New Study Confirms That Carbs Make You Fat

Wow -- a great and inspiring thread. (I'm not usually a reader of non-trading ET threads, I guess...!)

Used to run ultramarathons and hike for weeks at a time, training by running an urban (concrete) loop, inserting obstacle jumps/dynamics and some limited weight room times (typical weak-ass runner). Devotée of Noakes (The Lore Of Running), which spells out the Krebs Cycle better than I got as an undergraduate.

So: calories is calories, bio-available carbohydrate is stored as 1pt carb to 2pts water, training of fat-burning capacity takes marathonish patience, carbo-RE-loading is as important as carbo-Loading (for re-recruitment of sacked muscles/auxiliaries -- a comfort & a safety thing)..... and a bunch of other truisms that have been quoted in the posts above.

Altogether, my training was WAY inadequate to support the distances of various events -- which means that I had to ferret out the *tiniest* training tricks/advantages to an n'th degree. I had it down to an artform.

And over the past year/18 months, I'm back to it: after a decade of (involuntary) driving a desk, I'm hoping to peel off a 50mile "go" (I'm unwilling to call it a "run") before the end of this calendar year. (((I'll be happy, though, with anything over 26.2 -- as that is still "ultra" distance. :D)))

But, going back to those truisms... The study that Baron cites gives a *real* reason as to why/how "calories are [NOT] calories". Twenty years ago -- becoming a half-way serious runner, then marathoner, then ultra(-idiot), while those new/re/fangled diets-of-every-color were coming out..... "What's true?" And the answer was always, "Diet and exercise"... cuz calories is calories. (I mean, *Right*???)

Well, maybe not. The thing about the BMJ study that I find so compelling is that it does not really contradict prior 'wisdom', but merely adds to it a little flavor -- one which provides (as per "Normal Science" a'la Thomas Kuhn) an explanation for all prior data, AND then provides for new data nestled right in with the rest. Sweet, this "Science" stuff.

Well, this past summer I cut out the cashews :( (3 pounds a week). Since it's no longer hot out, I've pretty much cut out the beer. :( (A growler a week, plus-or-minus.) I *have* recently gotten back into the habit of eating sugar-laden breakfast cereals :mad: (out of boredom, stress, etc.) It's just *amazing* how much of that urge goes away just by taking a drink of water, or (better!) brushing the teeth even briefly.:wtf::banghead::):):)

Great thread. Great...:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Frederick Foresight said:
The thing is that you immediately mention people wanting their pasta, bread and cookies when referring to anyone who doesn't favor the paleo approach. That's a bit of a straw man thing, don't you think? And while there may be shorter-term advantages to a paleo diet, it is not without its own drawbacks longer term. So it's okay that you favor one over the other, but please don't assume you have stumbled upon a panacea for all that ails us. The research does not support such a conclusion.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/2014-2015/06/20150603_paleo-diet.html
More...

If you choose to go Paleo/Keto, you do not eat pasta, bread and cookies. That is all I said. You keep taking it as a personal attack on your own diet and defending those foods. I never said it was the cure to all ills. Again, what you tend to do is set up an argument that no one has made that you can attack to support your point.

Eat whatever you like, all I do is correct inccorect opinions on Paleo/Keto diets. No one here ever demanded that we all switch to Keto diets, I highlighted my experience and got repeated attacks on the diet as though someone put a gun to your head demanding you eat that way. Really?

But I will step in and correct mistatements and uninformed OPINIONS.

Also don't cite me a nutrionist (i.e. I can get a nutriton degree online) as supporting your argument when in the article itself it says nothing factual or specific. The article also has several statements that are incorrect. If you cite something, read it first before blindly posting it.
 
El OchoCinco said:
If you choose to go Paleo/Keto, you do not eat pasta, bread and cookies. That is all I said. You keep taking it as a personal attack on your own diet and defending those foods.
More...
Except that I'm not defending pasta, bread and especially cookies. I eat a couple of whole grain slices of bread a day, very occasionally have very small amounts of whole grain pasta and can't even remember when I last had a cookie. (Years.) I haven't had pizza in well over a year and when I did it was a thin crust multi-grain, not that this makes is particularly okay. So if I have something to say about paleo, it doesn't mean I'm defending a sweet tooth, because I don't have one. You always manage to leave out fruit or whole grains in their natural form when talking about anything other than paleo in characterizing the alternatives. So I think maybe you're the one feeling attacked when someone presents anything other than praise for paleo. As for the site I cited, it's from a medical center. A dietitian or nutritionist may have written the piece, but I'm guessing it was vetted.

Anyway, I think we know where the other stands. I just wish you would not mischaracterize some of the people who may not share your views.
 
Last edited:
I do not label anyone, you are claiming I do that is the problem we have. You are jumping in to defend some attack I have not made. I say I don't think it is healthy for me to eat gluten or wheat and you defend it to say it is a draconian diet or that people should be able to have wheat. Good for them. I think wheat is a big boy and can defend itself.

Then you tell me specifically your diet but I have not attacked your diet. Most people here think they know paleo or keto based on some fad literature. I focus on the science and medical information, not what some douche wrote in a book with no research background. I repeated several times I also have my cheats.

The article does not say Paleo is bad, it simply cautions some risks of the diet with "could" and "possible" language but you cited it as definitive as disagreeing with my statements, it actually does not. It is from a medical school but it does not make any medical statements and then ends with recommending people go to the government web site for health information. Not a medical school approach I would support.
 
