The Grain Debate
Wheat Field: http://www.flickr.com/photos/klallier/
Grains and other starchy carbs. To eat them, or not to eat them?
We are still in a time when low-carb and reduced-carb diets are highly recommended for fat loss and even gaining muscle and improving overall health.
So the questions remain: should you time your grain (starchy carb) intake; eating grains only in the morning, before and/or after workouts? Should you avoid grains entirely for fast fat loss?
First, I’ll reveal what a few fitness and nutrition experts have to say on the topic, and then I’ll share my point of view.
-- Tony Gentilcore: Hmmm, my thoughts on starchy carbs. Like anything else, it depends. I, for one, can handle carbs really well (yeah, a lot of people hate me) - so with regards to my nutrition, I tend to get the bulk of my carbs in the window right before (and after) I train. On days that I don't train, I tend to take a little less calories/carbs. It just makes sense.
Now, for those that don't handle carbs very well, I think this is where nutrient timing has A LOT of efficacy. For most, they eat carbs all day, insulin levels are jacked up, and they're going to be hard pressed to burn any significant fat. Leigh Peele had a great post on this not too long ago, where she went into detail on the insulin and fat loss: click here. Namely, you CAN still get fat even if you're not eating carbs.
In general, though, for those who don't handle carbs well (or for those who are diabetic), I think more complex carbs are a better choice: sweet potatoes, beans, etc- if for only the fiber intake alone. More fiber (particularly soluble fiber) means better blood-sugar profile. Soluble fiber (like that found in various beans- think kidney) helps slow the absorption of glucose.
To be honest, I think Surge (and the like) is a bit overblown. I mean, I don't really like the idea of putting THAT much sugar in the body on a regular basis. Yet, you'll see all these people who are 30 lbs overweight, guzzling their sugary post-training shake after WALKING on the treadmill. It's ridiculous. Conversely, we DO promote Surge to a lot of our high-school/college athletes who are trying to put weight on. I mean, most don't get nearly enough calories in throughout the day as it is, so it only makes sense to suggest they include Surge. It's an easy 350-400 calories of carbs and protein that's taken at the ideal time when their body is primed to lay on some muscle mass.
-- Mike Robertson: (Question: What is your opinion when it comes to eating starchy carbs in regards to weight loss, overall health, building muscle, etc?) I think for most people looking to lose weight/body fat, they need to be pretty strict in regards to their starchy carb intake. I will generally steer people away from them, although I’m not a zealot in that regard. If anything, I’ll try and get them eating the bulk of their starch either first thing in the AM, or post-workout.
For people looking to build muscle, I’ll generally look for them to eat more starch. These people are typically on the skinny-ish side, and therefore need more nutritious calories. Whole grains and the like are a great place to get those.
(Question: Do you believe in "timing" the intake of grains, eating certain types of grains (quinoa, etc)? For those who are gaining weight/mass, not so much – although the first meal and post-workout will generally be higher in relation to other meals.
For those looking to shed bodyfat/weight, we’ll generally take in starch only first thing in the AM or post-workout. Otherwise carb intake will revolve around fruits and veggies.
-- JC Deen: I am an advocate of personalization and moderation. Personally, I eat a high(er) carb diet full of fruits and starchy carbs as it fits my training and personal preference. I also feel and function better on a higher carb diet. Others feel better on a diet with more fat and fewer grains. For those who have blood sugar issues, a diet lower in carbs is much more manageable and better suited for them. This doesn't mean everyone needs to be on a low-carb diet, though. If you have no issues with carbs, there's no reason to restrict them.
I don't believe in carb cut-offs or the common dogma associated with carbs making a person gain fat. To me, rice, bread, oatmeal, or sugar smacks are nothing but an energy source. The healthier choice will obviously be the whole food selection that contains more vitamins and minerals, but from a body composition standpoint, there isn't going to be much of a difference.
As far as weight loss is concerned, dropping carbs periodically will cause a loss in water but if an energy deficit isn't maintained, no actual fat loss will occur.
In terms of timing carbs/grains, I feel this is only necessary if you're on a specific diet like UD2 or a cyclical ketogenic diet. I've also used a cyclical maintenance approach where I ate high carb on training days and low carb on my off days but that was just for fun and experimentation. No real need to do this if you don't wish to.
-- Brad Pilon: If you are not overeating, but truly eating at, or even slightly less than you need AND you are eating with Variety, it becomes very difficult to overeat any one TYPE of food.
