How much Carbs do you REALLY need?

[CrazyChemist]

carbohydrates are broken down to glucose...Glucose is mandatory for bodily/brain function. You are absolutely right

But...glucose can be derived from fats and proteins...brain function should not be compromised

blood glucose levels spike with intake of carbohydrates but they can remain consistent even if no carbs are introduced via said pathways

some of those studies the brain was deprived(hippocampus) of glucose meaning they didnt allow any glucose. Even glucose that was converted from other sources.

you are right. thats true that glucose can come from fat or protein. jsut the same - i think a small amount of carbs, e.g. carbs from veggies, etc. - are beneficial to brain function. I know I feel more "with it" when I'm not doing a zero carb diet.

 

[GoHardOrGoHme]

A agree with you Chemist, the point of this thread was to find our and attempt to really dispell a lot of the BS you hear behind the bodies "absolute need" for carbs. This thread was sparked when I was recently talking to someone and i was asking about how much/many carbs should i be taking in with my diet on my high/low days(a far more experienced lifter then myself). In short the convo turned into individual saying something on the lines of "you're not listening, your body needs carbs for glycolysis and to function properly"

Well of course being the inquisitive little pre-med that i am, decided to test what i had learned in class/personal research on this thread. Now i know what they were saying came from years of experience, but i think their reasoning and understanding could have been flawed.

Like any fine tune engine, adding the right stuff is key. To eliminate veggies and some fruits along with some good old fashion whole grains would be a bit extreme. But when adding them in the right proportion to giveur body that extra kick, then thats an easy way to kick your body to the next level naturally.

Nitrox i cant argue with your point...when i hit cardio or intense anearobic/aerobic activity (fighting/sparring for prolong periods of time) a little jolt of carbs is pretty much second to none. But since my lifts are primarily powerlifting with maybe 2x a wee i hit moderate cardio...carbs are not essential. When i hit more intense interval training...yeah some mid workout waxymaize or gatorade gets me through and lets me finish just intime to crash haha.

I guess the next logical direction is to analyze various CKD and carb cycling diets. Why they work...how they work....and what would work for a given individual based on goal

That may be too much to cover in this thread but if anyone would like to share what they know it would always be greatly appreciated!

 

[John Smeton]

its simple

it depends on your metabolism at the present. and though trial and error..

eating 350 carbs and gaining a bit too much body fat for your liking (with adaquate protein and fats) back off...

 

[pinchharmonic]

i think your insulin and igf will be your limiting factor when you want to grow. and plus, as long as this world is fueled by carbohydrates, I think anyone should still strive to have a normal diet. even if it's one day true that zero carbs is perfectly fine in all scenarios, it's just too much of a burden to try to live that life in our world.

 

[GoHardOrGoHme]

if it wasnt a burden everyone would be strong as animals with the bodies of greek gods. Our normal life is filled with convenience and convenience is the root of weakness.

But back to the point, is that why carb days are so essential for growth? The spike up ur insulin and GH??

 

[Grindy]

carbohydrates are broken down to glucose...Glucose is mandatory for bodily/brain function. You are absolutely right

But...glucose can be derived from fats and proteins...brain function should not be compromised

blood glucose levels spike with intake of carbohydrates but they can remain consistent even if no carbs are introduced via said pathways

some of those studies the brain was deprived(hippocampus) of glucose meaning they didnt allow any glucose. Even glucose that was converted from other sources.

glucose can not really be derived from fatty acids in humans, that's a fact. even glycerol, which could be a fine source for it, isn't readily used by our bodies to produce glucose.

Lets take this even further in the process known as gluconeogenesis where glucose is made from pyruvate which can be derived from high levels of acetyl Coa which are converted to pyruvate so and then made into glucose to then be stored as glycogen.

as far as a i'm concerned, acetyl-coA can not be converted to pyruvate, it can only yield energy in the form of ATP, as you already stated. pyruvate can only be obtained through glycolysis, lactate, or aminoacids (not all of them, though). the glucose to pyruvate reaction is not reversible.
feel free to correct me if this is wrong, and it can actually be used to form glucose, throug a different metabolic pathway i'm not aware of (backward glycolysis as you said?)


