The brain doesn’t need them, protein synthesis doesn’t require them. One can use fat for all the energy needs. Turns out that it sucks for a lot of reasons to avoid carbs, but we don’t need them.
I’m no doctor and I don’t have the references, but I am thorough on investigating these things and all I remember is that the amazing adaptability of our bio/chemical machine can produce energy with no carbs ever entering the system. There is numerous studies, but one comes to the forefront of my aging mind. For one year a group of Eskimos ate zero carbs with zero measured health risks.
As someone stated before, it is about what is optimal. This is bodybuilding and strength training, not some forum on life extension by eating the least amount of food you can survive on daily. It isn’t just about “need”. Yes, your body can survive without carbs. That doesn’t mean eating that way will help you reach your goals…which is the only thing that really matters on this web site.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
As someone stated before, it is about what is optimal. This is bodybuilding and strength training, not some forum on life extension by eating the least amount of food you can survive on daily. It isn’t just about “need”. Yes, your body can survive without carbs. That doesn’t mean eating that way will help you reach your goals…which is the only thing that really matters on this web site.[/quote]
i think there is some debate that carbs are optimal.and i don’t think this is about eating less, or survival.the one model i look at is how ppl fair when on extremes.we have all heard about the eskimo studies.the paleo proponents use this alot for their example.and i think it’s a good one.now look at the other extreme.ppl feed diets of just grain has caused problems.pelegra and ricketts were caused by eating only/or mainly grain.and ricketts if i’m right came from eating our beloved oats.look at brain developement of babies born to vegans compared to meat eaters.here are two examples of etreme eating conditions,where one caused health problems and the other maintained health.
i’m not saying carbs aren’t needed or useful,but i am saying grains are not needed.and that carbs are probably not a big part of the picture.
the only other thing i will say is look how many ppl you know or have heard of that are allergic to wheat/gluten and legumes and milk.then tell me how many ppl you know,or heard of that are allergic to meat veggies?your answer is probably the same answer i have and there has to be a reason for it.
[quote]havoc501 wrote:
i think there is some debate that carbs are optimal.and i don’t think this is about eating less, or survival.the one model i look at is how ppl fair when on extremes.we have all heard about the eskimo studies.the paleo proponents use this alot for their example.and i think it’s a good one.now look at the other extreme.ppl feed diets of just grain has caused problems.pelegra and ricketts were caused by eating only/or mainly grain.and ricketts if i’m right came from eating our beloved oats.look at brain developement of babies born to vegans compared to meat eaters.here are two examples of etreme eating conditions,where one caused health problems and the other maintained health.
i’m not saying carbs aren’t needed or useful,but i am saying grains are not needed.and that carbs are probably not a big part of the picture.
the only other thing i will say is look how many ppl you know or have heard of that are allergic to wheat/gluten and legumes and milk.then tell me how many ppl you know,or heard of that are allergic to meat veggies?your answer is probably the same answer i have and there has to be a reason for it.
[/quote]
The answer is, there is no answer in extremes. People are lactose intolerant. Does this mean no one should drink milk? There are people allergic to peanuts. Does this mean no one should eat peanut-butter? You can die drinking too much water. Does this mean no one should drink water?
If your only evidence of something being bad is in extremes, then you have no evidence. Excuse me while I grow.
[quote]havoc501 wrote:
pelegra and ricketts were caused by eating only/or mainly grain.and ricketts if i’m right came from eating our beloved oats.[/quote]
Pellagra is not caused by eating grains. It’s caused by a lack of niacin and protein, specifically the amino acid tryptophan, which is a precursor for niacin. Grains actually contain higher levels of tryptophan relative to other amino acids, and they supply niacin (B3), as well.
Rickets is not caused by grains either. It’s caused by Vitamin D deficiency.
The reason you see pellagra and rickets more in populations that eat mainly grains is because that’s pretty much all they eat; they’re either starving or extremely malnurished.
[quote]the only other thing i will say is look how many ppl you know or have heard of that are allergic to wheat/gluten and legumes and milk.then tell me how many ppl you know,or heard of that are allergic to meat veggies?your answer is probably the same answer i have and there has to be a reason for it.
[/quote]
The reason is the proteins in those foods. Almost all allergies are caused by proteins that manage to enter the bloodstream, causing antibodies to recognize them as antigens. The eight most common allergies causes are eggs, wheat, crustacea, fish, peanuts, milk, tree nuts, and soybeans. Celiac disease (gluten intolerance) is actually a modern phenomenon. The number of people with the disorder has grown substantially in recent years; it was not always as prevalent. Still, 75% of food allergies are caused by eggs, peanuts, and milk.
