Image courtesy of portfolio.com
There is no doubt that you can lose weight on a low-carb diet as well as improve your blood lipid profiles - but don't go for those two all beef patties, special no-carb sauce on a sesame meat bun just yet. Let’s look at how restricting carbohydrates accomplishes this feat from the viewpoint of science rather than a journalist.
The first article in this series established that foods containing carbohydrates vary greatly in their nutritional content ranging from good to the variety that plays a huge role in America’s weight problem (check out my article on sugar laden energy drinks and the glycemic index). A diet that focuses on eliminating carbohydrates often excludes many natural nutrient and antioxidant rich foods that are vital for wellness and may aid in disease and cancer prevention, while substituting imbalanced amounts of unhealthy, high fat foods.
How else does a low carb diet affect the body? Well, to begin with, this depends on just how restrictive the diet is. There is no widely accepted standard definition of what a "low-carb diet" actually is and there is such a variation of diets that claim the title, some generalizations are in order. As stated in the first article, this series will focus on the negative consequences that result from diets advocating a reduction in carbohydrates until the body enters ketosis (anywhere from 10 grams to 100 depending on the individual and activity level) as well as the misinformation that can be associated with them (saturated fat is not ok folks, more on that later).
Hypothesis number 2: Safe, rapid weight loss and improved cholesterol levels. The first "induction phase" of these diets usually calls for a severe restriction in carbohydrates (some as low as 20g daily) for one to two weeks. In the first few days, essentially your body simply burns off all of its readily available stored energy, or glycogen.
Glycogen is the body’s top fuel source when quick energy is needed and it plays a vital role during physical activity. Anyone who has ever "hit the wall" or "bonked" has experienced what it feels like when muscle and liver glycogen have been totally depleted. Have you ever seen or heard of an endurance athlete that endorses a ketogenic lifestyle? As you deplete all of your glycogen stores, the body begins to lose water because each glycogen molecule is attached to a H20 molecule. Couple that with further water loss from the load placed on the kidneys by a high protein intake and presto - you've just lost 7 pounds. In addition to the water loss your body also begins to turn muscle into sugar to fuel the brain and nervous system through a process called gluconeogenisis. After a few days it seems like the diet really works as evidence by a substantial weight loss. Most of it wasn't fat but you'll take a victory at the scale any day. Besides you just have to hold out until you enter the magic fat burning state of ketosis……
Comments
Jeremy, you are trying hard, aren't you? When you cite a known radical vegetarian advocate like Dr. Joel Fuhrman, then it discredits much of your message. I admire your tenacity, but you have a lot to learn kiddo.
Hey there fellow examiner, thanks for the comment! Vegetarian's can be very rad unless they are like my ex roommate who watched too much fraggle rock and adopted the practice of using radishes as currency. After 2 months and as many failed attempts at paying the electric bill we sat in darkness. When I asked him why he didn't take care of his share of the utilities his only excuse was that the energy company was run by Gorgs. Thankfully he moved out after the "trash heap" was kidnapped by allied waste.
Are you kidding??? The study you cite above states, "The meals were identical, except that one was high in saturated fat (coconut oil), while the other was high in polyunsaturated fat (safflower oil). Each meal consisted of a slice of carrot cake and a milkshake."
A slice of carrot cake and a milkshake are not my idea of a meal, and in addition, those foods are full of refined, junky carbs as well as tons of sugar. This is exactly the kind of crap study that keeps people in the dark about what constitues a healthy diet. You need to read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. And get a grip!
Are you kidding??? The study you cite above states, "The meals were identical, except that one was high in saturated fat (coconut oil), while the other was high in polyunsaturated fat (safflower oil). Each meal consisted of a slice of carrot cake and a milkshake."
A slice of carrot cake and a milkshake are not my idea of a meal, and in addition, those foods are full of refined, junky carbs as well as tons of sugar. This is exactly the kind of crap study that keeps people in the dark about what constitues a healthy diet. You need to read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. And get a grip!
Hey tigerpaws, thanks for the comment! The above study above was posted for the findings presented regarding the damaging effects that saturated fat has on the body. I definitely agree with you that both foods are junk and I wouldn't recommend them as part of a healthy diet ;) However the focus of this study was on one variable; the effects of saturated fat, not the makeup of the meal (even though high glycemic carbs can accelerate the process of atherosclerosis when combined with saturated fat) Check out my first article about how not all carbs are the same, some are healthy and some are most certainly not. Dont worry, I have a whole article coming up that talks about the "science journalist" Gary Taubes as well as some other notable low carb advocates.