the brain is fueled by ketone bodies during fasting and low-carb diet periods, such as ketosis; as well as glucose. But it will not rely on glucose for its energy needs. nitrox made this point earlier in this post.

muscles (heart included) will rely on fatty acids, while the brain will do the same with ketone bodies. there's no problem with not eating carbs, our body can do fine without them. the problem comes when you do not burn enough ketone bodies, which could result in ketoacidosis, but that's not common in healthy humans. also, you won't be getting the vitamins/minerals found in high-carbohydrate foods, so supplementing is almost a need when in ketosis.

also, great post :scratchchin:

 

[GoHardOrGoHme]

glucose can not really be derived from fatty acids in humans, that's a fact. even glycerol, which could be a fine source for it, isn't readily used by our bodies to produce glucose.

If that is a fact why have i been able to read up on it extensively. Granted the conversion of carbs to glucose is much more desirable, but in times of low carbs the body can derive glucose from other sources "readily" if you want to debate the use of that word ok. But according to every established pathway i have posted the glycerol and FFA can be converted to energy.

as far as a i'm concerned, acetyl-coA can not be converted to pyruvate, it can only yield energy in the form of ATP, as you already stated. pyruvate can only be obtained through glycolysis, lactate, or aminoacids (not all of them, though). the glucose to pyruvate reaction is not reversible.
feel free to correct me if this is wrong, and it can actually be used to form glucose, throug a different metabolic pathway i'm not aware of (backward glycolysis as you said?)

Acetyl CoA does not need to convert back into pyruvate. When pyruvate is converted into Acetyl CoA using pyruvate dehydrogenase there is no real need to convert it back into pyruvate to make energy. Energy can be derived from the Acetyl CoA. The process that can make glucose from no carbs is a process known as gluconeogenesis. Where glucose is made from lactate, glycerol and glucogonic amino acids. This glucose can then go through glycolysis. Are there reactions that go in the reverse direction of glycolysis? Yes....think about fat storage from glycogen from excess glucose...then it has to reverse by some means to make glucose (some of this happens in the liver) to make glucose frome glycogen from fat stores.

the brain is fueled by ketone bodies during fasting and low-carb diet periods, such as ketosis; as well as glucose. But it will not rely on glucose for its energy needs. nitrox made this point earlier in this post.

muscles (heart included) will rely on fatty acids, while the brain will do the same with ketone bodies. there's no problem with not eating carbs, our body can do fine without them. the problem comes when you do not burn enough ketone bodies, which could result in ketoacidosis, but that's not common in healthy humans. also, you won't be getting the vitamins/minerals found in high-carbohydrate foods, so supplementing is almost a need when in ketosis.

ketoacidosis rarely occurs in normal healthy adults. Ketoacidosis is caused by extreme and uncontrolled ketosis. This can occur in individuals with Type I diabetes. There has to be something wrong, some sort of deficiency/disease/condition/mutation to cause ketoacidosis. It rarely occurs outside of the diabetic population to my knowledge

also, great post :scratchchin:

Thank you, the more people add the more we can get out of it

 

[GoHardOrGoHme]

i put my response in bold

 

[Grindy]

Lets take this even further in the process known as gluconeogenesis where glucose is made from pyruvate which can be derived from high levels of acetyl Coa which are converted to pyruvate so and then made into glucose to then be stored as glycogen.

Acetyl CoA does not need to convert back into pyruvate. [...] Energy can be derived from the Acetyl CoA.

that's just what i tried to say. in your first post glucose is made from pyruvate, several posts later it only produces ATP. the second one wins :happysad:

The process that can make glucose from no carbs is a process known as gluconeogenesis. Where glucose is made from lactate, glycerol and glucogonic amino acids. This glucose can then go through glycolysis.

true. i think you'll agree that while in ketosis, we don't really want to spend our glucose on just a few ATP; we'd rather feed our brain so it doesn't have to rely so heavily on ketone bodies.

