I want the skinny (excuse the expression) on low-carboyhdrate diets

[dougie_monty]

I've gone to a doctor lately who tells me to beware of foods high in carboyhdrates, and to note Nutrition Infornation on items served by fast-food places such as Wendy's, KFC, McDonalds, etc. We have lived half a block from a Wendy's place for almost 20 years now.)

[cher3]

Most mainstream diet plans are starting to recommend limiting simple carbohydrates: sugar, white flour, and to some extent, potatoes. A lot of things that have carbohydrate, like whole grains, unsweetened fruits, carrots, squashes, sweet potatos, etc., are healthy and nutritious. Fast food tends to be high in simple carbohydrates and saturated fats, neither of which are good for you in any quantity. The typical fast food meal also has a huge number of calories. If you want to go to Wendy's, check out the salad bar or a baked potato topped with lots of vegetables.

The extreme carbohydrate limitation you find in some diets is really there just to give you some quick motivational feedback for a couple of weeks or so. If you strictly limit carbs for a week or two you will lose pounds quickly, mostly due to water loss. It's really not particularly healty or necessary to limit complex carbohydrates.

[don't ask]

a baked potato topped with lots of vegetables.

Actually most diets that concentrate on carbohydrate reduction treat potatoes like poison. Largely they recommend finding substitutes like pumpkin and sweet potato.

[VunderBob]

I've had a gastric bypass, and I live on a low-carb diet now. It's simple to remember: Eat nothing white (flour, sugar, bread, rice; potatoes are OK in small amounts), and always go for it if it's lean or green.

Oversimplified, of course. I can have whole wheat bread, brown rice, and Splenda.

I've also looked at a lot of the lo-carb diets. Atkins and South Beach are pretty much the same thing once you get past the induction phase, and Neanderthin describes how I eat now pretty well.

My wife lost 18 lbs by osmosis from my post-op diet to the time she had her own bypass 3 months later, because I cleaned out the kitchen and refused to buy the crap she eats. It all was/is a flagrant violation of the No White Rule. She's now lost about 100 lbs, but is slipping in to her old habits and buying crap once again.

[DrDeth]

There were two studies in the NEJoM. Both concluded that the Low-Carb diets worked slightly better than the Low-fat diets, and had no apparent side-effects. Both low-fat AND low-carb diets were noted as being hard to stay on in the long term, the low-carb slightly harder.

IMHO- Low-carb diets work mostly as they limit snacking. Most snacks are high carb. Also, many high-fat foods- like butter- are usually consumed only with carbs.

High-protien/low carb diets work- they worked for me. Do remember to eat plenty of green salads- you'll need your fiber.

I suggest the "no-no" diet myself. It's as follows: go over your diet- find the ten or so worst things you eat- chips, fries, sugared soda, candy bars, bacon, chocolate, popcorn, whatever. Take one thing on the list that life would be no good without (in my case, it's dark choco, which I can have in limited amounts on a low-carb diet, and it's good for you!). Then, tell yourself- "I will never, ever eat these other things again. Not a bite. Not in a box, not with a fox." Then- increase your fiber, eat a better breakfast, then add a little exercise- walk on trips under a mile for example. No fuss, no muss, no lists, numbers, or anything.

[Lumpy]

A strong distinction must be made between a low-carb diet and a low-glycemic diet. I discovered this the hard way when I tried to stick to a radical no-carbs-at-all diet. You need carbs to live (at least without being sick as a dog) but want to avoid spiking your blood sugar. The no-white carbs rule is a good start. Another point is that you want to eat enough carbs to keep the glycogen stores in your liver topped up but not enough to cause your body to have to store the excess as fat. Most sources of "good" carbs like vegetables, high-fiber grains, etc. are lower in overall (non-fiber) carb content, so if you stick to them you'll usually avoid gorging on 3X the carbs you need for that day. Finally, aerobic exercise is definitely needed: it no only helps burn calories but seems to stabalize your blood sugar.