El OchoCinco said:
I do not label anyone, you are claiming I do that is the problem we have. You are jumping in to defend some attack I have not made. I say I don't think it is healthy for me to eat gluten or wheat and you defend it to say it is a draconian diet or that people should be able to have wheat. Good for them. I think wheat is a big boy and can defend itself.

Then you tell me specifically your diet but I have not attacked your diet. Most people here think they know paleo or keto based on some fad literature. I focus on the science and medical information, not what some douche wrote in a book with no research background. I repeated several times I also have my cheats.

The article does not say Paleo is bad, it simply cautions some risks of the diet with "could" and "possible" language but you cited it as definitive as disagreeing with my statements, it actually does not. It is from a medical school but it does not make any medical statements and then ends with recommending people go to the government web site for health information. Not a medical school approach I would support.
More...
There are grains other than wheat that don't have gluten. If you have a gluten sensitivity, then you should obviously avoid it. I don't. Just that a lot of people who don't have such a sensitivity are avoiding it because it's the "in" thing right now. And I didn't say that the article concluded paleo was bad. Just that there are pluses and minuses to most approaches, suggesting that maybe an optimal place might be somewhere in between. But we each decide where we set our sliding scale.

Anyway, I really didn't want this to be contentious, so I apologize if that's how you took it. Just wanted an exchange.
 
Last edited:
Well plus and minuses really means that if you choose to do keto, you need to be aware of the minuses so that you can adjust.

If saturated fat is a serious issue, there are plenty of lean proteins such as chicken, turkey, fish etc. The idea that you should eat bacon, butter and all the fatty red meat you want is just marketing and misinformation.

If one wants to eliminate dairy, then you have to increase leafy greens that are high in calcium/Vitamin D to compensate. Plenty of leafy greens have as much, if not more, of calcium than the milk we drink.

Most serious keto advocates will recommend fish oil, multivitamins and calcium/magnesium supplements since you tend to miss out on certain things when you start or they get flushed out when fluids are leaving your body.

The switch to burning fat for fuel is the main reason people who do keto enjoy it. It helps you lose weight faster while maintaining lean body mass due to ingestion of adequate protein and fats to feed your engine (in addition to breaking down the excess fat one is carrying if they are overweight).

Again, this is not for everyone because not everyone is willing to do what is required or enjoy it. But if you do, you will see beneficial results.
 
One thing we can focus on is that the refined sugars and processed foods are the biggest cause of obesity/diabetes and heart disease in this country. 80% of the grocery is processed foods and refined sugars. I made that up obviously but looking at the geography of the grocery and type of foods, how far off can I be?

The body has a defense mechanism against over indulging in these types of foods but we ignore it and have created Type II diabetes as a disease, and suffer from high cholesterol, high tris and coronary heart disease.

The fact that cancer cells use sugars as a fuel source to replicate at extremely high rates is also very troubling. Also, that various brain disorders from Alzheimers to Parkinson have found faulty glucose uptake as a significant factor in degenerating nerve cells which leads to those diseases scary as well. It is like we created a diet to cause diseases that naturally would occur in very small segments of the population.
 
El OchoCinco said:
The switch to burning fat for fuel is the main reason people who do keto enjoy it. It helps you lose weight faster while maintaining lean body mass due to ingestion of adequate protein and fats to feed your engine (in addition to breaking down the excess fat one is carrying if they are overweight).
More...
Assuming for the moment that you're looking to lose weight, would you continue with a full paleo diet once you achieved your target weight?
 
Well full paleo is so subjective since that term is killed by the thousands of authors labelling their approach paleo or keto.

My goal is significantly reduce sugars and refined carbs to very occasional, limit other carbs to cruciferous/fiber rich veggies 90% of the time, stick with lean proteins and include red meat in there, and stick with a meal make up of protein, healthy fats and vegetables with my "cheats" being on the weekends or special events.

The media pushed keto of pats of butter with every bite and stacks of bacon and steak is not for me and I think there are serious health risks making that blanket recommendation to people. Also so much of that type of fat makes me sick. I think those who push this are just selling a book/product and doing a disservice to what keto can do and what has been found in studies (most studies on keto usually focus on healthy fats and don't make their subjects eat bacon and butter all day long).

The fad of Paleo snacks and packaged foods fall into the same trap that the fat free fad fell into, using sugars (even natural ones) to load up stuff with flavor while claiming it is natural. For example some Paleo bars use lots of dates to add sweetness to their supposedly natural bars of nuts and coconut oil and you get a small bar with 25 grams of sugar.

So I have to find the middle ground between paleo/keto with whole foods and the triple play of lean protein, vegetables and healthy fats as the focus.

My biggest issue is travel and time. I spent 7 weeks out of the country over the summer and being selective in eating is hard when you have so many great choices from other countries. Time management changed in september and I could not make it to the gym and got busier and then the food choices became more about convenience than smart and it spiralled from there. Going back to the drawing board means start off strict fully and bring back things in again. I had quite a lot of cheats over the summer but came back only 2 lbs. heavier (that is either water or one good dump away from getting back). When September work and life hit, the ship sank.

When I was full on the diet and strict back in May/June the energy levels and good overall feeling was undeniable, especially when I played soccer and hoops. Now I got swelling in my knee again and very sore after playing and lethargic. Just need 3-4 weeks to get back and now that Thanksgiving is past I can focus back on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top