I understand that the Examiner wants to balance its coverage, which is only fair. Nothing wrong with honest criticism - if it is honest. But this article series is not. True, many carby foods have good nutrients, but these can be easily replaced by supplements and smart food choices. Do you realize that low-carb is a far more nutrient-dense way of eating than either low-fat or low-cal? Do you know that only low-carb plans can achieve the recommended USRDA level of nutrition per calorie? Do you realize that low-carbers can lose more weight even while increasing thier calories? This proves that TYPE of calories eaten is alot more important than counting calories alone. The simplistic calorie theory is an old scientific wives tale which has never held up in practice. Once again, the point of low carb is not to demonize all carbs, but only to balance our diets, and show the real source of metabolic syndrome is excess highly processed sugar, flour and starch. Another point you make is that 20 grams of carbs is some kind of horrible danger level. Experience of many low-carbers show this to be simply false. When 20 grams of carb per day causes type 2 diabetes to be immediately reversed without medication, physical and mental energy greatly increased, triglycerides reduced by 75% within days and weight loss of up to 10lbs per week without exercise, something is very right about that result. Ketosis is not some imaginary promise, it happens within hours of reducing carbs, and its results are very evident. The feeling of increased energy, mental clarity and lack of tiredness and mental fog are reported by many low-carbers. If you fall off the wagon, you can regain ketosis in 12 hours or less. Finally, your description of the water weight loss is technically correct, but you draw the wrong conclusion from it. Water loss is the first natural stage of all weight loss. Your excess fat is supported by a great deal of water, it only makes sense that reversing the insulin-fat making process means shedding the water first. This is to be expected and ketosis follows immediately, as many low-carbers can attest. It amazes me how many health reporters say "you must lose weight", and when the public is shown the natural way to lose it, those same reporters whine that "highly effective weight loss is unhealthy". You must come to see that excess highly processed carbs are the primary, direct cause of your excess weight and diabetes in the first place. Reducing carbs is the most common sense, natural, healthy and free way to reverse it. I've been doing it since 2001, and have never experienced a single adverse health effect, nor has any other low-carber. And finally, While this reporter tells us we must not demonize carbs, he insists on demonizing fat. It must be repeated that saturated fat is not bad for you. Researchers have spent billions trying to prove the dangers of dietary fat and cholesterol, but have never to this day produced a definitive report or even a clear indication of either. It is another old wives tale. The symptom of metabolic syndrome/diabetes is fat, but that does not make dietary fat the cause. You don't get fat, or fatty arteries, or high cholesterol from the fat in your diet, but from the sugar, flour and starch. Sadly, the medical education of our society is being run by the old wives, and ruining our impressionable young medics with trash science, including this miseducated young reporter, repeating the same ineffective and unhealthy nutritional science of the last 40 years which has directly caused our current health epidemic. Sadly, he and his pharmaceutical company will keep making money off of your illness, while you go bankrupt and die young. I hate to call it a racket, but it's hard not to.
Thank-you for having the courage to address this low-carb issue. A successful diet is one that balances all nutirents. Lopping off carbs inevitably leads to higher fat or protein intake with negative consequences. KevinM must have stock in the supplement company to suggest replacing the positive value of carbs with "supplements", which is expensive and ineffective. Write - on!
FACE!
nothing like a fraggle reference to serve up a smack down.
Not true about the body using muscle protein for gluconeogenesis. If adequate protein is ingested the body will convert a portion of that and convert it to glucose. Studies of low carb vs other diets have found low carb to be more protein sparing than low fat or low calorie diets.
What seems to be overlooked here is actually what the science says about sat fat. The fact is that sat fats ONLY HAVE A DELETERIOUS EFFECT IN THE PRESENCE OF A HIGH CARB DIET. If your eating a high carb diet - best east un-sat, but on a low carb diet the effects of fats of all kinds appear to be beneficial. I think we need to understand the science before making judgements. I know this is no easy feat - I'm in a special circumstance in that I work for a scientist who is able to explain the details of dietary studys to me. Unless you're a statistics expert with plenty of experience manipulating data, unfortunately we do not know how to properly interpret the real data. We simply believe the abstract portion or what has been reported that the study has concluded. After interpreting the raw data, often times the story we hear is not what the science actually showed when dissected by a scientific genious.
Thanks for listening. . .
:)
Thanks for the comments! I'll clear up a couple of issues briefly but many of the topics will be discussed in the next few articles.
1)In most circumstances when the body is in a caloric deficit and fat mass is being lost blood lipid profiles will improve no matter if its low carb, low fat etc.
2)Water loss from loosing fat is minimal, fat contains only 10-15% water where as muscle has 4 times that amount.
3)Heart disease is a dynamic event with many variables. There have been conflicting studies on saturated fat because of the sheer amount of variables. However if we look to animal trials where the only variable is saturated fat it has been routinely proven to cause atherosclerosis.
4)Yes, highly processed carbs are unhealthy and lead to many diseases.
5)Not sure what studies show that reduced carb does not result in gluconeogenisis.
6)Weightloss at 10 pounds a week is very unhealthy.
Thanks for reading, take care
Jeremy,
1.studies have consistently proven that blood lipid profiles improve to a greater degree on low carb diets.
