The most recent studies I’ve read indicate that a good balance of carbs, fats and protein is the most healthy. Multiple studies have found high protein diets to increase health risks (heart, diabetes).
Have they? Or have some studies found an association which depends on what is consumed along with high protein? There are studies on athletes eating higher protein diets that don’t show heart risks.
It seems you’re claiming multiple studies have found an increase in the risk of getting diabetes from a high protein diet. Do you have a cite?
I’ve seen studies on “high” protein diets on diabetics that were (performed by questionnaire, IIRC, - not the best kind of study) and it turns out that those eating the highest protein were eating more in general. A hypercaloric diet is one of the worst things for a diabetic.
In short, and to drive home a major point that you should not overlook, I will repeat in direct response to the OP:
If you don’t manage your carb amount and carb types, you have a chance of success that rounds to zero. The wrong type and am’ts of carbs = loss of free will.
That’s it. @MichaelEmouse gave good insight, too.
Why can’t people stop eating? Why can’t people keep weight off? Why is the USA so goddam fat and out of control? Cheap, low-quality carbs.
**Cheap, low-grade carbs are the most underestimated mind control drug legally available. ** No hyperbole.
/END
I’m not sure about studies, but we’ve had many people here say how hard it is to give up soda–even diet soda. If it was just about hydration, then it should be trivial to switch from soda to water, but that’s not the case. It seems like the sweetness–whether from sugar or artificial chemicals–creates strong urges that are hard to resist. In some sense, we have trained our bodies to give the “I’m thirsty” signal when it wants to feel the pleasure of sweetness (or it’s just bored). It has little to do with needing hydration.
That sounds like anecdotal evidence for sweetness withdrawal. If you look online for sugar withdrawal, many pages discuss apparent body reactions due to the removal of sugar from the diet, which obviously wouldn’t happen to someone who stopped drinking diet soda.
I’m still interested in a real cite that sugar withdrawal (or even sweetness withdrawal) is a thing. I’m sure that if you had a diet with a lot of sweet foods in it, you’ll miss them when their gone. Some people just like sweet foods more than others, so they would miss them more, but that’s not really withdrawal.
Do you have a cite for any of this? The NY Times article I linked to cites studies that show that low carb and low fat diets can both be effective depending on the person, and that the best diet is one you can stick to.
Is that just a difference of terminology? I suppose that it’s probably true that sugar doesn’t quality as a true addiction like heroin and there isn’t a true withdrawal, but the urges or compulsions people have to consume sugar and experience sweetness will often sabotage their diet attempts.
It’s a difference in terminology that refers to different thing. Here’s a quote from a site discussing sugar withdrawal:
Obviously, that wouldn’t happen to people who only drank diet soda. You’re talking about a habit of drinking sweet things, whereas sugar withdrawal is claimed to be a real effect. I’m looking for a cite for that being a real thing – especially that those symptoms come from reducing sugar, not just reducing caloric intake. I’m be curious about a cite for sweetness withdrawal, which is what you seem to be discussing, but I’m less curious about that.
Which carbs are the wrong type? Please post a cite for this claim.
That’s absolutely hyperbole. From a debate Alan Aragon had with Robert Lustig:
I can’t copy and paste the charts:
The diabetes one was a reference to this:
I don’t claim to have any knowledge one way or another, I just remembering reading a blurb about this one.
It’s a meta-analysis of protein consumption and risk of diabetes and not just regarding “high” protein diets.
There was a lot of good news for protein in this analysis:
*The relationship between egg consumption and T2DM was not clear. Some studies have shown that egg intake was associated with a lower risk of T2DM [42].
…
We found that total dairy products, whole milk, and yogurt intake were protective factors for T2DM. Some studies showed that milk proteins, like whey protein, may enhance satiety and reduce risk factors for T2DM [89]. The calcium and vitamin D in milk and its products may also contribute to its beneficial effects on T2DM [90].