In a situation of over abundance combined with lack of variety it creates a situation where you can exasperate any problem.... whether previously existing, genetic predisposed or just plain old bad luck.
Grains in and of themselves are not evil. There are many cultures that are fine with eating grains.
However in areas of overabundance and over reliance on grains, they seem to be connected (correlated) to some potentially nasty health implications.
I think it's time we learned from our Saturated Fat / Dietary Cholesterol / Protein / Carbohydrate witch hunts over the last century. Any one food isn't the problem, it's food in overabundance that is the issue.
Thanks, guys. Okay, now it’s my turn.
First, you’ll notice some similarities in opinions from the experts above. But you’ll also notice some distinct differences as well. Does this mean some are correct and the others are wrong?
Absolutely not. What I have learned over the years, and I’m sure these guys have as well in their careers, is that some things (be it carb timing, carb cycling, reducing carbs, increasing carbs, etc) work for certain individuals, but they may not work for others.
They are revealing what they have had work with themselves and their clients with great success. As I’ve said before: there can be several different paths from starting point A to result B. For some people the best way from point A to point B (example: losing body fat) could be limiting starchy carb intake, for others it could be eating carbs more freely, and there could be several other options as well.
My opinion is that each individual needs to see what works best for them. Yes, this does mean a little experimentation and a little trial and error, but the effort will be worth it.
For instance, for a few years I lived a reduced-carb lifestyle. I rarely ever consumed bread, pasta, potatoes, rice, oats and other starchy carbs. Then things changed: I started hating that lifestyle of eating and was curious as to what would happen if I ate more carbs; so I changed things up. Now I eat starchy carbs (brown rice, quinoa, whole grain pasta, potatoes, oats, etc) much more frequently. The result: I am leaner and have much more energy throughout the day.
Does this mean that you should start increasing your starchy carb intake as well because the results have been amazing for me? Yes. Or no. It really depends. Like I mentioned above, you need to see what works for you.
I, like Tony and JC, handle carbs very well, and therefore I eat more of them. However, I have had clients who simply need to keep their starchy carb intake very low to lose any body fat. No two people are exactly the same.
Feel free to experiment for yourself: take a month to lower or increase your starchy carb intake (depending on your current nutrition habits and goals) and track the results. You’ll never know unless you try. Or can forget all about this stuff and take Brad’s approach: take a brief break from eating.
Quick Note: This article was about starchy carbs – rice, breads, pastas, oats, potatoes, etc. In no way am I telling you to limit or reduce carbs in the form of fresh fruits and vegetables. In fact, practically everyone would benefit from increasing their daily fruit AND vegetable intake.
Quick Note Two: I personally suggest that your starchy carbs come from sources that are minimally processed. Try to get the majority of your starchy carbs from sources that are as natural as possible. Some good examples include sweet potatoes, steel cut oats, quinoa, brown and wild rice, etc.
What do you think? Do you feel and look better when you eat more starchy carbs or less starchy carbs? Tell me below.
Comments for This Entry
Charmed-
Thanks for the great comments. I agree: people should focus on improving their food quality and eating natural food before they get into more "advanced" concepts such as nutrient timing, carb cycling, etc.
Thanks again!
Posted by Nia Shanks at 10:23am May 5, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]
Hard to have just one answer and to the credit of you and the people you interviewed the don't. I handle carbs well but that can't be pushed on other people. Yes there may be a bit of carb bashing going on these days but in comparison to the 90's it doesn't compare. At least the anti carb people believe in fiber and phytonutrients. Back in the 90's it was "fat on my lips equals fat on my hips". "You eat fat you get fat". There would be people on tv saying " i lost 30 pounds and I have virtually cut all fat out of my diet and I feel grrreat". History has shown us that those people didn't feel so great but they lost some weight and didn't want to hear anything else. Most people are fairly sedentary minus the workout, and this is most of us no matter how important you think your little life is. For these people there would be no need to eat carbs all day even healthy ones at a much higher rate than fat & protein. There is tons of literature to back up the power of controlling (not eliminating) insulin for fatloss. If you are an athlete or load trucks all day you will have a higher capacity to take in carbs. the woman who works out with some intensity and progression in whatever she does (especially weights or sport) will get more use out of peri-workout nutrition compared to the woman who does some cardio and for the heck of it a few "toning" sets. Nia, you talk about no excuses for not eating healthy natural foods. I also think there is no excuse for people not to know the macronutrients and calories of the top 15- 20 foods they eat. For the most part we recycle food choices each week. Get a grip on how much you eat and what you eat and THEN you can worry about high carb low carb. Until you know this every diet or advise is a crapshoot. Once you get a handle on this then it will become much easier to determine what works best for yourselves. As for determining how many kcal it takes to add a pound of muscle I haven't read anything that is absolute. If you take 3 guys. Bill at 200lbs 25% bodyfat, Mike 180lbs 12% bodyfat and Eric at 150lbs 12% bodyfat and put them on the same mass gaining program I bet you get different readings in terms of muscle gain. You have to weigh in things like metabolism, stress, past workout history, AND THE WORKOUT PROGRAM. I know everybody says "it's all about the diet". Yet when someone brings up and infomercial workout or some gimmicky program these same "its all about the diet". people will have negative things to say, but why? I thought it was 85% about the diet.
