Low Carb Diets Are Just a Fad! - Topic of the Week

[Admin]

Do you agree with that statement or is there something to low carb diets that will eventually surplant the notion low fat diets are better?

 

[The Solution]

Depends on the individual. Some people thrive off high fat, some people thrive off higher carbs. You need to look at the individual, what they respond best to, and utilize that aspect for their proper success regardless of their goal. I could give you examples of both through personal experience on people I have seen blow up going over 150-200g of carbs in their offseason, and some people who have to go right to a low carb diet or very low carb to get shredded. They can keep their fat intake around the 60-80g and get sub 10% but on minimal carbs.

The individuals need to look at how they react to their body
- Do they get sluggish?
- Do they get lethargic?
- Do they have bad workouts?

All of these are signs of "Low Carb" or "Low Fat" and what works best with them.
The generalization of lows carbs = success is granted because each gram of carb holds 3g of water. So instantly when you drop carbs you will drop water weight. The problem is most people drop carbs and calories too fast too quick which leads to more roadblocks, stalls, and plateaus. Most people need to realize keeping kcals and carbs as high as possible can help you lose fat, keep a healthy metabolism, and also help with long term weightloss/fatloss. Quicker is not always better.

This is too personal, but i agree with this a bit. People think low carb = the route to go, but the key thing is most people utilize them well, and get the benfits from a higher carb diet. You just need to see what suits you best and utilize it for OPTIMAL performance and success.

The term "Low" is also subjective. I know Breezy on here could diet into single digits on 200+g of carbs, for hiim that would be low. For others low would be around 50g or so.

 

[Gutterpump]

Nothing about it is a fad. Been around for ages, with clear results. For performance related issues surrounding the diet, simply time your carbs around your workouts.

I think people tend to say a ketogenic diet itself is a fad / poor for performance, but that's without any sort of nutrient partitioning/timing involved (ie: without intelligently programming the diet for one's needs).

 

[ma70]

I wouldn't say its a fad because its very individual. Some people have poor insulin sensitivity and carb tolerance, while some don't. This usually means they have to make up for calories by eating more fats, etc.

 

[baxtecal]

I think low carb could be good for a shorter period to get into ketosis and utilize it. But I ran low carb for 3 month straight and felt like poop. And could barely mentally bare myself, However I was shredded at the time.

 

[Jiigzz]

Do you agree with that statement or is there something to low carb diets that will eventually surplant the notion low fat diets are better?

It depends on the context. From a health perspective, I hope low fat diets are eradicated from this earth. Regardless of how people "react" to a low fat diet (high carb), the body behaves very predictably to a low fat diet (high carb) and there is a lot of evidence showing us what happens to triglycerides and lipoproteins in the presence of an abundance of carbohydrate.

A low carb diet on the other hand generally IMPROVES (caps for emphasis lol) dyslipidemia and people's conditions overall.

From this perspective, I hope the notion takes off.

 

[Admin]

I think low carb could be good for a shorter period to get into ketosis and utilize it. But I ran low carb for 3 month straight and felt like poop. And could mentally bare myself, However I was shredded at the time.

And herein lies the problem getting support from the medical community.

 

[Gutterpump]

When running a carb cycling diet, the only time I've felt like poop were on my carb up days. Otherwise I've had very level energy and appetite on the diet, a reduction in inflammation, and overall just felt great. Maybe the first week or two can be tough, after that it's smooth sailing if done right.

 

[bdcc]

I am going to subscribe to this thread because I know I will eventually want to get involved in the discussion lol.

 

[Admin]

I am going to subscribe to this thread because I know I will eventually want to get involved in the discussion lol.

Way to go out on a limb. Lol

 

[bdcc]

Way to go out on a limb. Lol

I get lured in by low carb controversy so I know someone will post something I end up wanting to discuss lol.

Until then, it is such a wide topic so I am holding out.

 

[Admin]

I get lured in by low carb controversy so I know someone will post something I end up wanting to discuss lol.

Until then, it is such a wide topic so I am holding out.

 

[bdcc]

Fine lol.

To me, what we have on the topic is the following:
- Many carb restriction trials showing greater weight loss
- Trials usually not standardised for calories or protein intake
- A controlled trial demonstrating it is the protein intake rather than carb restriction which confers the metabolic advantage (Soenen et al, 2012)
- Metabolic ward data suggesting low carbohydrates won't outperform if calories and protein are standardised
- One short term mechanistic metabolic ward trial strictly reducing carbohydrates or fat to see if carb restriction is necessary for weight loss (a hypothesis posed by Taubes), Hall et al 2015
- Improved appetite control in many low carb trials
- One trial which again suggests this is due to the protein intake rather than carb restriction

In terms of body composition claims, we would need trials suggesting a low carb advantage when protein intake is standardised.

