What happens to the carbs?

Buy Lab Tests Online

madman

Super Moderator
Sure he looks good but even though he shed a lot of fat he also lost muscle mass and his muscles look flat. Hope people understand that the human body is capable of storing roughly 500 grams carbs as glycogen in muscle cells and for every gram of glycogen stored roughly 3 grams of water is stored intracellularly which will increase muscle fullness/size/strength/pumps let alone recovery for intense training sessions. Now if ones goal is to just get lean and shed fat while adding some muscle/increasing strength than going low carb would benefit most but if your goal is to pack on as much muscle/strength and train heavy than low carb will not do it. I understand your own personal reasons for following a low carb based diet but I will put money on it that if you lift weights and eat a higher carb diet that you will be more muscular/stronger/fuller muscles/better pumps and notice improved recovery. Try a program which includes squats/deadlifts/bench low carb for x amount of months than try high carb and get back to me on what kind of poundage you are putting up and your gains in muscle size. If you have the genetics and are one that can tolerate higher carbs and eat clean whole food sources (complex carbs/lean proteins/healthy fats) you can still stay lean.
****************************************************************************************************************
He's running a crowd-sourced group trial of people willing to try a carnivorous diet and share their results. The website is http://nequalsmany.com/ The first wave has already started, but the second wave is accepting signups if anyone's interested in participating.

Some forum entries: http://nequalsmany.com/forums/topic/how-is-everyone-doing/

I think it won't be all that long before people will look back in amazement that it was assumed that huge quantities of carbs -- or even any carbs -- were required for optimum health.




And below, at left, is him six years younger, but when he was still eating carbs. (At right is him present-day, on a meat & water-only diet.) Again, no supplemental testosterone.



[/QUOTE]
 
Defy Medical TRT clinic doctor

Leesto

Active Member
if your goal is to pack on as much muscle/strength and train heavy than low carb will not do it.

I can only speak for myself but I do not build strength or muscle size very well when eating carbs. The only diet which allows me to build is a ketogenic diet. Believe me I've tried them all.

Of course, I am a type 2 diabetic, so I represent only a sub-set of the population. Maybe carbs work well for those who don't have diabetic tendencies.

No single diet system works the same for everyone. It can take a lot of experimenting and record-keeping to properly assess which one works best for you, and most people won't do that. So they flip flop from fad to fad.

It's really a life-long learning experience because new data may prompt you to try a modification to your diet - but then you have to assess that change systematically or else you're just blowing in the wind.
 
Last edited:

Matt Leiser

New Member
I can only speak for myself but I do not build strength or muscle size very well when eating carbs. The only diet which allows me to build is a ketogenic diet. Believe me I've tried them all.

Of course, I am a type 2 diabetic, so I represent only a sub-set of the population. Maybe carbs work well for those who don't have diabetic tendencies.

No single diet system works the same for everyone. It can take a lot of experimenting and record-keeping to properly assess which one works best for you, and most people won't do that. So they flip flop from fad to fad.

It's really a life-long learning experience because new data may prompt you to try a modification to your diet - but then you have to assess that change systematically or else you're just blowing in the wind.

i agree Leesto. I tried many different things as well. It was only when I combined TRT, LCHF and intermittent fasting did the lbs start to shed. I don't have to do much cardio either which is good for my joints (my knees are shot) and find I've lost more lifting weights. It's what works for me.

madman, I have had such a high body fat percentage for the better part of my life I have not noticed fuller muscles while eating carbs since you couldn't see them anyway through the fat but what you say does make sense.
 

Vince

Super Moderator
The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study is a large, epidemiological cohort study of individuals aged 35–70 years (enrolled between Jan 1, 2003, and March 31, 2013) in 18 countries with a median follow-up of 7·4 years (IQR 5·3–9·3). Dietary intake of 135 335 individuals was recorded using validated food frequency questionnaires. High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext

Also, http://time.com/4919448/low-fat-v-low-carb-diets/
 

JakeH

Member
The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study is a large, epidemiological cohort study of individuals aged 35–70 years (enrolled between Jan 1, 2003, and March 31, 2013) in 18 countries with a median follow-up of 7·4 years (IQR 5·3–9·3). Dietary intake of 135 335 individuals was recorded using validated food frequency questionnaires. High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext

Also, http://time.com/4919448/low-fat-v-low-carb-diets/

Where do they define the macros? In the Time article, it says average carbs were 63%, but what was the low-carb group?
 

Vince

Super Moderator
Where do they define the macros? In the Time article, it says average carbs were 63%, but what was the low-carb group?
This is not a not a great study - uses flawed methodology - observational - but the result is not surprising.