[exastris]

I started going low-carb on the suggestion of a friend to help my IBS and reflux. It has worked great for that. When I started having stomach and digestion problems it was standard operating procedure for gastroenterologists to suggest a diet of bland foods like potatoes, white bread, etc. That made my problems much, much worse. I've been low-carb for about 6 years now, only really 'cheating' on birthdays and holidays. I really feel a lot better when I'm not eating carbs. Its hard to describe, but I feel as if my blood runs cleaner and my thoughts are clearer. Though it wasn't my primary goal, I lost weight and continue to lose some, albeit very slowly at this point.

All of my numbers are excellent (bp, good cholesterol, bad cholesterol, etc.) so obviously low-carb is a good choice for me health-wise. I think its all a matter of finding something that works for you and that feels good.

In the low-carb backlash that's happening, I hear a lot of people talk about how unhealthy it is. Just remember it doesn't mean 'all meat and cheese all the time', there are plenty of vegetables to eat and lots of other yummy stuff that you can have in moderation (yogurt, berries, lots of soy products. . .)

[AHunter3]

I'm on a pseudo-Atkins diet — I do eat my morning egg sandwich on an English muffin, and I never worry about non-starchy vegetables as a carb source, but my morning egg sandwich is my only bread for the day. If I want rice, it has to replace the bread, likewise for potatoes. I cut myself a fair amount of slack for sweet potatoes and butternut squash, and cheat on tortilla chips, taco shells, and popcorn occasionally.

I can report favorable results.

I think the thing about carbs is not to go to extremes. Cutting them pretty far down is a good weight-loss strategy, but cutting them out altogether is both frustratingly difficult and dangerously unhealthy.

[velvetjones]

The biggest reason low-carb diets work is they force your body to burn fat for fuel and stop the insulin/blood sugar yo-yo that happens when you eat refined carbs.

Your body burns available glycogen for fuel first. This comes from the carbohydrates you eat. After all of that's gone your body starts to burn stored fat for fuel. Burning fat for fuel can be accomplished by eating fewer carbs or by eating fewer calories in general.

But that's where it gets tricky. When you eat a meal that high in refined carbohydrates, your insulin levels shoot up. Insulin is the hormone that tells your fat cells to open up and be ready to take on storage. Once the insulin has done it's job often you're left with too little blood sugar which makes you hungry (and often crave sweets) so you eat again and your insuling spikes again and you store some of that as fat and the cycle begins all over again.

Low carb diets work most effictively by helping to regulate or even out the release of insulin in your blood stream. Without the peaks and valleys in blood sugar and insulin you usually lose the cravings for sweets and refined carbs making it easier to stay on the diet.

The Atkins diet in particular limits carbs to such an extent that your body burns fat for fuel and goes into what's known as ketosis. Ketones are by products of your body burning fat for fuel. Ketosis also has the effect of being an appetite suppressant which makes it an easy diet to follow in the beginning and weight loss can be dramatic in the first two weeks (though most of that is water, not fat)

Personally, my rule of thumb is to try not to eat anything that doesn't look like where it came from. Green beans look almost the same on my plate as they do on the plant. Twinkies don't look like anything that occurs in nature. If you stick to that idea then you'll find yourself eating mostly meat/fish/poultry eggs and vegetables and fruits.

There are a number of interesting books on the subject. Protein Power is a good one as is Doctor Atkins New Diet Revolution. They both go into the physiology and science behind why and how the low carb diet works.

BTW, contrary to popular belief, the Atkins diet isn't all bacon, steak and cheese. Eating your veggies is a requirement.

[groman]

A strong distinction must be made between a low-carb diet and a low-glycemic diet. I discovered this the hard way when I tried to stick to a radical no-carbs-at-all diet. You need carbs to live (at least without being sick as a dog) but want to avoid spiking your blood sugar.

That is wrong, carbohydrates are a source of energy, but they're not the only source of energy. You can have a healthy, active and fulfilling life without eating more than 1grams of carbs a day on average. People do it all the time for shorter periods, but you can eat exclusively raw fish and meat, and assuming you manage to stay away from death by bacteria or parasite, you should do alright. Eating it raw assures you get the vitamins you need ( see this article by Cecil (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010119.html) ).


In fact, if you get a vitamin supplement, you would probably find the healthiest human diet is very rare lean buffalo steak and sashimi. Fiber would be good, but not necessary.

