What if high carbohydrates are bad and low fat is bad. But both are exponential bad?

science
(David Stevenson) #1

Just had this idea because sometimes people lose weight on a high carb low fat diet.

But it occurred to me that these two ideas could be separated.

#2

Some individuals do very well (weight and health wise) on high carb/low fat but it has to be very low fat.

#3

Of course they can be separated.
And people lose fat on HCHF too.

In my eyes, LCLF is the worst except in special circumstances as it’s usually starving.

But if one eats enough, HCHF is allegedly the worst, for various reasons. (I don’t believe in that in general. Low-fat is my room 101 and I am not alone.)
HCLF works for many, it’s the typical cutting style for bodybuilders, for example.
As long as one gets enough fat (the minimum requirement isn’t much) and other nutrients and this suits the one in question, it’s fine.

And I don’t think we can say HC is bad. It’s very needed for many people for enough energy and other benefits. We humans are quite different.

#4

Yup, people can absolutely loose weight on HCLF, like anything it’s a spectrum. I eat higher carb than most keto’rs, and more fat than normal people. I have no issues anymore loosing weight at the same speed (assuming I’m not being stupid) than I did doing strict keto.

Can’t speak for “mainstream” but in the weight lifting world at least, they’re pretty aware that you MUST get in a good amount of healthy fats for health and hormones and their carb intake is typically the better ones. I fall somewhere in between that and normal LCHF. We can eat more carbs and loose than we think we can, and we can eat more fat with them than we think we can. Food selection is key.

(Karen) #5

My husbands family eats HCLF. Cutting fat off meat, etc. they are all bone thin. My husband is the fattest in the family at 6’-2” and 165. Sigh. I can’t even look at carbs.

HCLF- if metabolically healthy
LCHF- if metabolically unhealthy
HCHF- SAD diet
LCLF- a lean protein fast, rabbit starvation

(Bob M) #6

I think it is possible to eat a very high carb, very low fat diet and become – dare I say this? – insulin sensitive. I can point to references if you want them.

However, after eating Pritikin for years, I can say that it’s not a very good way to eat. And any fat above a certain amount will throw everything off.

(Bunny) #7

Another way to think about is there is no such thing as a low fat, high fat diet?

What your truly dealing with by scientific and medical definition is a low sugar or high sugar diet especially when it is refined?

I think it is mistake to define dietary fat intake in such a way that defines it as high or low (how could you possibly know that and what amount the human body actually requires?), you have to remember the sugar cane and sugar beet (the worst sugar you can eat besides HFCS) industry is a multi-billion dollar world-wide corporation and that money is used and was used to make sure you blame the fat, not the sugar?

If you take the refined sugar out of the equation what are you left with? A low sugar diet?

What does high or low dietary fat have to do with it? NOT A DAM THING? (the point being it does not matter if it is LOW or HIGH your still eating fat and reducing or eliminating the sugar and refined sugar intake?)

I don’t think the quality of fat your eating is as important as reducing or eliminating refined grain and sugar intake?

Complex Carbohydrates that includes undigestible sugars resistant to digestion in sensible and limited amounts I think is an essential nutrient to feed sugar dependent gut bacteria (the kind of sugar you can’t digest) so they don’t die off leaving us defenseless against our environment (dangerous pathogens that should not be part of our microbiome) and that includes the food we eat in that environment.

#8

Separating them out means you have four possible combinations:

HCLF means that your primary fuel source is carbohydrate. This works for many people, at least in the short-term, especially if the carbohydrates come from whole, unprocessed foods

HFLC means that your primary fuel source is fat. On this forum, this one doesn’t need much explaining :slight_smile:

LCLF means there’s minimal fuel source*, unless you’re counting on gluconeogenesis. Many people feel great on this for a bit and then start falling apart (lousy mood, no sex drive, no energy, joint problems)

HFHC is kind of a disaster unless it’s unrefined foods, relatively small quantities and you’re very active

*if you have fat to lose and are fat-adapted, LCLF can be great during weightloss because if you’re tapping your fat stores for fuel, then this actually became HFLC

#9

For an active one, big quantities are needed but I am delighted not everyone else dismiss HFHC as the worst thing. It’s the only option for some people and may work very well. But it takes the right person and the right food choices…

(Bob M) #10

This illustrates a problem with the entire area: it depends what the “fat” is. If it’s seed oils, that’s bad. If it’s something else, say coconut oil or butter, that’s probably not bad.

And certainly some countries seem to eat higher carb and higher fat, say France, and don’t have too much trouble. But if you’re eating tons of butter and heavy sauces with low PUFA, that might not be bad.

A separate issue: what happens when you’ve damaged your metabolism over the course of decades? Could you still eat higher carb, even with “good” fats? That’s not clear to me, and I personally think the answer is “no”.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #11

I’m not sure what you mean by this sentence, but here are a couple of thoughts:

  • High fat intake on a high carbo* hydrate diet allows even more of the glucose from the carbohydrate to be stored as fat, since the fat will tend to be metabolised, and the elevated insulin will ensure that the glucose gets stored.

  • It’s not really possible to have low fat and low carbohydrate, because your calories have to come from somewhere. Increasing protein intake enough to provide enough calories would risk swamping your system with excess ammonia.