2. Please... enough with the water loss. I did NOT lose 80 lbs of water.
3. When you feed saturated fat to a HERBIVORE in an animal study, bad things happen. Really, are you going to depend on an animal study that fed saturated fats to rabbits?
4. Not just highly processed carbs. All carbs are created equal in that they all (excepting fiber) convert to SUGAR in your gut. Honey, table sugar, whole wheat flour... all turn into sugar.
5. gluconeogenisis turns protein into glucose. Unless one is literally starving and ingesting zero protein, low carb diets spare your muscle mass. On a low carb diet, particularly in the intitial stages, the primary fuel is ketone bodies derived from burning fat. Are you aware that your heart and certain brain structures operate much more efficiently on ketones than on sugar?
6. If you are morbidly obese, 10lbs a week is nothing.
Last, there is a gentleman named Charles Washington who is a marathon runner who eats a zero carb (meat and water only) diet. He has a blog you might want to check out.
Thanks again for the comment Sarah. Congratulations on losing 80 pounds, that's quite an accomplishment!
Studies on low carb diets have been a lot of things, but one thing they haven't been is consistent ;)
Predicting and preventing CHD is not as simple as an LDL or HDL number.
It's important to really look at the studies and move beyond just looking at blood lipid profiles as there are many other issues that contribute to CHD i.e. blood flow to the heart (which actually decreases with a ketogenic diet). Processed carbs also play a major role, so does exercise, heredity, fruit and vegetable consumption, fiber etc etc.
I think it would be beneficial for you to get a good base knowledge of physiology before you try to tackle some of these issues you are posting about, here is a great website with a ton of good information cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/silverthorn2/
Saying all carbs are equal because they turn to sugar is like saying every movie the same because they all end up as credits rolling up the screen. Here is a great link to one of my all time favorite sites, check out the kind of nutrients that a food like apples or cantaloupe or sweet potatoes or blueberries. Its pretty amazing www.whfoods.com/
I'll be addressing the saturated fat issue in a coming article and dont worry, I wont use any studies where they gave bacon to rabbits.
A little late to the game, here; however, I lead a 100% ketogenic lifestyle, consuming an average of 10-14 'net' carbs per day AND am a regular marathon runner. If one is abiding by a strict ketogenic regimen, the body will easily and on-demand convert fat to ketones in the liver. As the body does not require or seek glucose stores to operate, this so-called 'bonking' experienced by the average performance athlete does not occur--blood sugar remains remarkably stable, varying little over a 26.2 mile jaunt.
We like to defend addictions--as a species. In the last 100 odd years, we have become addicted to carbohydrates, which is really something to which our ancestors resorted as a desperate measure when meat was scarce. And as they stalked prey for hours on end across the savanna, stopping only to lap from a stream, I don't think they were saying, "Darn it all, Frank, I'm bonking, give me some Cheerios!"
I don't understand the terror of the ketogenic lifestyle; it's biochemistry 101. As for the 'nutrient and antioxidant' rich foods of which you speak, naturally you will need them on a high-carbohydrate diet in order to counteract the runaway oxidative damage that is the logical result of elevated blood sugar levels and the consequent insulin response. I can hear the West grow fatter--it makes a crackling sound as I write...
Finally, the ketogenic lifestyle requires dedication and consistency; it's all or nothing: either you train the body to use its glycogen stores or to burn ketones--the brain would prefer ketones, but the brain addicted to sugar has a tendency to forget this. Also, there's no victor or loser in this debate; it's been raging since the turn of the last century. And, have you ever seen the galas the Corn-Grower's Association throw in DC every year? HUGE! One word: lobby.
Hey Tom, glad to have you with us.
Exercising on a low carb diet becomes even more precarious. Think of carbohydrates as high octane fuel for working muscles, if your body is solely relying on fat and protein then you are going to max out at about 65% of your total work capacity (which can work when running for long slow distances.) I am definitely an advocate of adopting a diet that increases and helps burn intramuscular triglycerides. However if you want to achieve a high level of performance carbs are needed. In the history of the tour de france there has never been a cyclist who made it through day 1 without carbohydrates. Also many elite athletes experience bonking if they dont eat enough carbs during the race, in the 2000 tour Lance Armstrong famously bonked while passing up a feed zone to catch Marco Pantani, he almost lost the tour that day.
If you are interested in what our ancestors ate check out the paleo diet, a lot of research has pointed to healthy carb consumption, in fact that's the diet I advocate for the most part (see my other article).
Antioxidants are necessary no matter what you eat, especially when you think about all the modern environmental factors that we deal with i.e. pollution. Every person that breaths oxygen needs antioxidants. If you consume a diet mainly based on plenty of lean meats, healthy fats and tons of fruits and vegetables you will find your blood sugar to be remarkably stable. I dont think there is terror concerning the ketogenic lifestyle, I just think there is a much healthier way to live.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!