Interesting question. From my direct experience with Low Carbs/High Carbs and everything in between, as others have said, it is about what is optimal.
Reason 1: Muscle Sparring. My body can use protein or fat for muscle, but the conversion is going to take away some lean tissue. Why give it the opportunity? Slow absorbing carbs (low glycemic) provide a steady flow of energy that prevent protein breakdown.
Reason 2: Insulin response. The current body of evidence points out that protein/carb consumption after workout drives us from a catabolic to an anabolic state - what we are looking for.
Now, I would agree that how most americans consume carbs is not optimal. I use carb supplements/protein supplements pre, post, and during workouts. The rest of the time, I keep my nutrition balances on whole foods consisting of lean proteins, meats, fruits, and nuts.
This has provided the best experience for me in terms of steady energy and consistant gains.
Also, even if the diet supplies ample protein for gluconeogenesis and the usual protein activities, without carbohydrates, some lean tissue will still be broken down.
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
Also, even if the diet supplies ample protein for gluconeogenesis and the usual protein activities, without carbohydrates, some lean tissue will still be broken down.[/quote]
Which alone is justification to not avoid all carbs in an attempt to gain muscle mass. Insulin release is also a factor considering it is the most anabolic hormone that your body releases.
scroll down to page 9 , there is a title “There is no clear requirement for carbohydrates for human adults”
interesting stuff, I hope this helps[/quote]
There is also no clear requirement for increasing Vit C in order to increase immunity, however many will stand by its effectiveness. It is about what is optimal, not whether the human body can run without carbs. Of course it can. We would be horribly designed for survival if we dropped dead just because carbohydrates weren’t around.
scroll down to page 9 , there is a title “There is no clear requirement for carbohydrates for human adults”
interesting stuff, I hope this helps[/quote]
After reading some of the posts on this thread, I am more inclined to question the nutrition knowledge on this site. This is a forum where anyone can say whatever they want, correct or incorrect, and it is sponsored by a supplement company (red flag). I’m not saying that T-Nation is illegitimate or wrong, by all means; I don’t know enough information myself to prove it.
However, I wholeheartedly believe that it would be foolish to unconditionally trust T-Nation and everything everybody says. Yes, it does have great information provided by reputable sources and supported by studies, but do we know how these studies were conducted? Do we know how they fit into the larger world of scientific research? Were the studies conclusive?
Are the authors always bias-free, especially since they know that whatever they submit to this site, the vast majority of members will automatically believe because “it’s T-Nation!”? Research behind T-Nation articles are subject to skepticism no less than other articles in the science world that are constantly being scrutinized. I’m not attacking everyone’s beloved T-Nation…just offering a word of warning. Don’t discount a whole world of scientific reasearch based on something you read on T-Nation.
[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
We don’t ‘need’ carbs, but we ‘need’ carbs for optimal muscle growth, optimal brain function, and optimal strength gains.[/quote]
Do we? I’m saying I’ve been reading otherwise and know that there are some top trainers/experts out there that will disagree with you.
I’m not a carb hater, in fact I WANT it to be proven to me that they are in fact necessary for optimal gainsbut I’m doubtful anybody can…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Angelbutt wrote:
Also, even if the diet supplies ample protein for gluconeogenesis and the usual protein activities, without carbohydrates, some lean tissue will still be broken down.
Which alone is justification to not avoid all carbs in an attempt to gain muscle mass. Insulin release is also a factor considering it is the most anabolic hormone that your body releases.[/quote]
Insulin is not so much anabolic as it is anti-catabolic. It prevents the circulation of catabolic agents (glucagon, cortisol, HSL). It does not promote PRO synthesis. It prevents breakdown. IIRC Leptin among many other hormonal variances, obviously “stress” from exercise, cell volumization which is effected by insulin however not solely by insulin, and drugs are what enhance PRO synthesis.
Carbs are the PREFERRED source of E. PRO synthesis requires a good amount of ATP and CHO provide this ATP in the most convenient and easily accessible route.
The brain does require glucose for functioning. However, when restricted and as beta oxidation increases the use of ketone bodies resultant of the fat oxidation will be utilized by the brain.
FAT can be used and it does pack quite the metabolic punch with regards to ATP production via Acetyl-CoA and Beta Oxidation but it will also effect Ph and enzyme function if taken to an extreme. Balance in all things dietary seems to promote the greates health milieu.
