Science Confirms It: Carbs Don’t Make You Fat, This Does

Cutting carbs is the most important change for weight loss.

At least, that’s the idea sold by Gary Taubes, Dr. David Ludwig, and other low carb enthusiasts.

They believe carbohydrate drives obesity because it raises the hormone insulin. Insulin is said to block the release of fat and also drive additional fat storage.



However, nutrition research continually shows that carbs alone DON’T make you fat. The latest clinical trial is no exception.

You might’ve already seen my stance on this. But let’s put our personal food ideologies aside for a moment to honestly consider the weight of evidence available.

Cutting Carbs Does Not Increase Metabolism or Fat Loss
If raised insulin drives weight gain, then conversely, reduced insulin (from cutting carbs) should be therapeutic.


In other words, we’d expect an extremely low carb diet to cause more fat loss than a typical Western diet.

The latest trial to compare these two eating patterns – ironically funded by Taubes’ own NuSI organization – indicates this is not true.

Study Design

This was a tightly-controlled, metabolic ward trial, which means no cheating on the diet.

For 4 consecutive weeks, 16 overweight or obese men were fed a standard American diet, quite high in carbs (50% Carbohydrate, 15 % Protein, 35% Fat).

According to the sample menu published, it included loads of refined carbs including lemonade, granola bars, pretzel sticks, and sandwich bread.

Participants were then immediately switched to a very low carbohydrate, ketogenic diet (5% Carbohydrate, 15% Protein, 80% Fat) for another 4 weeks (1).



Both the high carb diet and the ketogenic diet were equal in calories and protein, and they had no access to any outside foods for the entire 8 week period. Participants also rode an exercise bike for 30 minutes daily.

Changes in energy expenditure, body composition, and relevant blood markers were recorded each day using the gold-standard methods where possible.


After the first 4 weeks on the high carb diet, participants lost 1.1 lbs  (0.5 kgs) of body fat on average.

Switching to the low carb diet for the remaining 4 weeks led to a dip in insulin levels by almost half. However, once again participants lost just 1.1 lbs of body fat

So there was no difference between eating patterns on fat loss despite the difference in insulin, effectively disproving the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis.

Switching to the low carb diet did cause an initial sharp decrease in total weight loss, but this was due to the drop in water weight that accompanies carb restriction (2).

To be fair, the low carb diet did increase metabolic rate by 57 calories per day on average. This outcome was actually the main aim of the study.

However, this number started much stronger before plummeting down to about 40 calories per day, which is clinically insignificant. In fact, the metabolic advantage all but disappears after several weeks.

Some will say that 40 calories x 365 days per year = 14,600 calories per year. This equals 4.1 lbs (2 kgs) of weight loss in a year, assuming a 3,500 calorie deficit equals 1 lb of fat.

But it doesn’t actually work like that. A daily deficit of 40 calories is likely to equal only 4 lbs of weight loss after 2-3 years if you don’t cheat.

Is that worth cutting your diet to strictly 5% carbs?

Summary: A well-designed clinical trial, funded by low carb advocates, found a low carb ketogenic diet was not beneficial for fat loss or metabolic rate. The high carb diet was just as effective – if not better – for body fat loss, despite the higher insulin levels.

Other Trials Show No Advantage From Cutting Carbs
This was not the first well-controlled clinical trial to show cutting carbs has no advantage for fat loss.

In fact, it was shown over a decade ago.

In a 6-week trial of 20 subjects randomly assigned to follow either a ketogenic diet (5% carbs) or a moderate carb diet (40% carbs), there was no difference in average weight loss, fat loss or insulin changes. All food and beverages were provided to participants (3).



Average change in body mass and fat mass in the ketogenic diet (▪) and nonketogenic (○) diet groups during the 6-wk feeding trial and at the week 10 follow-up.

If anything, strictly cutting carbs leads to less fat loss as time goes on. Subjects also reported the ketogenic diet was worse for feelings of energy and overall mood.

There was also a smaller and slightly different version of the above NuSI study, also run by Dr. Kevin Hall.

His team found a reduced carb diet (29% carbs) resulted in less fat loss than a reduced-fat diet (7.7% fat). At the time, their computer model even predicted the trend seen in the latest study (4):

Change in fat mass of reduced-fat vs reduced carb. Source: Examine.com

Although the reduced carb diet (29% carbs) was not quite “low carb”, it still lowered insulin levels considerably. Despite this change, there was no fat loss advantage.

Summary: Several other well-controlled trials looking at the fat loss effects of reduced carb and very low carb ketogenic diets indicate they are not beneficial for long-term fat loss.

 Do Carbs Make You Gain Weight?

Restricting carbs is unnecessary to lose weight… But what about gaining weight?

Is gorging carbs more regrettable than indulging fat, according to starch insulin theory?

This has likewise been well-contemplated, and clinical preliminaries demonstrate this isn't the situation, per unit calorie.

In an investigation of 16 men (9 lean and 7 fat), subjects were encouraged an exacting eating regimen giving 150% of caloric prerequisites (intended for weight gain). The extra half of calories originated from either sugar or fat for 14 days one after another. Subjects finished the two weight control plans in a hybrid structure.

Scientists found that both sugar and fat overloading caused practically indistinguishable increments in body weight, fat mass, and fit mass (5).

These increments didn't contrast between the lean and large subjects either.

Another comparative overloading investigation of 20 lean men likewise found no distinctions in the expansion of absolute weight or fat mass increased following 21 days (6).

It shows up when calories are coordinated, there's no distinction in fat increase between gorging carbs or fat.

Shouldn't something be said about When We Don't Overeat? 

Do carbs impact muscle to fat ratio in people who are not gorging calories?

Obviously not.