…
For high plant protein-based foods, there was a negative association between soy consumption and the risk of T2DM in this study. Soy protein may inhibit insulin secretion from pancreatic β cells or inhibit lipogenesis and enhance lipolysis in the adipose and liver to reduce adiposity [93].This protective effect may also be associated with biologically active ingredients such as phytoestrogen in soybeans [94].
…
We also found that different high-protein foods have a different effect on T2DM risk, even if they all belong to animal proteins. These results underline the significance of taking into account what kind of dietary protein and food sources of protein are recommended for the prevention of diabetes.*
And of course the analysis answers the question I asked you earlier regarding association vs cause:
*According to the results of this meta-analysis, the intake of total protein and animal protein was associated with a high risk of T2DM both in males and females. *
Higher protein diets are also associated with hose eating the SAD, which isn’t the healthiest.
Good news for diabetes and higher protein:
And high protein diets and a risk to heart health?
How marginal? And cause and effect or association?:
So marginal for animal and plant protein that statistical significance wasn’t even reached.
Not very impressive.
Wouldn’t be surprising, anyway. Those on hypercaloric diets and SADs generally eat more protein than others, along with other stuff.
I think “bad” carbs are the same as “bad” fats-- non-nutritive ones. The carbs that come in a bowl of oatmeal, and the fats that come in an egg are not “bad,” like the ones in a bag of potato chips, because potato chips have little nutrition for every calorie they deliver, and they deliver calories, lots of them, as both carbs and fat.
Also, I recently learned that there is high protein, and there is high protein. A healthy adult needs a minimum of about 55-60g protein a day. A diet of up to about 75g is still fair to middling. People who are trying to build muscle want to consume a little extra protein, but don’t really need anything higher than about 85g, and that’s getting into the “high protein” area already. People who are recovering from a serious illness, or an injury, especially a burn injury, need high protein diets, and might be given something as high as 100g a day (it depends on their weight). That’s about the max a person needs. Anything higher than that increases protein metabolites to no purpose, and your kidneys have to excrete them. If you already have kidney troubles, or eat a diet very high in protein for a long period of time, it can be hard on your kidneys.
That’s where some people get in trouble. Sometimes people trying to gain muscle will take in more than 120g/day; that’s twice the minimum requirement. And they may do other things to try to offset the calorie intake of that much protein, like eating so little fat, that they don’t metabolize fat-soluble vitamins well. I’ve personally known people who were trying to lift weights, and were going through cans of powdered whey protein, so they were getting even upwards of 120g. There’s no way your body can use that much protein. It’s a waste of time and money trying to consume it. So there’s high protein that can be helpful, depending on your goal-- to gain muscle, or recover from an illness, and that should be like 85-95g. Then there’s really excessive and harmful, which is going nuts with it, and those are the people trying to consume more than twice what they need over a long period of time.
I have this from a doctor, because I started losing weight after my mother died, and at first I just assumed it was stress, but when it went on for a while, I went in to the doctor, who confirmed that nothing was wrong with me, and as long as I could stand to lose a little, I shouldn’t worry about it, but she gave me a short talk about nutrition, and referred me to a certified dietician for a longer talk. She gave me a long list of what foods contained how many grams of protein, and told me to get 60-70g/day, and to buy some sugar free nutrition drinks, like Glucerna high protein, or Premier, if I wasn’t getting enough on my own. So I made a spreadsheet to keep track of how many grams I was getting per day. I also was told to drink at least 64 oz. of fluid (any kind-- protein drinks counted, coffee counted) every day. So that went on the spreadsheet as well.
The nutritionist told me if I was sick, to get about 5g extra protein, albeit, if my appetite was down, just to eat what I could, and try to eat more after I got better, but warned me not to try to eat more than 90g/day. I read all the pamphlets she had in her office.
Plus, I picked up a lot of advice on nutrition when I had to attend some seminars with my friend who was having weight loss surgery.
