Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Centimal t1_j7evbd4 wrote

TLDR - carbohydrate intake is related to cardiovascular disease etc. Does not differentiate between full grain/integral and not, does not seem to control for sugar intake.


JoeRoganSlogan t1_j7fv2ez wrote

The Okinawan diet consists of 85% carbs and they have the longest life expectancy. But they also stop eating at 80% full.


Whako4 t1_j7fzfcn wrote

Sounds like it’s not from carbs but getting overweight


Aporkalypse_Sow t1_j7ijxhv wrote

My dad has never been close to overweight and lives off of simple carbs and chocolate. His arteries were all 70% blocked and worse. One was completely blocked, he had a heart attack.


traketaker t1_j7l8z5f wrote

I mean if he was eating red meat, store bought fruit, and store bought potatoes he could easily have had a lack of b vitamins and a lack of calcium, even while eating chocolate. which would have resulted in arterial build up and a heart attack.


Aporkalypse_Sow t1_j7mm7s2 wrote

I was merely pointing out that being overweight had nothing to do with his situation. Being overweight isn't going to win health awards, but you can limit your calories and still be a train wreck inside.


MyFaceSaysItsSugar t1_j7hrg72 wrote

And the Mediterranean diet is associated with increased cardiovascular health. Things like lentils and soy are associated with longevity and not nutritionally the same as refined wheat and sugar.


Historical_Tea2022 t1_j7hvf1z wrote

Taking Olive leaf extract and resveratrol would give similar benefits to the Mediterranean diet.


the--larch t1_j7gerl3 wrote

You can go high carb low fat (with natural foods and good fats), or you can go low carb and high fat/protein.

The in-between is deadly.

This is why the diabetes association pushes low fat /high carb, but people tend to find more dramatic results with keto.


Doortofreeside t1_j7he4m3 wrote

Whats so bad about the in between? Is it because it leads to overconsumption or is there something inherently bad about med-carb med-fat diets?


the--larch t1_j7hge8j wrote

It has to do with how the body responds to the release of insulin. Keto/low carb works because your blood sugar stays low, so fats (generally) become fuel rather than storing it away in your arteries.

For a more elegant and educated explanation, I highly suggest Gary Taubes: Good Calories Bad Calories (or any of his works, really).

Edit: I should add that for people without metabolic disorders, there is more wiggle room, but the principle stays true.


conventionalWisdumb t1_j7i2qz4 wrote

Building on the response from u/the—larch:

Carbs and fats are processed by two different metabolic pathways and the carb pathway is more efficient so it is used first. You can then burn up the glycogen provided by the carbs while your body is slowly converting the fats which will feel like a blood sugar crash, so you eat more carb+fats. The process keeps going through the day and the fat has no where else to go except as triglycerides in your fat cells.

This issue can be abated if you’re willing to and can ignore the carb crash as a signal of hunger or if your carb source has high fiber as part of its nutritional matrix because the fiber slows down glycolysis. I would imagine we could potentially one day design a food with the ideal matrix where the ratio of carbs/fiber/fats provides the right amount of energy at the right time, but it won’t be as tasty as a donut.


bayesian13 t1_j7j1w9h wrote

nah. the usda has been pushing high carb low fat for years now. it is a failure. it is why the US has a huge obesity problem. low car high fat/protein is the way to go.


the--larch t1_j7j3wpn wrote

It has failed because we do it poorly, but clearly there are cases where it can be effective. (Traditional asian and Mediterranean diets, for example).

For actual intervention, I agree. I've been low carb for 20 years.


WhnOctopiMrgeWithTek t1_j7jgot6 wrote

Low carb and keto have me unable to gain muscle as easily. I also cannot recover from working out as easily, such that when I eat a large amount of carbs, fat, and protein, I can exercsie every day without feeling beat up.

If I skip the protein or carbs, it gets risky, especially by day two.

I've tried going carnivore with grassfed and whole grassfed milk, there is just something miraculous about carbohyrdates when it comes to working out, running, building muscle, or producing a pump from exercise.

I think it's best to be cyclical, so you're able to easily switch between burning carbs or fat, or fasting.


the--larch t1_j7ji6bd wrote

Well, no one said skip protein, especially while lifting. Plenty of keto lifters out there, though.