In a progression of firmly controlled clinical investigations, 15 subjects were bolstered an eating routine that moved incredibly in the measure of carbs or fat it contained over a 13-week time frame. The calorie sum was for weight upkeep (no addition or misfortune) and was kept the equivalent paying little heed to the starch to fat proportion (7, 8).

This is how one subject's weight followed all through the examination. The initial 38 days were high carb (75% carbs), the remaining were low carb (15% carbs).

The analysts closed, "The starch to fat proportion could fluctuate generally with practically zero change in the vitality necessary for weight support."

Along these lines, if you aren't devouring overabundance calories, weight remains the equivalent paying little respect to the measure of carbs you appreciate.

Synopsis: Clinical examinations demonstrate that eating carbs rather than fat has no effect on the muscle to fat ratio, insofar as all-out calories continue as before. This remains constant whether we gorge calories or not.

Indigenous And Pre-Industrialized Populations Thrived On Carbs 

Still not persuaded that carbs are not extraordinarily stuffing?

Regardless of whether we overlook the clinical examinations (the most dominant proof accessible), the starch insulin hypothesis doesn't fit the verifiable and observational proof.

Indigenous gatherings like the Tarahumara Indians, Kitavans and Massas all flourished with high carb eats less for many years. Weight was uncommon (if not non-existent) in these indigenous gatherings (9, 10, 11).

For instance, Kitavans had for all intents and purposes no overweight individuals – and low insulin levels – regardless of an eating regimen that was 70% carbs (12).

The equivalent was watched for pre-industrialized Asian populaces up until the twentieth century, living on staple nourishments like rice, noodles, potatoes and natural product (13, 14).

Indeed, even by the 1990s, 50-60% of calories eaten in Japan-China still originated from carbs. This was more than the US or UK, yet weight rates were a lot of lower (15).

If carbs themselves are swelling, these populaces would not have had fit bodies and great wellbeing, by and large, paying little heed to how dynamic they were.

Taubes' counter contention is that stoutness was normal in numerous local populaces from the 1950's forward. Notwithstanding, at this point many creating countries and Indigenous gatherings –, for example, the Pima Indians – as of now approached refined, reasonable (frequently financed) Western nourishment.

Rundown: There are various authentic instances of populaces that stayed thin and good dieting high carb consumes fewer calories. This shows carbs themselves are not swelling. Indigenous gatherings just ended up corpulent after the presentation of Western low-quality nourishment.

The individuals Who Live Longest Eat A Lot of Carbs

There are as yet advanced people flourishing with high carb slim down as well.

Indeed, a considerable lot of them have the most reduced paces of metabolic illness and weight and live longer than any other individual. The locales where they live – known as Blue Zones – give us important bits of knowledge into the lifetime impacts of certain eating designs.

The Japanese island of Okinawa has the best extent of centenarians (individuals more than 100 years of age) on the planet.

Their eating routine has consistently been carb-thick; high in sweet potatoes, vegetables, and rice to a lesser degree. Truth be told, a gigantic 85% of an Okinawan's caloric admission originated from carbs preceding the 1950's. Sweet potatoes alone represented 69% (16).

Over 65 years after the fact thus a considerable lot of them are as yet fit as a fiddle.

Those from the Greek Island of Icaria likewise live long and sound lives, notwithstanding an eating regimen high in bread, potatoes, and vegetables.

Right around 1 out of 3 occupants lives to be 90 years of age, which is 2.5 occasions the pace of Americans (17).

Conceded their dynamic ways of life is a factor to their life span, however, a high sugar diet doesn't make them get fat or wiped out.

Outline: The world's longest-living populaces have eaten fewer carbs wealthy in starch nourishments.

In any case, A Low Carb Diet Works For Me? 

Studies show low carb diets can be a powerful procedure for weight reduction.

Particularly on the off chance that you recently battled following a low-fat eating regimen.

Be that as it may, it's not because carbs alone made you increase fat. Nor is it since cutting carbs alone caused you to lose fat.

A decrease in carbs consequently implies an expansion in protein and additionally fat. It's this whole supplement proportion move – combined with an expansion in entire (foul) nourishments – that is in charge of the positive result.

Studies demonstrate an eating regimen higher in protein keeps you feeling full and will in general lessening in general calorie admission, at any rate temporarily (18, 19, 20).

An eating regimen lower in refined sugar and fat – ordinarily found together in shoddy nourishment – likewise supports a decrease in calorie consumption. This is a result of how calorie-thick and exceptionally satisfactory lousy nourishments are.

At that point, there's likewise the loss of water that goes with carb decrease. Close by fat misfortune, this makes the washroom scales move positively, and rapidly (2).

The mix of these variables is the reason a low carb diet so regularly prompts weight reduction. Supplanting refined carbs with protein (and perhaps fat) can help to reliably control your hunger and lessen absolute caloric admission, without depending on self-control.

Rundown: Many are fruitful on a low carb diet since it naturally higher in protein, which controls hunger. They additionally normally dispense with all lousy nourishments, which is the place our overabundance calories originate from.

No, Carbs Don't Make You Fat 

The science is in.

Carbs are no more awful for your waistline than some other supplement.

Studies demonstrate that when low carb and high carb diets are coordinated for calories, there is zero contrast to muscle to fat ratio change. In any case, if your complete caloric admission is extreme or not.

This bodes well considering all the over a wide period populaces that blossom with high carb eating designs.

Saying this doesn't imply that carb-loaded low-quality nourishments and soda pops are free. These items are low in supplements and don't make you feel full or fulfilled. They are without a doubt the greatest supporters of overabundance calories and in this manner one of the primary drivers of corpulence and related medical issues.

Bagikan Artikel ini