However, I still think it is a valuable tool if it increases adherence through personal preference.

I just don't view it as better or worse than restricting calories from fat.

This is all in regards to body composition rather than in terms of health.

 

[BeastFitness]

Bob's got the best answer as always

completely agree

 

[Admin]

Bob's got the best answer as always

completely agree

I knew I can pry it out of him. :lol

 

[The Solution]

I get lured in by low carb controversy so I know someone will post something I end up wanting to discuss lol.

Until then, it is such a wide topic so I am holding out.

I posted your thoughts recently on your FB post:

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/nutrition-health/273115-dieting-psychology-ben.html

About the psychological factor of low carb diets and eating disorders it could cause.

 

[bdcc]

I posted your thoughts recently on your FB post:

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/nutrition-health/273115-dieting-psychology-ben.html

About the psychological factor of low carb diets and eating disorders it could cause.

I must spread reputation around.

 

[EMPIREMIND]

Alot of great points made already. All i am going to comment on is the question of it being a fad?

Simply put the low carb diet has been in bodybuilding forever. That was vince gironda's thing with steak and eggs diet, the anabolic diet, salmon and water diet, the body opus and so forth. Many types of these low carbs diets have helped bodybuilders achieve great results. Definitely not a fad, but it doesnt mean its optimal for everyone.

 

[HIT4ME]

I don't think it is a fad at all. It has been around, and it will be around. I think that is has a fad-like allure to it. People like to have simple "rules" for dieting - don't eat this, eat that, etc. It saves them from having to actually learn and make decisions on their own, but in the end they start focusing on the 10% and forgetting the 90%. The benefit of low-carb is that a lot of times, the 90% comes along anyway, without the dieter knowing about it.

i.e. - dieters focus on low carbs or getting into ketosis as if its magic, but many diets don't require ketosis at all and work perfectly well. The 90% is calories in/calories out.

Ben and The Solution said it very well. Low carb is a tool, that can be applied. People try to change everything a lot of times, and they should try to make the smallest change they need to that will get results. i.e. - recognize your mentality and daily life, and find the easiest path to where you wanna go that deviates from that regular pattern as little as possible.

 

[The Solution]

I must spread reputation around.

not unless i rep you first

 

[BeastFitness]

I feel like its simply seen as a fad currently because of how big social media is and how everyone has the option to talk about their opinion. For example, we can now follow thousands of amateur bodybuilders much easier than we could 5+ years ago

 

[Gutterpump]

Low carb diets have other clinical uses as well besides bodybuilding. It can help heal leaky gut syndrome as well as candida overgrowth. It's a great way to strongly reduce inflammation in the body and to help heal the gut. Low carb diets also increase glutathione levels. A definite plus.

 

[Jiigzz]

What boggles me is that people latch onto the idea that low carb and low fat produce near equal weight loss, yet they forget that there are health implications when following one approach or the other.

Apart from one context, they are not equal at all and just saying "choose the one that works best for you" isnt neccessarily the best option health wise.

The data for lipoprotein and CHO interaction exists and it is damning when calories exceed maintenance. Which a lot of people are in consistently. From a populous standpoint, the low fat approach is the worst thing to happen and finally now we are realising this.

While we are the minority when it comes to being aware of our intakes, the other 90% of people are constantly placing themselves at increased risk of heart disease.

 

[v4lu3s]

Carb intake needs to match activity levels, tolerance of the dieter and the goals of the dieter. I think low carb is no more a fad than low fat, both need to be reduced to lower caloric intake, and both have a place for human performance and health. In general though unless you are extremely obese or lower carb days are part of a larger plan for competition there is no need to go too low imo.

 

[mase1]

Agricultural wants you to follow a high carb diet, that should tell you something.
Just look up studies and high carb diets, health issues are obvious.

 

[tunnelrat]

Low carbing is the ONLY way I've ever been able to cut successfully. I've tried every diet/eating protocol imaginable, and staying under 50 grams per day, with the exception of my refeed day, has always yielded the best results.

 

[malin]

Low carbing is the ONLY way I've ever been able to cut successfully. I've tried every diet/eating protocol imaginable, and staying under 50 grams per day, with the exception of my refeed day, has always yielded the best results.