Those are my cites.
As far as the relationship between high protein diets and diabetes, I don’t know that a high protein diet can cause diabetes in someone who otherwise never would have had it. However, diabetic nephropathy (kidney disease) is a thing, and it’s possible that some people’s first sign of diabetes could be lowered kidney function, if they stressed out their kidneys with a high protein diet, and their kidneys were already damaged from undiagnosed diabetes. So there may be a cause/effect confusion, just because the high protein diet preceded the diagnosis.
I don’t know how common it is, but I personally know four people who walked around with undiagnosed diabetes that their doctors estimated they had probably had for at least two years when they were finally diagnosed. So it happens. One guy was hanging by a thread, and ended up injecting insulin twice a day after a two-week stay in the hospital, because he fell into unconsciousness from undiagnosed diabetes. The other cases were not quite so serious, but if you don’t get regular physicals, it happens.
If you are getting your excessive protein by eating a lot of meat, especially red meat, deli meats, or cheese, rather than fat-free supplements, I can see how that could be very bad for your heart. So I’m willing to believe there is an association between heart disease and high-protein diets.
I don’t have a dog in this race, but this line is hyperbole, right? I know a lot of people who’ve lost weight and kept it off without doing low-carb. One instance: my aunt, who lost 60 pounds by simple caloric restriction in 1968 and kept the weight off until her death, in her 90’s, last year. So the chances of success can’t be zero.
Another question: I’ve known people on calorie-restricted diets who lapsed and regained the weight, but then, I’ve known people on low-carb diets who’ve lapsed and regained, which means carb cravings don’t go away after a few months, right?
I have no studies on it, but my unscientific opinion is that when the low-carb, aka, “Atkins” diet first came out, it was really effective for people who followed it strictly, because it eliminated huge groups of food from what was open to you. With only a small number of foods available, you got bored with the repetition, and that discouraged you from overeating. How many steaks can you eat in a day, day after day?
Then there was the low-carb craze, and all the food manufacturers came up with low carb bread, low carb cookies, low carb breakfast cereal-- name just about anything, and there was a low-carb version of it. I think I even saw low carb beer. Anyway, suddenly people doing Atkins were no longer restricted to a small number of foods. They could eat practically anything. And so they were eating the same volume of food as before.
Also, judging by many people I know who tried an Atkins diet, they failed to grasp the whole concept-- it was supposed to be a way of eating for the rest of your life for very obese people who wanted to make a major change-- people upwards of 50lbs overweight. I lost count of the number of people I knew who thought they needed to lose 15-25lbs., and so went on a low-carb diet for a few months, lost what they wanted to lose, then went off the low-carb diet, and, naturally, regained the weight. So, in their opinion, the low-carb diet “didn’t work.”
Healthy adults come in many shapes and sizes. You’re saying that the same protein recommendations in grams should be given to someone whether they are 90 lb or 250 lb?
Where are you getting this number from and what do you mean by “need”? If you are claiming that a 210 lb man trying to build muscle wouldn’t do better eating more than 85 g of protein, you are WAY off. I can give you cites if you like. There’s one at the end of this post.
I’d love to see a credible site than anything higher than 85 g of protein will harm someone that eats at that fairly moderate level for a long period of time. I have been hearing claims such as that for a long time, and have seen any reasons to be concerned. See this:
How did you come to this conclusion? I can post a shit-ton of cites showing this is wrong. I’ll post this for now. If you’d like more, I’ll be happy to post them when I get a chance.
Here’s a short video featuring one of the biggest names in sports nutrition and protein research going over protein requirements at a seminar. He goes over protein needs for bodybuilders in different populations such as those in hyper caloric states vs hypo caloric states, lean vs non-lean, light vs rigorous training. I skipped ahead a bit to where he is featured.
The argument that I have heard is, basically, that carbs are being miscalculated when they figure out the calorie count.