Are there reactions that go in the reverse direction of glycolysis? Yes....think about fat storage from glycogen from excess glucose...then it has to reverse by some means to make glucose (some of this happens in the liver) to make glucose frome glycogen from fat stores.

there's no such thing as a reverse glycolysis, it's a one way metabolic pathway.
you can't really compare glycolisis to glycogenolysis. glycogenolysis will break down glycogen from (mainly, but not only) muscles and liver in order to produce glucose.
just wanted to clarify that while this point is true, it doesn't really matter whether muscles break down their glycogen stores or not, because they won't be able to send that glucose into the bloodstream, due to the lack of a specific enzyme, using it for their own needs.

glycolysis will only break down glucose into two molecules of pyruvate, yielding ATP.
they're quite different.

plus, fat and glycogen are broken down differently, glycogen being just a way to store the largest amount of glucose using the least space possible, and fat being... just that, hydrocarbonated compounds which will only yield energy.

ketoacidosis rarely occurs in normal healthy adults. Ketoacidosis is caused byextreme and uncontrolled ketosis. This can occur in individuals with Type I diabetes. There has to be something wrong, some sort of deficiency/disease/condition/mutation to cause ketoacidosis. It rarely occurs outside of the diabetic population to my knowledge

i completely agree with that

 

[crazyfool405]

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed just a little FYI

Invalid Link Removed

 

[silverSurfer]

Interesting read guys, thanks for your contribution, I've learned a lot.

 

[ThomasRivera]

A agree with you Chemist, the point of this thread was to find our and attempt to really dispell a lot of the BS you hear behind the bodies "absolute need" for carbs. This thread was sparked when I was recently talking to someone and i was asking about how much/many carbs should i be taking in with my diet on my high/low days(a far more experienced lifter then myself). In short the convo turned into individual saying something on the lines of "you're not listening, your body needs carbs for glycolysis and to function properly"

Well of course being the inquisitive little pre-med that i am, decided to test what i had learned in class/personal research on this thread. Now i know what they were saying came from years of experience, but i think their reasoning and understanding could have been flawed.

Like any fine tune engine, adding the right stuff is key. To eliminate veggies and some fruits along with some good old fashion whole grains would be a bit extreme. But when adding them in the right proportion to giveur body that extra kick, then thats an easy way to kick your body to the next level naturally.

Nitrox i cant argue with your point...when i hit cardio or intense anearobic/aerobic activity (fighting/sparring for prolong periods of time) a little jolt of carbs is pretty much second to none. But since my lifts are primarily powerlifting with maybe 2x a wee i hit moderate cardio...carbs are not essential. When i hit more intense interval training...yeah some mid workout waxymaize or gatorade gets me through and lets me finish just intime to crash haha.

I guess the next logical direction is to analyze various CKD and carb cycling diets. Why they work...how they work....and what would work for a given individual based on goal

That may be too much to cover in this thread but if anyone would like to share what they know it would always be greatly appreciated!

You can easily get this information in any of the top CKD diets but for the sake of organizing information that is proven and some of the theorized effects in active, low-carbohydrate dieters that cycle carbs here's a list.

Low carb period -

1. Increased efficiency in fat burning via the ketogenic state which uses FFAs and ketones for the primary energy source.
2. Appetite suppression
3. Lowering glycogen levels set up for a carb load that allows for super compensation of glycogen levels.
4. Increases or maintains endurance levels at around 75 percent or lower of the hearts capacity
5. Stable insulin levels

Then you have theorized additional effects such as testosterone levels increasing because of the extra cholesterol intake. You also have the extra calorie deficit caused by breathing out, urinating and sweating out ketone bodies. The levels of which probably aren't too high.

Then for the carb load you have

1. Increased glycogen levels beyond normal
2. Increased muscular size due to glycogen holdingonto water
3. Increased levels of gh, insulin and test simultaneously.

In short, CKD styled diets give you the benefits of maximized fat burning with the potential to both retain and build new muscle.

 

[soontobbeast]

i just had the best chest workout ive ever had 3 days after a refeed.


somehow im gaining strength on a cut

 

[Nitrox]

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.

 

[ThomasRivera]

if it wasnt a burden everyone would be strong as animals with the bodies of greek gods. Our normal life is filled with convenience and convenience is the root of weakness.

But back to the point, is that why carb days are so essential for growth? The spike up ur insulin and GH??

Those are two of the reasons, you also have the increase in t3 levels, The other one would be cellular hydration, which improves the rate of protein synthesis.