Posted by charmed1taz at 9:35am May 5, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]
Posted by Jonathan Mike at 7:39pm May 3, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]
Hey Jonathan, interesting perspective.
I'm curious about a few things:
"it takes 2800-3000 kcals to put an 1 lb of lean tissue."
Where did you come up with this figure? I know others say it's 1500 or upwards to 4500. I'd just like to know your thoughts behind it.
also
"So, most men require 2000-2500 kcals just to maintain body weight which includes temperature and hormonal regulation, energy needed to move some weights and just to get around. Now, add 2800-3000kcals on top of that and you can now see how hard it is to gain muscle."
Spreading out 3000kcals over a week isn't too big of a deal, in my opinion. With the numbers you gave, just going at the high end of what suggested for maintenance and a surplus, we're at just below 3000kcal per day, which in my experience, is a fairly easy task. 3-4 meals and I can be over the limit easily, even if I'm not eating "junk food."
I look forward to your thoughts!
Posted by JC at 4:45pm May 3, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]
Jon-
Yes. Both. Just do whatever the hell you want. ; )
Posted by Nia Shanks at 11:32am May 3, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]
Nia,
Thanks. Anything is particular you are looking for or perhaps some expansion on this past post via above?
Posted by Jonathan Mike at 10:54am May 3, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]
Jon-
Not a problem at all. You have some great input that I think the readers would like to see.
Posted by Nia Shanks at 10:08am May 3, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]
Nia,
Sounds Good. I will try and expand of this more this week. Will email you, thanks for including me :)
Posted by Jonathan Mike at 9:40am May 3, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]
Jon-
Hey, if you really want to expand on this, feel free to write something up and email it to me. I'll post it later.
Posted by Nia Shanks at 9:36am May 3, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]
Jon-
Okay, I asked these guys about this over two months ago. Now I know I should have included you as well. ; )
Thanks for the excellent comments, and I will probably call on you for a future post! ; )
Posted by Nia Shanks at 9:34am May 3, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]
Alright, good points by Mike and Tony. I'd just like to extrapolate from that.
Grain production, manufacturing, and consumption are the only ways you can feed 300 million people in this country. We simply cannot supply all the food from lean meats, fruits and veggies, and don't expect any government regulation or incentives otherwise. Too many lobbyists and and too much money.
In terms of becoming a mass monster, it takes 2800-3000 kcals to put an 1 lb of lean tissue. Of course, you cannot actually see this which makes it more intangible than anything. Now, this 2800-3000kcals is in EXCESS of the already established maintainance needs of that person. So, most men require 2000-2500 kcals just to maintain body weight which includes tempertature and hormonal regulation, energy needed to move some weights and just to get around. Now, add 2800-3000kcals on top of that and you can now see how hard it is to gain muscle. So, if a he/she wants to add 10lbs, that 28,000 kcals they must consume (over a period of weeks) to gain 10lbs. Therefore, this is a heroic amount of food. As the saying goes " eat big, lift big, to be big"
For weight loss, just from a nutrition persepctive. Cut some of the carbs, increase protein and increase fat some ( more emphasis on mono/polyunstaturated). However, it's ok to throw in some saturated fats. Also, glucose homestasis requires minimum of 100 grams. If those thart wish to go "low carb" which is really under "50 grams"/day, 20 grams for sure. Workouts have to be drastically changed to where resistance training is kept moderate to high and big lifts to maintain muscle mass. Cardio REALLY NEEDS TO be limited or reduced simply because overall energy expenditure is down. Keeping the muscle mass does wonders for fat loss IF THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING THE LOW CARB THING.
More later...
-Jon
Posted by Jonathan Mike at 9:19am May 3, 2010 [permalink | flag as inappropriate]