It all comes down to E needs and where the hell you are gonna get that E. CHO are utilized first from stored liver and muscle glycogen, fats are utilized next because of beta oxidation and the ease of entering them into the Citric Acid Cycle via Acetyl-CoA. PRO is used last as its deamination produces a waste product (urea) and the whole process is somewhat of a mess and not all that efficient.
Research behind T-Nation articles are subject to skepticism no less than other articles in the science world that are constantly being scrutinized. I’m not attacking everyone’s beloved T-Nation…just offering a word of warning. Don’t discount a whole world of scientific reasearch based on something you read on T-Nation.[/quote]
Great advice. I feel the exact same way and have mentioned it before. Many seem to have blind faith in all that read in this one place as if they shouldn’t be learning from many sources with the goal of being able to eventually come up with their own practices based on the knowledge they learn.
Why does our body even cary out the process of neoglycogenesis if carbs aren’t necessary?
Glycogen is a carb right?
If it were unnecessary our bodies would have done away with the ability just like the tail and appendix wouldn’t it?
Why don’t we just process protiens and fats without breaking them down?
What makes someone finding an obscure property of our metabolism a valid dietary practice?
What about the Cory cycle?
[quote]pudge wrote:
CHO are utilized first from stored liver and muscle glycogen, fats are utilized next because of beta oxidation and the ease of entering them into the Citric Acid Cycle via Acetyl-CoA. PRO is used last as its deamination produces a waste product (urea) and the whole process is somewhat of a mess and not all that efficient.
Kevin.[/quote]
Actually, protein is used first after carbohydrates because amino acids are more abundant sources of potential glucose.
In the first few days of a fast, protein provides 90% of glucose, while glycerol provides 10% even though fat breakdown doubles. However, if such protein loss would continue, we’d die in about ten days regardless of how much fat we have. Luckilly, we shift to ketosis and use fat more than protein, although protein is still broken down because only some areas of the brain can use ketone bodies. Other areas require glucose exclusively.
[quote]BGB wrote:
SWR-1222D wrote:
We don’t ‘need’ carbs, but we ‘need’ carbs for optimal muscle growth, optimal brain function, and optimal strength gains.
Do we? I’m saying I’ve been reading otherwise and know that there are some top trainers/experts out there that will disagree with you.
I’m not a carb hater, in fact I WANT it to be proven to me that they are in fact necessary for optimal gainsbut I’m doubtful anybody can…[/quote]
I am certainly no expert, but i think the answer is painfully simple.
Technical jargon aside, there was really only one crucial post on this topic.
Look at what people do whose JOB it is to put on the most muscle a human body can hold. People who have access to all of the current thinking and have teams of doctors and nutritionists to inform them: What are Ronnie Coleman and Jay Cutler doing? And for that matter the rest of the bodybuilding community.
If you can site a top bodybuilder in the last 10-20 years who during a musclebuilding mass cycle cut out all carbohydrates and was able to get the job done, then ok.
(maybe you can…i’d be very interested. i just haven’t heard of anyone who’s done that)
[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
What about the Cory cycle?
[/quote]
I think the Cori cycle is more of a protective mechanism. If the liver didn’t convert lactic acid to glucose, our pH would decrease, setting us up for acidosis.
[quote]BGB wrote:
SWR-1222D wrote:
We don’t ‘need’ carbs, but we ‘need’ carbs for optimal muscle growth, optimal brain function, and optimal strength gains.
Do we? I’m saying I’ve been reading otherwise and know that there are some top trainers/experts out there that will disagree with you.
I’m not a carb hater, in fact I WANT it to be proven to me that they are in fact necessary for optimal gainsbut I’m doubtful anybody can…[/quote]
This isn’t a game or a contest. You are getting good, sound advice and I suggest you take it. Who are these “experts”? What makes them an expert?
[quote]bkavulla wrote:
If you can site a top bodybuilder in the last 10-20 years who during a musclebuilding mass cycle cut out all carbohydrates and was able to get the job done, then ok.
(maybe you can…i’d be very interested. i just haven’t heard of anyone who’s done that)[/quote]
Well I can name a big name that believes in this theory and has lots of his clients doing this. Charles Poliquin. His theories and research made me think (still am, not decided on anything this complicated yet). So I’ve been reading lots about carbs and thier necessity in bodybuilding as a staple. Once again I’m not taling NO carbs, but not many and very limited kinds.