Same here. Also I'm not an expert but it seems that people that feel like crap on low carbs are keeping them to high, I believe that carbs got to be low in order for the body to relearn how to use fats and proteins for energy. Also lots of people are still afraid of fat and are trying to compensate with proteins with is mistake. I found low carb diets like CNS , CBl , Dave Polumbos very effective for a fat loss.

 

[Idealimage]

Low carb has been around too long to be called a fad. It works for more than it doesn't. Some people thrive on it while other people hate it. I personally do better carb cycling and eating a majority of my carbs peri-workout. If I have a mega high day like 1000 grams carbs once a week and low days of 90 grams 2 days with 4 medium days at 200 grams, I peel fat off fast. I think as one gets close to a show, low carb with periodic refeeds works best

 

[choccyswag]

Carb timing is a popular topic with the PT's at my gym. Something about eating carbs around training time spiking insulin after training for muscle gains, and not having too much of it outside training to avoid spiking insulin which will bring on fat gains? If I remembered correctly.

 

[The Solution]

Carb timing is a popular topic with the PT's at my gym. Something about eating carbs around training time spiking insulin after training for muscle gains, and not having too much of it outside training to avoid spiking insulin which will bring on fat gains? If I remembered correctly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15277409
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17617942



For most of us who train with an intra-workout BCAA or pre-workout meal there is stil food overlap as i touched in the other thread, do we need to spike insulin? absolutely not, food is still digesting, aminos are still present, so do we really need simple carbs post-workout not really..

Could they be optimal .. sure why not? but remember the total calories/macros if meeting your protein/fat/fiber minimums on a daily basis are optimal for your goal.


more:

he postexercise "anabolic window" is a highly misused & abused concept. Preworkout nutrition all but cancels the urgency, unless you're an endurance athlete with multiple glycogen-depleting events in a single day. Getting down to brass tacks, a relatively recent study (Power et al. 2009) showed that a 45g dose of whey protein isolate takes appx 50 minutes to cause blood AA levels to peak. Resulting insulin levels, which peaked at 40 minutes after ingestion, remained at elevations known to max out the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown (15-30 mU/L) for 120 minutes after ingestion. This dose takes 3 hours for insulin & AA levels to return to baseline from the point of ingestion. The inclusion of carbs to this dose would cause AA & insulin levels to peak higher & stay elevated above baseline even longer.

So much for the anabolic peephole & the urgency to down AAs during your weight training workout; they are already seeping into circulation (& will continue to do so after your training bout is done). Even in the event that a preworkout meal is skipped, the anabolic effect of the postworkout meal is increased as a supercompensatory response (Deldicque et al, 2010). Moving on, another recent study (Staples et al, 2010) found that a substantial dose of carbohydrate (50g maltodextrin) added to 25g whey protein was unable to further increase postexercise net muscle protein balance compared to the protein dose without carbs. Again, this is not to say that adding carbs at this point is counterproductive, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that you must get your lightning-fast postexercise carb orgy for optimal results.

To add to this... Why has the majority of longer-term research failed to show any meaningful differences in nutrient timing relative to the resistance training bout? It's likely because the body is smarter than we give it credit for. Most people don't know that as a result of a single training bout, the receptivity of muscle to protein dosing can persist for at least 24

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204

Here's what you're not seeming to grasp: the "windows" for taking advantage of nutrient timing are not little peepholes. They're more like bay windows of a mansion. You're ignoring just how long the anabolic effects are of a typical mixed meal. Depending on the size of a meal, it takes a good 1-2 hours for circulating substrate levels to peak, and it takes a good 3-6 hours (or more) for everythng to drop back down to baseline.

You're also ignoring the fact that the anabolic effects of a meal are maxed out at much lower levels than typical meals drive insulin & amino acids up to. Furthermore, you're also ignoring the body's ability of anabolic (& fat-oxidative) supercompensation when forced to work in the absence of fuels. So, metaphorically speaking, our physiology basically has the universe mapped out and you're thinking it needs to be taught addition & subtraction.




More:

"ou do not need to neccessarily "spike" insulin for creatine to be maximally absorbed, but yes insulin is involved with the trasnsport.

FYI: The insulin and creatine studies I have seen up to this point have involved taking the glucose 30 minutes after the creatine. This may be because the insulin release from the dextrose doesn't entirely coincident with the pharmacokinetics of the creatine absorption.

