Low Fat or Low Carb? Part 2

So if low-carb does seem to show greater results, then what’s wrong with this approach?

Low-carb dieting at first is primarily water loss. This isn’t always bad, except that the water quickly returns when the regime is stopped. And the dehydration this causes has several negtative effects on our delicate systems. Most importantly though, low-carb always results in muscle loss. Those pounds coming off are often more muscle than fat. You see, most of our body can function just fine on the energy from proteins and fats. But our brains and our livers cannot. They absolutely need glucose. When we aren’t getting any through our diet, the body resorts to the backup plan: break down muscle to obtain glycogen, and convert it into glucose.

A low-carb dieter’s body is under chronic stress from this situation. This is incredibly detrimental to athletes, who not only need their muscle but need the quick energy from carbs for successful workouts. Even the casual gym-goer trying to tone up and get fit will find their capacity severly limited without energy for their workouts and with a body chronically breaking down their muscle mass.

Before I sound all "pro-carbohydrate" I want to clarify that I do think the American diet is WAY too high in carbs. I don't think we need any flour or pasta and I certainly don't think we need any sugar. I believe daily consumption of plenty of fruits and vegetables and unrefined whole grains can help one to have adequate carbohydrate intake.

So if not low-fat or low-carb, what’s the answer? Moderation. We don’t like that word, do we. Portion control? Balance? Self-discipline? Patience for results? Difficult concepts in today’s “have-it-now” mentality… but assets to be gained for a lifetime of health.