to calorie surplus" - Layne Norton

The point of this thread was for people to disregard the idea that 'carbs are the enemy', by the way. Some people can reduce bodyfat on what is considered large amounts of carbs, I'm 'cutting' on around 450g carbs at the moment.

I'd also like to point out that carbohydrates aren't the only macronutrient that stimulates an insulin response, infact a lot of sources of protein infact result in a very significant insulin respone.

To end this post I'd also like to say that if you're reducing carbs very low, your body is only going to break down protein and turn that into glucose via gluconeogensis, so you may aswell of eaten the carbohydrates in the first place, as they're generally cheaper and taste nicer.
Click to expand...

I'm on a carb controlled diet atm and I'm losing weight quite rapidly, my food intake has not changed at all, if anything I'm eating more. As I said, wor lasses brother is unrecognisable from a couple years ago, he simply removed potatoes and bread and replaced them with veg, fruit and eggs.

I haven't done the research you have, I don't think it's necessary. Surly removing one thing like kets and eating a peach instead is a good thing, even though the calorie count is similar..
 
ayesane said:
I'm on a carb controlled diet atm and I'm losing weight quite rapidly, my food intake has not changed at all, if anything I'm eating more. As I said, wor lasses brother is unrecognisable from a couple years ago, he simply removed potatoes and bread and replaced them with veg, fruit and eggs.

I haven't done the research you have, I don't think it's necessary. Surly removing one thing like kets and eating a peach instead is a good thing, even though the calorie count is similar..
Click to expand...

If both diets are isocaloric then it comes down to energy expidutre, you aren't going to lose weight in a caloric surplus and nor is eating carbs in a caloric defecit going to inhibit weight loss.

In isolation, ofcourse fruit is better than "ket", but you need to look at the diet as a whole to decide whether consuming it would be of detriment. If you have already met micronutrient sufficiency, satiety isn't an issue and you're still going to meet your macronutrient goals for the day, eating ket over a peach isn't going to negitvely effect body composition, providing that in both instances your overall daily macronutrient intake was the same.
 
Titus said:
If both diets are isocaloric then it comes down to energy expidutre, you aren't going to lose weight in a caloric surplus and nor is eating carbs in a caloric defecit going to inhibit weight loss.

In isolation, ofcourse fruit is better than "ket", but you need to look at the diet as a whole to decide whether consuming it would be of detriment. If you have already met micronutrient sufficiency, satiety isn't an issue and you're still going to meet your macronutrient goals for the day, eating ket over a peach isn't going to negitvely effect body composition, providing that in both instances your overall daily macronutrient intake was the same.
Click to expand...

But it very negatively effects insulin levels, which in-turn regulates fat storage.

is there or is there not something to be said for eating healthy? unfortunately for us westerners it means drastically reducing the carb intake, every meal is laden with them. Pastry, bread, cake, rice, pasta, potato - good for you as part of a balanced diet but no more then that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ayesane said:
But it very negatively effects insulin levels, which in-turn regulates fat storage.

is there or is there not something to be said for eating healthy? unfortunately for us westerners it means drastically reducing the carb intake, every meal is laden with them. Pastry, bread, cake, rice, pasta, potato - good for you as part of a balanced diet but no more then that.
Click to expand...

Protein stimulates an insulin response and in excess is going to be converted to glucose. Insulin response isn't worth thinking about unless you have medical reason to do so, or you are manipulating insulin through exegnous administration.
 
Titus said:
Protein stimulates an insulin response and in excess is going to be converted to glucose. Insulin response isn't worth thinking about unless you have medical reason to do so, or you are manipulating insulin through exegnous administration.
Click to expand...

all carbs = an insulin response and fat storage.
some proteins = moderate insulin response and fat storage.

Proteins still have to be proteins upto a level. Look, google says the experts dont have a clue so it's pointless us debating it. I've seen it work, people have testified to is sucssess - let people have that option eh? we all lose weight differently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's simply not true, for carbs to be stored as fat, you need to consume extremely large amounts, consistently. You seem to be completely disregarding muscle glycogen.

An insulin response doesnt equal fat storage.
 
Titus said:
That's simply not true, for carbs to be stored as fat, you need to consume extremely large amounts, consistently. You seem to be completely disregarding muscle glycogen.

An insulin response doesnt equal fat storage.
Click to expand...

TBH i havn't got a clue what muscle glycogen is and don't care enough to google it.

We westerners consume huge amounts of carbs, massive amounts. That's why we're all fat.
 
ayesane said:
TBH i havn't got a clue what muscle glycogen is and don't care enough to google it.

We westerners consume huge amounts of carbs, massive amounts. That's why we're all fat.
Click to expand...

You don't know what muscle glycogen is an you're debating carbohydrate metabolism? Muscle glycogen is the storage of glucose, which is what carbohydrates provide. Once the body has exceeded capicty for muscle glycogen storage, de-novo lipogenesis or DNL will start to occur, which is the conversion of carbs to fat. Hope that makes the process understandable. It's not a case of; "carb is eaten, insulin spiked, carb stored as fat".

The consistent caloric surplus, from a combination of inactivity and overeating is why obesity is such a problem, it just happens that carbs are easy to plow down. I could put away 300g of carbs a hell of a lot easier than I could put away 300g of protein for example, both of which have the same caloric content gram for gram.

I'm not being a dick btw, I'm genuinely trying to provide useful information that will be of benefit to people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top