 

[GoHardOrGoHme]

that's just what i tried to say. in your first post glucose is made from pyruvate, several posts later it only produces ATP. the second one wins :happysad:

Previously when i said Acetyl CoA can convert to pyruvate i was wrong, thank you for catching my error

true. i think you'll agree that while in ketosis, we don't really want to spend our glucose on just a few ATP; we'd rather feed our brain so it doesn't have to rely so heavily on ketone bodies.



there's no such thing as a reverse glycolysis, it's a one way metabolic pathway.
you can't really compare glycolisis to glycogenolysis. glycogenolysis will break down glycogen from (mainly, but not only) muscles and liver in order to produce glucose.
just wanted to clarify that while this point is true, it doesn't really matter whether muscles break down their glycogen stores or not, because they won't be able to send that glucose into the bloodstream, due to the lack of a specific enzyme, using it for their own needs.

Most of the steps in glycolysis save for the last conversion to pyruvate is reversible. In theory one, in laboratory setting reverse the process but this isnt what i was talking about. WHAT I MEANT wasthat there are OTHER reactions and pathways that do the OPPOSITE of glycolysis. When i said reverse glycolysis it was a crude way of identifying these pathways, forgive the misunderstanding. As for as muscles breaking down there glycogen store...why would the send it into the bloodstream?

glycolysis will only break down glucose into two molecules of pyruvate, yielding ATP.
they're quite different.

plus, fat and glycogen are broken down differently, glycogen being just a way to store the largest amount of glucose using the least space possible, and fat being... just that, hydrocarbonated compounds which will only yield energy.

the glycerol tale i believe can also generate energy

i completely agree with that

I'm really liking what you have to say grindy

 

[GoHardOrGoHme]

very well put nitrox

Correct me if im wrong but i believe the take home message is that although one can live without carbs, there will be certain drawbacks. Carbs have there wn value and purpose that allow the body to run optimally. What CKD diets do, is take an individual who normally may not respond as well to carbs as other and optimize their response to the intake of carbs.

As for as how much is optimal..that depends on the individual. A lot of these keto diet fads may have some truth to them in varying degree, cannot be truly compared to carb rich diets such as a carb cycling diet.

ThomasR put some of the primary benefits from keto diets when done correctly, but not all may experience these benefits due to individual differences.

So in conclusion:

How many carb are really needed to attain optimal performance?
Depends on the individual

 

[ThomasRivera]

Not only is the idea of CKD to optimize how the body uses carbs, it's to maximize how the body partitions nutrients. Ideally for a bodybuilder, a diet would keep energy levels high and prefer to burn fat as main source of fuel while sparing as much muscle as possible. This is what cyclic/targeted ketogenic diets seek to achieve naturally.

How much a person really needs depends on them and their goals, a long distance runner or swimmer might benefit from going into a competition on very little carb intake. A powerlifter might suffer from not having sufficient carbs and for being a body builder it depends on your style, volume, etc. Carb intake during the week for most diets, even low carb cyclic diets have similar total carb intake to a 40/40/20 diet, but just in a different time frame. Generally, CKD is best for fat loss because of the time in ketosis. Generally TKD can produce better workout results because muscle glycogen levels are closer to normal, i would it's fat burning is just under what CKD can accomplish. Carbohydrate cycling might work better for someone who feels they train better or easier with eating carbs on a more consistent basis.

 

[manyu882]

very well put nitrox

So in conclusion:

How many carb are really needed to attain optimal performance?
Depends on the individual

well said. this thread wasted 30 minutes of my life.

 

[GoHardOrGoHme]

sorry you feel that way manyu

i mean i thought maybe there could have been a definitive answer. Some magic range, kinda like lifting rep range, that will yeild great results. You know 2-6 is good for powerlifting, 8-12 with small rest intervals is good for building muscle, 15+ great for burnout reps and pump finishes.

But it turns out that dieting is more complex then i initially thought. This thread for me taught me:

1) the benefits of CKD diets
2) refined my understanding of the reactions the body must undergo in order to makes functional energy
3) self experimentation with diets is key to unlocking ur potential
4) what works for me may not work for you
5) i appreciate the intake of carbs far more then I use to...i use to think carbs had little function then insta-energy, fat accumulation, and extra fast muscle replenishment. Well i was wrong.

Now i will say if you have a question to which ur looking for an answer concerning carbs...post it here

Worst case...no one knows but given the community...someone will eventually look it up and give you something