"
whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke."
 

madman

Super Moderator

Everyone from the study was consuming low g.i. complex carbohydrates right? Towards the end of the article they state "we were unable to quantify separately the types of carbohydrate (REFINED vs WHOLE GRAIN CONSUMED) which is only one point aside from others and unless every persons intake of daily nutrition was monitored in a controlled setting during/follow up of the study as oppose to questionnaires and the food intake/types of carbs were controlled, making a blank statement that a higher carbohydrate based diets are linked to higher rates of mortality and a high fat diet is best is misleading. Sure if the majority of the high carbohydrate diet was based on processed carbs/sugars basically refined than I could definitely see it being detrimental to ones longevity. This study is some what flawed.
 

Vince

Super Moderator
Total Carbohydrates minus Fiber
because in nutrition panels, and nutritional analyses, fiber is counted as a carbohydrate, but it's not metabolized like other carbohydrates or sugar. Fiber is essentially inert, to the human body, except for microorganisms in our gastrointestinal tract (that's a whole different story). So we can subtract the fiber from the total carbohydrate, and get so-called "net carbohydrates". It's an old Atkins idea. It's still a good idea.
 

Gianluca

Well-Known Member
good point Vince, and it is true, but it is always excess calories causing the problem, if you exercise, resistance training and cardio, that carbs, of course complex that comes along with fiber phytochemicals and antioxidant and b's vitamin, will be used efficiently enough, I should say excess calories and physical inactivity is the big thing

What happens to the carbs?

I have found a strange thing happens when I talk to nutritionists about the fate of carbohydrates in the human body. Professors, who shall be nameless, appear unable to admit how basic human physiology works. For example, they may concede a few steps here and there, but they will never, ever, admit to the following chain that I have described below.

1: Carbohydrates, such as fruit and vegetables, bread, pasta… and, of course, less complex sugars – such as the stuff we sprinkle on cornflakes, that we call ‘sugar’, are all turned into simple sugars in the human digestive tract before entering the bloodstream.

2: If you keep eating carbohydrate the resultant simple sugars will, at first, be stored. The human body can pack away around 1,500 calories of sugar. However, once this limit is reached, the liver will turn the rest into fat.

3: The fat that is made in the liver is palmitic acid

4: The next step is that three palmitic acid molecules are attached to a glycerol molecule, to form a triglyceride.

5: These triglycerides will then be packed into Very Low Density Lipoproteins (VLDL) and released into the bloodstream. [Beware of confusion here. For VLDLs are also called triglycerides although, of course, they are not. VLDLs contain triglycerides but they are not the same thing – even if they are called the same thing].

6: When VLDLs reach fat cells (adipose tissue), the triglyceride is stripped out and absorbed into fat cells. Which means that VLDLs gradually shrink.

7: Once a VLDL has lost a large amount of triglyceride it becomes a new, smaller, lipoprotein, which is often referred to as ‘bad cholesterol’ a.k.a. LDL (Low Density Lipoprotein).

8: LDL is taken out of the circulation, primarily, by the liver. Some LDLs are removed from the circulation by other cells around the body that need the cholesterol contained in them.

9: As can be seen, the only source of LDL is VLDL.

Here a couple of quotes from Wikipedia to confirm at least a couple of these steps:

Lipogenesis is the process by which acetyl-CoA is converted to fatty acids. The former is an intermediate stage in metabolism of simple sugars, such as glucose, a source of energy of living organisms. Through lipogenesis and subsequent triglyceride synthesis, the energy can be efficiently stored in the form of fats.

Lipogenesis encompasses both the process of fatty acid synthesis and triglyceride synthesis (where fatty acids are esterified with glycerol to form fats). The products are secreted from the liver in the form of very-low-density lipoproteins (VLDL). VLDL are secreted directly into blood, where they mature and function to deliver the endogenously derived lipids to peripheral tissues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipogenesis

Excess carbohydrates in the body are converted to palmitic acid. Palmitic acid is the first fatty acid produced during fatty acid synthesis and the precursor to longer fatty acids. As a consequence, palmitic acid is a major body component of animals. In humans, one analysis found it to comprise 21–30% (molar) of human depot fat and it is a major, but highly variable, lipid component of human breast milk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmitic_acid

I am half tempted to leave the blog here and let you think about what all of that means for a while. However, I feel the need to make a couple of other points, in no particular order. First, I would like you to think about this fact. The form of fatty acid that the liver chooses to synthesize from sugar(s) is palmitic acid, a saturated fat. Palmitic acid is also the major component of breast milk.

Yet, despite this, we are told that saturated fats are uniquely unhealthy, and eating them leads to heart disease. Indeed, within to the very same Wikipedia article on palmitic acid we learn that: ‘According to the World Health Organization, evidence is “convincing” that consumption of palmitic acid increases risk of developing cardiovascular diseases.’