[pulykamell]

Most mainstream diet plans are starting to recommend limiting simple carbohydrates: sugar, white flour, and to some extent, potatoes.

AFAIK, unless terminology has chages, starches (such as white flour, rice, and potatoes) were classified as complex carbohydrates.

[cher3]

Actually most diets that concentrate on carbohydrate reduction treat potatoes like poison. Largely they recommend finding substitutes like pumpkin and sweet potato.

I know they do, I just don't buy the arguments. Unless they are taking up too large a percentage of your diet, or are being consumed fried or swimming in butter and cream, I just don't see a problem with potatoes. They have a pretty respectable nutritional profile.

[Max Torque]

The biggest reason low-carb diets work is they force your body to burn fat for fuel and stop the insulin/blood sugar yo-yo that happens when you eat refined carbs.
I respectfully disagree. The biggest reason low-carb diets work is that they limit your food choices so severely that you soon lose interest in eating. As a result, you lower your calorie intake, and thus you lose weight. I speak from experience.

[Walloon]

You own personal experience is not necessarily universal, scientific truth.

[DrDeth]

I respectfully disagree. The biggest reason low-carb diets work is that they limit your food choices so severely that you soon lose interest in eating. As a result, you lower your calorie intake, and thus you lose weight. I speak from experience.

A huge debate on this has raged. I mostly agree with Max- except it isn't "lose interest in eating" for me, it's "not snacking"- but it is mostly "limit your food choices". In my experience.

[dougie_monty]

AFAIK, unless terminology has chages, starches (such as white flour, rice, and potatoes) were classified as complex carbohydrates.
Well, I would like to know what is complex carbohydrates and what is simple.
Perhaps there's a website for this.
A major obstacle to sustained weight loss is, for me, psychological: I'm the kind of person who eats to compensate for other things lacking in my life. I have never had a social instinct--I tend to stay isolated from others. And, as many of the Teeming Millions know, I've avoided things such as movies, dances, and so on, and tend to stay alone. And this hasn't been much impetus for me to want to lose weight in the first place.

[groman]

Well, I would like to know what is complex carbohydrates and what is simple.
Perhaps there's a website for this.

I am not a chemist, but strictly speaking I do not think there's a chemical definition of simple and complex carbohydrate. There are categories carbohydrates with one sugar, two sugars, three to nine sugars and more than nine sugars - monosacharides, disacharides, oligosacharides and polysacharides respectively. Monosacharides and disacharides are simple sugary things like table sugar and fructose and polysacharides are complex molecules like fiber or starch.

Is there more to this?

[dougie_monty]

I am not a chemist, but strictly speaking I do not think there's a chemical definition of simple and complex carbohydrate. There are categories carbohydrates with one sugar, two sugars, three to nine sugars and more than nine sugars - monosacharides, disacharides, oligosacharides and polysacharides respectively. Monosacharides and disacharides are simple sugary things like table sugar and fructose and polysacharides are complex molecules like fiber or starch.

Is there more to this?
Well, table sugar--sucrose-- is C12H22O11; that would seem fairly complex to me--and of course we're not talking about giant molecules (or are we?)
Among hydrocarbons used or produced in fuel refineries and such:
Eicosane, C20H42.
Hexacontane, C60H122.
(the formula for this is C=n, H=2n+2.)

[DrDeth]

In GENERAL- "simple" carbos are sugars, "complex" carbos are starches. Glucose is the "simple carbo".

OK?

[dougie_monty]

In GENERAL- "simple" carbos are sugars, "complex" carbos are starches. Glucose is the "simple carbo".

OK?
If you say so, but I once read--in a grade-school textbook--that starch and glucose (not sucrose) have similar chemical structure.

[groman]

If you say so, but I once read--in a grade-school textbook--that starch and glucose (not sucrose) have similar chemical structure.

Ok, from this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starch)


Biochemically, starch is a combination of two polymeric carbohydrates (polysaccharides) called amylose and amylopectin. Amylose is constituted by glucose monomer units joined to one another head-to-tail forming alpha-1,4 linkages. Amylopectin differs from amylose in that branching occurs, with an alpha-1,6 linkage every 24-30 glucose monomer units. The overall structure of amylopectin is not that of a linear polysaccharide chain since two glucose units frequently form a branch point, so the result is the coiled molecule most suitable for storage in starch grains. Both amylopectin and amylose are polymers of glucose, and a typical starch polymer chain consists of around 2500 glucose molecules in their varied forms of polymerisation. In general, starches have the formula (C6H10O5)n, where "n" denotes the total number of glucose monomer units.