Personally I think more consistent waves of insulin may be more anabolic than "spikes" anyway. This is because smoother waves of insulin more than likely affect ATP production more beneficially than "spikes" probably do. ATP is what rebuilds muscles and you want the most efficiency you can get here. I'm saying this because there is a delicate balance here between oxidative phosphorylation and lipogenesis (stimulated by acetyl COA carboxylase from HCO3-) in the mitochondrial in the presence of insulin. This "balance" I am talking about here is different for everyone though. Some people "shunt" over to lipgenesis so much sooner than other people. This has to do with other "global" processes happening in the body."

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319


The postexercise "anabolic window" is a highly misused & abused concept. Preworkout nutrition all but cancels the urgency, unless you're an endurance athlete with multiple glycogen-depleting events in a single day. Getting down to brass tacks, a relatively recent study (Power et al. 2009) showed that a 45g dose of whey protein isolate takes appx 50 minutes to cause blood AA levels to peak. Resulting insulin levels, which peaked at 40 minutes after ingestion, remained at elevations known to max out the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown (15-30 mU/L) for 120 minutes after ingestion. This dose takes 3 hours for insulin & AA levels to return to baseline from the point of ingestion. The inclusion of carbs to this dose would cause AA & insulinlevels to peak higher & stay elevated above baseline even longer.

So much for the anabolic peephole & the urgency to down AAs during your weight training workout; they are already seeping into circulation (& will continue to do so after your training bout is done). Even in the event that a preworkout meal is skipped, the anabolic effect of the postworkout meal is increased as a supercompensatory response (Deldicque et al, 2010). Moving on, another recent study (Staples et al, 2010) found that a substantial dose of carbohydrate (50g maltodextrin) added to 25g whey protein was unable to further increase postexercise net muscle protein balance compared to the protein dose without carbs. Again, this is not to say that adding carbs at this point is counterproductive, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that you must get your lightning-fast postexercise carb orgy for optimal results.

To add to this... Why has the majority of longer-term research failed to show any meaningful differences in nutrient timing relative to the resistance training bout? It's likely because the body is smarter than we give it credit for. Most people don't know that as a result of a single training bout, the receptivity of muscle to protein dosing can persist for at least 24 hours: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204

 

[choccyswag]

Wow I am speechless The Solution; I've learned more from the above post than all my uni lectures today! thank u very much :notworthy:

 

[Idealimage]

Nice post. I think many people get too pedantic about everything when it comes nutrition. Most people that get on soap boxes and rant have a vested interest(selling something). I had a guy on Gear'd up bodybuilding ranting at me over Meadows Intra MD. He basically attacked me because I said I use BCAA in my intra drink. He said if you know so much, you should know that EAA>BCAA. I said "I think that the other 350 grams of quality protein I consume probably covers all my needs." Then I said " I use BCAA because my good friend is a pro who is sponsored and he gives them to me." Said can't beat the price. Then I told him the average gym goer can't afford $6 post shake and would be better off buying chicken, eggs, and beef than buying intra MD. So many people spend tons on supplements but have ****ty diets. Sad

 

[Idealimage]

You will learn more on here from the "right" people. I have 3 university degrees all in science so I am just telling you the truth. Great to have both

 

[Aleksandar37]

Wow I am speechless The Solution; I've learned more from the above post than all my uni lectures today! thank u very much :notworthy:

Might want to thank Alan Aragon as well since those are all of his words without a citation.

As for the thread question, no, low carb isn't a fad. People seem to want to give diets a name and pretend they're new, but it's the same concept over and over again.

 

[The Solution]

. People seem to want to give diets a name and pretend they're new, but it's the same concept over and over again.

aka "The Dave Palumbo Diet"

 

[v4lu3s]

And prior to Palumbo we have Dan Duchaine and Mauro di Pasquale who championed low carb....30+ years ago...

 

[Driven2lift]

I Don't think low carb is a fad; in that it won't be a temporary thing.

It's gone too far and I see people still swearing by it 10+ years from now lol

 

[The Solution]

I Don't think low carb is a fad; in that it won't be a temporary thing.

i think the fad comes from people who read magazines or seeing others success with low carb.
"Oh low carb will help me lose weight because X or Y Said so" And they try it. burn out, hate it, and then start back at square one.
Some people just do not realize they tolerate carbs well and negate them, when they could have better progress including them.
In the end though we cannot read the human body or what ones metabolism works best for their goals. Some people can be shredded with 200g of carbs daily, some literally go 0 carbs to get shredded.