If you eat a surplus and work out, even low carb, you get muscles. Is it the same result as the guys that live on boiled chicken breast and rice? IDK, but I wouldn't trade real food for an extra 2# of muscle. Ymmv.


friendofoldman t1_j7nqqoq wrote

I work out 5 Days a week. I’m not an Olympian, but certainly don’t feel beat up from working out on keto/low carb.

You may need to supplement. It’s probably a lack of electrolytes, not a lack of carbs.


Billbat1 t1_j7lhogj wrote

that was the traditional okinawan diet. its very different now.


teadrinkinghippie t1_j7fkm06 wrote

Also I squared values don't hold. For example, "For each 5 %E increase in dietary carbohydrate intake, the summary RR was 1.02 (1.00–1.04, I2 = 66.8%) for cardiovascular disease, 1.04 (1.01–1.06, I2 = 0) for stroke but not significant for other outcomes." I2 = 0 is equivalent to saying all of this difference is attributable to chance and not differences between data. So while RR for stroke is 1.2 (20% increase), the amount of that increase attributable to real difference is ... zero.


guyincognito121 t1_j7hyv6w wrote

I thought that the numerator of I^2 was the variability between studies. So if it equals zero, that means the effect was perfectly consistent across studies...?


godlords t1_j7itm4x wrote

You are spouting a misinterpretation of I^(2)


Potential_Limit_9123 t1_j7hh0fv wrote

It used 41 studies, which probably didn't control for sugar intake either. No one does.


AlexTayo t1_j7jakib wrote

Carbs is sugar. Whether its table sugar or brown rice…it eventually becomes the same in the body after it is broken down


WhnOctopiMrgeWithTek t1_j7jgah7 wrote

Absolutely not quite and that's a toxic way of viewing the world.

Whole foods with fiber tend to be healthy, table sugar lack nutrients, fiber, and spikes insulin + produces inflammation and has many negative effects on the body.

There is hardly an issue with consuming say, berries and mangoes.


14sierra t1_j7jh607 wrote

Berries and mangoes are still loaded with simple sugars. Not as bad as candy but still not great. Complex branch chained carbs (think things like oat meal, whole wheat bread etc) are the least likely to cause blood sugar spikes and are generally the most healthy carbs you can eat.


dbanderson1 t1_j7jtkfb wrote

Fiber is also a carbohydrate. So you think we should avoid fiber?

Does the body respond differently to a drink of 15 g fiber vs 15 g sugar?


traketaker t1_j7l7sbt wrote

Most fiber is insoluble. It just acts to carry everything through your system and clean you out. There are dietary fibers that do break down and are carbohydrates but that's a small amount. So it's a bad idea to just lump fiber as a carb.

"Dietary fiber is the kind you eat. It's a type of carbohydrate."

"Your body cannot digest fiber, so it passes through your intestines without being absorbed much"


dbanderson1 t1_j7lif0j wrote

It’s made of carbon and hydrogen. It’s a carbohydrate. There are three main types of carbohydrates:

Sugars. They are also called simple carbohydrates because they are in the most basic form.

Starches. They are complex carbohydrates, which are made of lots of simple sugars strung together.

Fiber. It is also a complex carbohydrate.

I was making the point because the above poster was trying to argue that candy and brown rice are equally bad be abuse they are “carbs.” All carbs aren’t created equal. Brown rice has fiber and other important nutrients and overall drastically different physiological effects than pure simple sugar.


traketaker t1_j7lkxas wrote

Ya. Sorry. I agree with you kind of. It was just a weird statement bc it's irrelevant if it's a carb if it just passes through. Also I'm skeptical of the "all fiber is carbs" statement. I mean all plant fiber, sure. But for a mountain lion hair and bone constitute fiber and I don't think hair is a carbohydrate. Or if a human ate hair wouldn't that constitute fiber in fecal matter. You may be right, I'm not an expert


dbanderson1 t1_j7lrxly wrote

Hair is mostly keratin which is actually a helical protein.

Is interesting that while we don’t directly digest and breakdown fiber … our gut microbes do and in ferment them into short chain fatty acids which are also important for gut health. Having a masters degree in nutritional sciences I approach the question more in regards from the biochemistry of the molecule. If you revisit your nutrition facts label you will indeed find fiber as a sub component of carbohydrate. Under carbohydrate it lists dietary fiber, total sugars, and added sugars. Some products like cheerios list soluble fiber as well.