Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GoHardOrGoHme What seems like a basic question to most is quite complex to me. Most say that carbs are essential to fuel muscle...but from what i have studied this is a gross oversimplification that is starting to get on my nerves.
So after a gross over simplification of the pathways i pose the question...why are carbs needed in diets? What are the downfalls of ketosis? Are there actually any documented studies attributed to what happens with prolonged lack of carbs? Will the lack of carbs lead to muscle atrophy if levels of fat and protein intake are sufficient (maintenance or above)?
Also if carbs are needed how much do u actually need in order to avoid possible negs of low carbs? How is carb cycling more efficient at created fat loss/muscle gain? What is the ideal period to cycle? How long should one carb cycle? etc.
Im sick and tired of over simplified answers, bull**** opinions, biases due to promoting some new diet fad to have u spend **** tons of money on their books and products and i want to get down to the science of the matter. |
Even though there has been some good discussion and positive attitudes on this thread, ultimately it fails to provide any answers.
The human body is a complex machine that is primarily programmed for survivial. In order to get the right answers we have to ask the right question and then we have to have enough capacity (time, intelligence, and education) to figure it out.
'How much carbs does one really need?' is an opened ended question that does not have a quantifiable answer. Not to mention that it is also prejudiced. We really need to define a context here:
- in order to lose x% bodyfat in y weeks while losing no more than z lbs of muscle?
- in order to build muscle while minimizing fat gain?
- in order to avoid hitting the wall during road cycle sprints?
- to better manage diabetes without unbearable carb cravings or impaired mental function?
What is the desired result?
An automotive analogy is what octane level gasoline do I need for my car? The best answer to this question is, 'whatever keeps your engine from knocking (preignition). Of course this is not really all that helpful but do we really expect the person to measure true octane levels of various gasoline brands, look up compression ratios, map out vehicle loadings, combustion chamber thermal gradients, all at different ambient temperatures, etc? Of course not, now try to do this with humans where everyone has different metobolic rates and different routies.
Also, the argument that carbs are not essential to basic human metobolism is NOT an argument for their dietary elimination. Each macro nutrient has different properties and characteristics and like most things in life this results in TRADEOFFS. The challenge becomes to determine the optimum for a specific situation and that will vary from person to person.
Finally, the last thing that I want to bring up is conflict of interest. 'Sports nutrition authors' make money (either directly or indirectly) by publishing books and articles. Authors of diets like Body Opus, Anabolic, T-Dawg, etc need to encourage the adoption of their ideas and will go to various lengths in order to do so. The interpretation that keto diets are superior because of the study that states that concludes that 'a calorie is not a calorie' because based on a calorie for calorie diet, low carb dieters lost more fails is erroneous. Why? Think about it. If a calorie is not a calorie why are we comparing isocaloric diets?
If a calorie is not a calorie (in the human nutrition), then according to the law of conservation of energy (if you don't know what this is then look it up!) either the measurement of the energy content of foods is wrong or different macros are metabolized at different efficiencies. Ok I know the non-scientific types are rolling their eyes here but... Don't compare a 2000 calorie keto diet to a 2000 calorie diet to one with carbs. Maybe the equivalent fat loss would be achieved with 1850 calories...
Ideally we should stop comparing apples to oranges and stop losing sight of the big picture.