 

[Driven2lift]

i think the fad comes from people who read magazines or seeing others success with low carb.
"Oh low carb will help me lose weight because X or Y Said so" And they try it. burn out, hate it, and then start back at square one.
Some people just do not realize they tolerate carbs well and negate them, when they could have better progress including them.
In the end though we cannot read the human body or what ones metabolism works best for their goals. Some people can be shredded with 200g of carbs daily, some literally go 0 carbs to get shredded.

Yeah on that definition of "fad" I agree.

Thinking that low carb is better than other diets is assuming too much.

There will always be people who happen to do better with it. My hunger levels go way down low-no carbs so it may be "more ideal" for me when aiming for very low BF%

 

[Aleksandar37]

And prior to Palumbo we have Dan Duchaine and Mauro di Pasquale who championed low carb....30+ years ago...

And Atkins in the 70s.

 

[Jiigzz]

Might want to thank Alan Aragon as well since those are all of his words without a citation.

As for the thread question, no, low carb isn't a fad. People seem to want to give diets a name and pretend they're new, but it's the same concept over and over again.

Lol thats what I was thinking

 

[Idealimage]

It's funny because the diet actually goes way back before Atkins. People used to think people with epilepsy were possessed so their thinking was that they would starve the demons out. Low and behold, seizure activity slowed down. They started to realize this was due to cutting carbs. The soultion, eat protein and fat. Weight loss was a secondary benefit. Low carb diet are still a front line defense against seizures.

 

[cheeky1]

It's funny because the diet actually goes way back before Atkins. People used to think people with epilepsy were possessed so their thinking was that they would starve the demons out. Low and behold, seizure activity slowed down. They started to realize this was due to cutting carbs. The soultion, eat protein and fat. Weight loss was a secondary benefit. Low carb diet are still a front line defense against seizures.

Interesting, I hadn't come across that info before. So, lower glucose levels & reduce neuro (dys)function by default?

 

[cheeky1]

i think the fad comes from people who read magazines or seeing others success with low carb.
"Oh low carb will help me lose weight because X or Y Said so" And they try it. burn out, hate it, and then start back at square one.
Some people just do not realize they tolerate carbs well and negate them, when they could have better progress including them.
In the end though we cannot read the human body or what ones metabolism works best for their goals. Some people can be shredded with 200g of carbs daily, some literally go 0 carbs to get shredded.

So many confused people out there. I tell them that healthy is most important, actual makeup of the diet is particular to the individual. Me, I can eat carbs until the cows come home, carbs before bed, no problem - I once lost 4+lb in my sleep, my metabolism was just naturally through the roof. I couldn't gain weight if I tried!!

Problem with many people is they mix up the info - reduce fat/low fat, then cut carbs & they're left with a tiny bit of protein & a lettuce leaf on the plate. Noooo people, you must balance that with more fresh veg, don't be afraid of good fats. Yet still, the obligatory diet softdrink sending signals for insulin release & they wonder why they stopped losing weight. Diabetic trainwreck here you come :worried:

 

[Idealimage]

Cheeky 1, just Google low carb diets and epilepsy and there are numerous journal articles

 

[cheeky1]

Cheeky 1, just Google low carb diets and epilepsy and there are numerous journal articles

Undoubtedly, it's just not something I've yet encountered, nor have had to know about mind you. I've known an epileptic, the poor lass was so bad the folk in white coats used her for research, she had an all too frequent habit of knocking herself out & losing teeth. Horrible way to live, extremely difficult for her at home with a child too.

Strangely though, she was mad for sugary food and had trouble keeping the weight off, the depression & multitude of meds undoubtedly didn't help. I don't recall if she was told to limit carbs, but from memory she didn't hold back much & if she did I'm sure it was the weight factor. Diet cola was a feature though, and she did like a drink too, which was just epilepsy Russian Roulette the following morning :nono2:

 

[Idealimage]

Yeah some interesting research. I am a dietitian soxi,had to learn it all. Great book called Good Calorie Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Covers a lot of material

 

[JudoJosh]

And herein lies the problem getting support from the medical community.

NIH actually has quite a few clinical trials in motion using low carb diets.

As a whole I think the medical community has been more open to low carb diets, partially thanks to the recent popularity it has received. Sugar is the new boogeyman

 

[Idealimage]

Judo Josh -
Although I do agree sucrose is the root of many problems, I also feel that there always has to be an enemy for the medical community to villify

 

[Jiigzz]

Judo Josh -
Although I do agree sucrose is the root of many problems, I also feel that there always has to be an enemy for the medical community to villify

Of course. At least it is one that is hard to justify to begin with.