Just as there are people who do very well on a low-carb, high-fat diet, there are also people who do well on a high-carb, low-fat diet. The Kempner rice diet can reverse Type II diabetes, if the carbohydrate intake is high enough (very high) and the fat intake is low enough (extremely low). But some people who benefited found the diet extremely hard to stick to.

(Ian) #12

Although a high carb low fat diet may indeed allow people to control weight, I often wonder what it is doing to their metabolism, with respect to insulin resistance, hypertension, inflammation, glycocalyx erosion, leaky gut, CVD and stroke risk, Alzheimers, etc., etc.

Are individuals who can control their weight on a high carb also more likely to be TOFI?

As always the reality is likely to be a highly nuanced and dependent on genetics and the quality of the carbs you eat, i.e. you can eat a shit tonne of straw compared to pure sugar.

#13

He’s the “fattest” at 6’2" 165! WOW!

(Karen) #14

Yeah, I actually weigh more than him. I have a few people supporting me on the alternate day fasting thread. Weight is going down slowly again. I wish I had their metabolism

#15

I decided to experiment with some grain carbs last week at my parents house while recovering from viral myocarditis and I can say with certainty that a couple spoons of risotto caused major inflammation. It made my heart hurt a lot.

Grains most likely lead to weight loss by causing inflammation and degeneration via the production of advanced glycation end products from sugars binding with muscle tissue (protein).

I had a small organic ripe nectarine yesterday and noticed that it reduced inflammation. Most likely the polyphenols.

Interesting paper which basically proves that carbohydrates without polyphenols aren’t healthy.

The following paper is also interesting because it basically proves that legumes cause degeneration. Especially in vegans without cholesterol intake.

#16

Diabetes means sweet urine because excess sugar is always pissed out while fat isn’t. Fat is stored when there’s excess glucose because insulin stores both fat and glucose.

#17

I’m with you there! I’m doing the shotgun approach right now, don’t care which on works but SOMETHINGS working. Doing all the RIGHT things… and cheating a little, it’s working though, weights slowly creeping down. :grin: Decided from now on I’m the one giving my metabolism the finger, not the other way around!

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #18

This is true in the case of Type I diabetes, because in the absence of insulin, glucagon secretion stimulates excessive glucose levels in the blood, so the glucose gets spilled into the urine, since there is no other way to keep serum glucose under control. Before the discovery of insulin, Type I diabetes always resulted in death, though something very like a ketogenic diet could help prolong the patient’s life by helping to regulate serum glucose. But insulin is necessary for life, so before insulin treatments for diabetes, the prognosis for a Type I diabetic was always grim.

Type II diabetes, however, is the opposite problem: too much insulin, rather than not enough. While some insulin is essential for survival, chronically elevated serum insulin levels cause serious damage to the body over time. As Prof. Benjamin Bikman points out, one of the reasons that obesity is associated with metabolic syndrome is that insulin is the primary hormone that causes fat to be stored in the adipose tissue. It was Berson and Yalow who pointed out, in the 1960’s, that a chronically elevated insulin level traps fatty acids in the adipose tissue, and they are not available to be metabolised until serum insulin drops sufficiently low to allow the fatty acids to leave the adipose. Whereas Type I is an autoimmune disease in which the body destroys its own β cells in the pancreas, Type II is primarily the result of overloading the body with excessive carbohydrate consumption (though I wouldn’t rule out genetic factors that would predispose someone to the condition).

Recent experiments with radiolabeled foods have shown that dietary fat is what gets metabolised for energy, and dietary glucose (i.e., carbohydrate) is what gets converted into fat and stored. I realise this is counter-intuitive, but it seems to be true.

(Bob M) #19

This topic’s title reminds me of the burger with fries and a milkshake (or sugared drink), where the headline has something to do with high fat being bad for you.

It’s not the high PUFAs in the fries?

It’s not the high sugar/carb load between the fries, bread, drink?

You can’t really separate fat from carbs in a lot of things. But, could high butter and wheat together be “good” for you?

Maybe it’s the type of fat, in combination with carbs, that’s bad for us?

(I still advise (1) limiting carbs; then (2) limiting PUFAs, in that order: worry about 1 first, then 2.)

#20

I did say excess sugar. Glycosuria occurs in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes but I agree that it’s more likely to occur in type 1’s.

Why do you think this is? Why would the body attack itself?

Interesting. The only molecules I know of that majorly increase insulin are glucose, PUFA’s and a mystery molecule for T1D’s.

So it does make sense that mixing oils with grains is the cause of insulin resistance(type 2 diabetes).

I would like to see this source because I’ve experimented a decade ago with different zero fat high carb diets and never gained a pound. Just caused damage to my nervous system and almost blindness from the anti-nutrients in white rice. Then demyelinating disease from the pesticides in non-organic fruit.

What I do remember though about these zero fat high carbs experiments is that I would “feel” the glucose enter my cells when consuming wheat pasta with raw tomatoes or fruit after a long walk/sprint. This was an indication of being insulin sensitive. I also remember my teeth being white as they are now on keto. Mixing carbs and fats always caused yellow teeth which is an indication that fat wasn’t being burnt primarily as fuel and basically stored in dentin.