Should Americans Get Half Their Calories From Carbs? Two Camps Battle It Out
Should Americans Get Half Their Calories From Carbs? Two Camps Battle It Out
As the U.S. government revises its dietary recommendations, opposing groups are fighting over thA food fight over carbohydrates is shaping up for control of Americans’ plates. https://www.wsj.com/articles/should...out-11606150740 Quote:
|
Thanks for this, Demi. It's a very balanced article accurately outlining the dietary camps attempting to update the DGA. Journalism like this is a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, all previous versions of the DGA assumed a healthy individual was eating to the recommendations. We know that's far from true even though the DGA "keepers" won't admit it. Also, I'd prefer to see low carb described as not having a meat emphasis. There are many who do well with a low carb vegetarian approach. If these camps could step away from their preoccupation with the "crusades," they might even find they can agree on much. It's not a zero-sum game.
|
Quote:
I fell for this many years ago, and about all I can conclude from my experience with eating lots of healthy carbs like whole grains, fruit, and starchy vegetables is that the tiny bit of fiber in them makes so little difference in the rate at which glucose is absorbed and enters the bloodstream that you might as well be eating donuts and cake. |
Seems to me that the 'solution' is to acknowledge that the one-size-fits-all approach to diet does not work. Low carb, high carb, high protein, vegetarian....they all can work for different people. The government should step away from trying to endorse any specific dietary guideline, and just present different dietary paths to healthy eating, and let the individual determine what works best for them. After all, it was the government that pushed the carb-heavy approach that adversely impacted a large segment of the population.
For me, low carb works because I do not do well with calorie deficits. But I do not care what other folks want to do, as long as it works for them. I do advocate for low carb to friends and acquaintances that are looking to get control of their weight, but I don't go beyond that. 'Wise' government is not wise. Government should be more about helping the citizenry to get good information and less about being our mother and father. One size does not fit all. Everyone is different, see above. |
Great post Demi! I am a fan of the Low Carb Action Network. I do hope, that as time goes on, low carb is taken more seriously. A lot of people think low carb is only keto, when it actually can go up to 100-150 grams carbs a day. Dr. Eric Westman’s End Your Carb Confusion talks about this and will be published next month. Colette Heimowitz’s The Atkins 100 Solution will also be published next month. Low carb rules!
|
Quote:
Some will argue that it's not the same because those donuts and cakes are far less nutritious - fine, but that's not a good reason to sugar-bomb yourself with oatmeal and corn if you can get roughly the same nutrition from foods that don't spike sugars, contain anti-nutrients, make you hungrier, etc. |
Dr Atkins was very clear to make wise food choices, picking nutrient dense foods. Not to be confused with calorie dense, of course.
And eat a wide variety. I now eat far more types of veg and fruits. Jicama, dragon fruit, leeks, arugula , dandelion and so many more added to the menu. Nutrients are key. (Today our local scout troop will unload 900 Christmas trees and I KNOW someone will bring donuts. Grrrrrr) |
Quote:
I never used a glucose meter, but I could certainly tell by how I felt that the "healthy" carbs weren't helping matters. The thing is when I first switched from the truly bad for you carbs (donuts, cake, cookies, chips, etc) to the "healthy carbs", I noticed some improvement in how I felt, since there are some nutrients in those which I was certainly missing in the junky carbs. That provided enough improvement that it led me to believe I was on the right track, at least at first. It took a while to realize that although they weren't as bad as the junky carbs, they certainly were no holy grail to feeling good, and truly almost as bad as the junky carbs. |
I think I could make a better argument for 70 than 50 percent carbs. 70 percent is more like some traditional diet where metabolic outcomes weren't so bad--the pre-fast food Asian and South American etc. diets. 50 percent carbs is easy to do on pizza and doritos.
|
Quote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...enemy-m7v5nxptl |
I must say, I have noticed that the low carb advocates, doctors, journalists, what have you, all seem to practice what they preach. And they look good: not in any unhealthy way, either.
I have never understood the hysteria over eliminating "good carbs" from the diet because of their obsession with low fat, fiber, and vitamins that turn out to have very different absorption rates in different people. And while I am, at best, nearly Carnivore when I'm eating right (I've been dinged by stress and holidays,) all my nutrient numbers are great when I do. |
Quote:
Wait - what? The official US RDA of carbs is a whopping 300 grams, which is actually closer to 65% of a "typical" 2,000 calorie diet. So to claim it's only 50% is already misleading, because 250 g would be 50%. But ok, let's go with the fantasy that the US is only pushing 250 g of carbs. If we cut that in half, that's still 125 g carbs, which is in the range of what the ADA insists that everyone NEEDS to keep their brains functioning - and is still far too much for many diabetics to handle.... and they obviously don't know what Atkins levels of carbs are, because aside from the rare individual who can eventually climb up the carb ladder to 125 g/day without gaining weight, that's not Atkins levels. Quote:
When you're comparing a lower but still high carb diet with an even higher carb diet (which is not exactly what I'd call the best clinical-trial evidence), you'll always come to the conclusion that there's no meaningful difference. What would really help them is to cut carb consumption to closer to 10% or less of calorie intake, which on a 2,000 would still be as much as 50 grams - still too high for a lot of us to expect to lose weight, and for many, still too high to expect to maintain weight loss. But hey, at least if you can get it down to 125 or 150 g/day, people who are still in a normal weight range, and have normal blood sugar/insulin levels, that would probably keep them from gaining weight. Too bad that wasn't the point of the article at all. |
Yes, it's all in how you tell the story. One can come to some amazing conclusions when numbers are bent, distorted, or overlooked when telling the story.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:57. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.