Calorie determination is not an easy process. To take an example, a blackberry has a bunch of seeds in it. If you eat the fruit, plain, then you’re mostly just getting the calories in the pulp. If, instead, you blend those blackberries into a smoothie, the blender is cutting open and revealing the insides of the seeds. Usually the seeds would mostly pass through you, without being digested, but cracked open your body will be able to extract more calories from the insides of the seeds.
So what caloric content should they give blackberries? Plain or blended? They’ll be two different numbers.
And how, exactly, do they determine the caloric content? The methods for testing and reporting those numbers were likely standardized in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Since then, we’ve probably figured out or could figure out more exact ways of measuring but then all the numbers would change, so we’re doing it the old way. The old way almost certainly doesn’t exactly match how the human body functions, so far as energy extraction is concerned. And foods which were tested back 30, 50 years ago and are still labeling the same (if there’s not been any request to recalculate) could be widely different from before because of genetic modification of the plants and animals that we’re using. If we determined that corn had 1g of sugar per stalk in 1960, is that still true? Have we updated the numbers since then? Quite possibly it’s up to 2g now, given what sells better in the marketplace.
It is relatively likely that the amount of carbs in our foods has increased over the decades through selection, genetic modification, and manufacturers toying with the reporting guidelines (maybe they were at 0.95 g of sugar and that is rounded to 1.0g, and now they’ve upped it in their recipe to 1.04g so that it still rounds to 1.0g). Carbs are what sells, so maximizing it is a market force that has been operating on the food supply since millennia ago. Ancient food would taste like flavorless crap, if we had to eat it. But, particularly in the last half century, our ability to change the nutrition contents of our food has expanded massively. If you’re not re-testing everything every five years, you’re likely going to be surprised.
But so, carb counting can be useful in the sense that that’s the one which is the most likely to be inflated and, possibly, the one number that is calculated the worst in the calorie count - if low carb calorie diets are more effective than low calorie diets.
That said, though, if you’re maintaining your weight at 1500 calories, then there’s nothing to stop you from going down to 1400 calories. If you follow a number in a book and expect it to work, knowing that the range of calories that a person needs in a day can vary by a factor of four between the minimum and maximum, then looking at a single number and assuming that it’s correct is fallacious.
The amount of calories that you need is going to depend on what you eat on average. If you change the ratios of carbs to protein significantly - and we’re assuming that the science for calorie calculation is significantly off - then may have just changed your actual caloric intake despite no apparent change in the label. If you stay eating the things that you eat, in average, then you know that if you eat smaller portions, then you have factually reduced your caloric intake. You don’t have to worry.
Are you in your twenties or forties? The human metabolism can slow down significantly between those two periods, halving the total number of calories that you need.
Like I said, any target number that you see in a book or Internet article is wrong. If you eat 1500 calories and gain weight, you aren’t drinking more water, or anything else strange, and your determining your weight on a real live, functioning scale, then for your age, gender, lifestyle, personal genetics, and the specific foods you eat on average, 1500 calories is too much. The book/Internet article is provably incorrect for you.
While carb counting does allow you to focus on the thing that’s likely the most out of wack in calorie calculation, it completely ignores all other values. You could theoretically have a 2000 calorie meal with zero carbs. And if you eat that meal three times a day, you’re going to get fat. It doesn’t matter that it’s zero carbs.
Using the calorie count, you at least know that it doesn’t exclude anything, and the numbers aren’t insanely out from reality. There’s no way to create a meal that has double the actual caloric content from what you’re expecting by reading the label.
And no matter what number pops out, if you keep track of what you’re eating in average, if you keep reducing that number, you’re going to lose weight. If you’re not, reduce it more. Your body does not break the 1st law of thermodynamics. It cannot suck energy out of a second dimension to create fat. If your getting fat or maintaining fat, it’s purely down to the food you eat. If you reduce that, you will lose weight.