It seems that we are being asked to believe that the body naturally synthesizes a substance, palmitic acid, that actively damages our health. Not only that, but mothers choose to synthesize exactly the same form of fatty acid in their breast milk, which then increase the chances of their offspring developing cardiovascular disease.

Now just how likely does this seem…exactly? We have evolved to kill ourselves from heart disease? As Spock may have said, ‘its evolution Jim, but not as we know it.’ You would think that if polyunsaturated fats were healthy, this is what the human body might choose to make. But no, we eat super healthy fruit and vegetables and then our body, in a unique and ironic twist of fate, converts them into death dealing saturated fatty acids.

Not only that, but just to rub salt into the wounds, once the liver has synthesized these death dealing fatty acid molecules it then chooses to pack them into VLDLs which have the cheek to shrink down into LDL a.k.a. ‘cholesterol’ and these also kill us with heart disease (allegedly).

Of course, if you actually eat saturated fat, this gets nowhere near the liver. It is digested, packed into chylomicrons, and these very large lipoproteins enter the bloodstream directly through the thoracic duct. Which is a secret passage from the gut that opens out in one of the veins in your neck. When chylomicrons encounter fat cells, the fats/triglycerides are sucked out, and the chylomicron shrinks down to virtually nothing. Chylomicrons, however, do not convert to LDL and have nothing whatsoever to do with heart disease – even according to those who think saturated fat in the diet is deadly.

Yet, despite this knowledge we are continuously told, in all seriousness, that eating saturated fat raises our LDL levels and causes us to die prematurely of heart disease. [You may have noticed that cholesterol has hardly entered this discussion at any point.] When people ask me why I don’t believe in the diet/heart hypothesis, I tend to shrug and move the conversation on.

However, if I am feeling a bit stroppy I tend to reply that ‘Even if you were to believe that a raised LDL levels causes heart disease, the current diet/heart hypothesis does not, and cannot make any sense from a biological or physiological perspective.’ If you were actually looking for a substance that really could raise LDL/cholesterol levels it would have to be carbohydrates a.k.a. sugars. After all the only source of LDL is VLDL, and it is eating too much sugar that raises VLDL levels.

In short, how can it not be that carbohydrates raise LDL levels? This is what a basic understanding of lipid physiology tells us must be true. Yet, people write papers on this phenomenon in a tone of almost stunned surprise. Here for example is a paper called ‘The Effect of Dietary Carbohydrate on Triglyceride Metabolism in Humans’:
When the content of dietary carbohydrate is elevated above the level typically consumed (>55% of energy), blood concentrations of triglycerides rise. This phenomenon, known as carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia, is paradoxical because the increase in dietary carbohydrate usually comes at the expense of dietary fat. Thus, when the content of the carbohydrate in the diet is increased, fat in the diet is reduced, but the content of fat (triglycerides) in the blood rises. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/131/10/2772S.full#fn-1

This author, writing for the Journal of Nutrition, finds it paradoxical that… increased dietary carbohydrate usually comes at the expense of dietary fat….but the content of fat (triglycerides) in the blood rises. Well, what did they think would happen? That carbohydrates would turn into fairies at the bottom of the garden?

Once the liver and muscles are full of sugar (stored as glycogen – a polymer of glucose) the body can do absolutely nothing else with it, but turn it into fat – through the processes I have described earlier. This is basic, incontrovertible science.
Most people who are interested in the potential benefits of the low carb high fat diet (LCHF), have tended to look at it from the perspective of helping with controlling diabetes, and promoting weight loss. I came at the LCHF diet from my own perspective, which is heart disease.

When you understand the science you find yourself looking at the diet heart hypothesis (fat in the diet raises LDL levels, which causes heart disease) and thinking. This does not make any sense at all. Yet, such is the determination of the nutritional experts to defend their position that they never, ever, talk about ‘what happens to the carbs?’

What happens to the carbs is that they are all turned into saturated fat. This then raises VLDL levels and these, in turn becomes LDL. Yet eating carbs is supposed to be healthy, and eating saturated fat is unhealthy. Go figure.
The world of nutrition is, I am afraid, nuts.
http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/
 

Gianluca

Well-Known Member
exactly, well said, also some people eliminate some fruit group such as Dairy, I apply same concept on that

Not all carbs are created equal. Not all fats are bad. Not all proteins are good.
You just can't demonize a macronutrient. It's chemistry, not something we should have any emotional attachment to.
Demonizing carbs: we already made that mistake in the recent past with fats. We're making the same mistake again. Just saying a macronutrient is bad is such a simplistic approach to dieting. Eliminating completely a macronutrient from your diet is not gonna work for most people in the long run. A more sustainable approach would be to look at the quality of the food source (always as natural and unprocessed as possible, in most cases).