[xbuckeye]

The point of reducing simple sugars in favor of starches is that while starches are just long chains of sugar, your body has to expend energy to break each linkage in order to use that sugar. And it had to expend energy to make the enzyme to do it. Fats and proteins are the same way. IMHO, extreme restriction is not good since your body does require a certain amount of simple sugar to make the machinery run. I firmly believe in calorie restriction over a certain nutrient restriction.

[kinoons]

But that's where it gets tricky. When you eat a meal that high in refined carbohydrates, your insulin levels shoot up. Insulin is the hormone that tells your fat cells to open up and be ready to take on storage. Once the insulin has done it's job often you're left with too little blood sugar which makes you hungry (and often crave sweets) so you eat again and your insuling spikes again and you store some of that as fat and the cycle begins all over again.

Nitpick -- Insulin is actually used for all cells to recieve glucose from the blood stream (With the only exception being brain cells). The presence of insulin in the blood stream will cause the movement of glucogen into all cells. One of the primary storage places for simple sugar is the liver. The liver is also where the majority of conversion from simple sugars to fat takes place.

Here's some good info on a simple to moderate level

http://webanatomy.net/anatomy/nutrition_notes.htm

[sharkattack]

Well, I would like to know what is complex carbohydrates and what is simple.
A major obstacle to sustained weight loss is, for me, psychological: I'm the kind of person who eats to compensate for other things lacking in my life.

Mate, I hate to say this, (and this DOESN'T answer your question) but the bottom line is youre going to have to exercise. No diet is going to work unless you get out and push yourself. It sucks at first, but once you force yourself to run/ bike/ swim etc and keep it up for a few weeks, youll feel like a new man. It really works in making you lose weight, and psychologically it will do wonders. Try that, and then see how you do. I'm not a doctor, so of course someone will jump on me for this, but carbohydrates are fine ( without slabs of butter on them etc).....just force yourself to get out and increase your heartbeat. Today.

[dougie_monty]

Mate, I hate to say this, (and this DOESN'T answer your question) but the bottom line is youre going to have to exercise. No diet is going to work unless you get out and push yourself. It sucks at first, but once you force yourself to run/ bike/ swim etc and keep it up for a few weeks, youll feel like a new man. It really works in making you lose weight, and psychologically it will do wonders. Try that, and then see how you do. I'm not a doctor, so of course someone will jump on me for this, but carbohydrates are fine ( without slabs of butter on them etc).....just force yourself to get out and increase your heartbeat. Today.
Well, I guess so. I had gone to a doctor early last year, for other reasons; he advised me to walk every day. I thus got into the habit of walking through our mobile-home park, which has 202 resident spaces; it usually takes 30 to 40 minutes to walk around all of the drives and get back home. I skipped it only during inclement weather, or when I was ill or had been out doing yard work during the day, or when I was otherwise occupied in the evening--with the Toastmasters or being an usher at a theater in the Torrance Civic Center. I got out of the habit about a year ago... I guess I'll have to start it again, and get my bike back into running condition--the tires are flat. Besides I'm 6'2" and weigh about 300 pounds, and the streets around my place are not level (the drives inside the park are level).

[SenorBeef]

You need carbs to live (at least without being sick as a dog) but want to avoid spiking your blood sugar.

I know that in a strict biological sense, this isn't true, as glucose can be synthesized when needed - but you're not the first person to indicate being sick.

I've done extensive extreme low carbing - 10g a day or less for weeks - and rather than suffering ill effects, I actually felt better than I ever had.

Originally, when someone told me they were sick, I chalked it up to psychological factors - how can you feel good eating all of this "bad" food? But maybe there's something more to it. Why would I feel fine/great while others would get sick?

[Walloon]

Ditto here. I have eaten less than 20g of carbohydrates/day for several months. Not only did I not feel sick, I felt very healthy. And lost a lot of weight too.