A balanced diet of plenty of lean protein + fruit and vegetables + healthy fats + more calorically dense carbs (depending on sex, age, activity level, etc.) works great for most people.
 

galaxy

Member
For those that weren't aware Peter Attia and Gary Taubes teamed up to form NuSi I believe back in 2012 to study their hypothesis that insulin/carbs play a major role in obesity. They conducted two well controlled studies that pretty much refuted the hypothesis. This is a pretty big deal as Peter and Gary are two well known low carb advocates who helped design these studies. See below for links describing the research.

Of course there are other health markers that may be affected that weren't studied, but I think that the evidence is starting to show that eating whole real nutrient dense foods irrespective of macro differences is fine (as long as you get the requisite protein requirements). What I think the main difference that everyone is seeing is that it is sometimes easier and more enjoyable to eat a LCHF diet than a balanced or HCLF diet given the flavor profile of fat. That being said it's my understanding at the moment that most people would do best in the long run eating 50-150 grams of carbs/day given the potential thyroid impacts and brain glucose requirements. Paul Jaminet and his wife wrote a book perfect health diet (stupid name i know) that went into a good amount of detail as to why a base amount of carbs (150g/day) is necessary. They actually went low carb and ran into some health issues in the long run.

Study #1 Summary from Stephan Guyenet PHD
https://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/07/nusi-funded-study-serves-up_6.html

A new metabolic ward study tests the idea that lowering insulin via severe carbohydrate restriction increases metabolic rate and accelerates fat loss, independently of calorie intake. Although carbohydrate restriction did modestly increase metabolic rate, it actually slowed fat loss. One of the details that sets this study apart from previous studies is that it was funded by the Nutrition Science Initiative, an organization that was founded specifically to test the insulin hypothesis of obesity and related concepts.

Study #2 Summary from Examine and Stephan Guyenet PHD
https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/

A year-long randomized clinical trial has found that a low-fat diet and a low-carb diet produced similar weight loss and improvements in metabolic health markers. Furthermore, insulin production and tested genes had no impact on predicting weight loss success or failure. Thus, you should choose your diet based on personal preferences, health goals, and sustainability.

http://www.stephanguyenet.com/the-second-nusi-funded-diet-trial-has-arrived/

Both diets caused similar weight and fat loss at 12 months (-5.3 kg [-12 lb] for LF vs. -6.0 kg [-13 lb] for LC). These are better 12-month results than most diet trials.
 

Vince

Super Moderator
Galaxy I truly believe all the studies you posted have been proven wrong, many times over. I think the main problem with going low-carb, is the psychological benefits once received from carb binging. Just walk down the street and look around how many overweight people do you see. Just watch what they eat, I bet you won't find them eating low-carb.
 

Gianluca

Well-Known Member
Overweight people probably eat allot of simple Carbs and sugar along with Fat and don't exercise, one thing that I really don't like about low carb is the lack of Fiber that along with more fat will cause the food to stick more in your intestine, Optimal ammount of Fiber is at least 14gr every 1000 calories, I tried a couple of months ago having my fat at 50%, just not for me, screwed up my gut

Galaxy I truly believe all the studies you posted have been proven wrong, many times over. I think the main problem with going low-carb, is the psychological benefits once received from carb binging. Just walk down the street and look around how many overweight people do you see. Just watch what they eat, I bet you won't find them eating low-carb.
 

Vince

Super Moderator
Overweight people probably eat allot of simple Carbs and sugar along with Fat and don't exercise, one thing that I really don't like about low carb is the lack of Fiber that along with more fat will cause the food to stick more in your intestine, Optimal ammount of Fiber is at least 14gr every 1000 calories, I tried a couple of months ago having my fat at 50%, just not for me, screwed up my gut

I would have to disagree with you, now that I'm over 50 actually 63. Having colonoscopy they tell me my colon looks awesome, I I contribute to my healthy low-carb eating. I start my day off with many types of healthy nuts like walnuts almonds pistachios pecans and many more. You take the carb and minus the fiber for your total amount of carbs. One thing I have never done is count carbs, I look at the food I'm eating and decide if it's healthy low carb or not. Also all the awesome non-starchy vegetables that I eat like tomatoes onions mushrooms avocados, also I eat green bananas and raw potatoes for their great for probiotics.
 
Buy Lab Tests Online
Defy Medical TRT clinic

Sponsors

enclomiphene
nelson vergel coaching for men
Discounted Labs
TRT in UK Balance my hormones
Testosterone books nelson vergel
Register on ExcelMale.com
Trimix HCG Offer Excelmale
Thumos USA men's mentoring and coaching
Testosterone TRT HRT Doctor Near Me

Online statistics

Members online
10
Guests online
7
Total visitors
17

Latest posts

bodybuilder test discounted labs
Top