By Becky Bell
There is conflicting information out there about carbs. Studies have shown that low-carb diets are effective for weight loss, but that doesn't mean that eating carbs makes you fat.
In fact, there are plenty of health benefits associated with eating carb-containing foods, but that's only if you eat the right kinds.
While some high-carb foods are highly nutritious and even helpful for weight management, others are detrimental to your health.
What Are Carbs?
Carbohydrates or carbs, are one of three macronutrients that provide the body with energy. The other two are protein and fat.
There are three major classes of carbs:
- Sugars: Individual sugar molecules or short chains of sugar molecules. These include glucose, fructose, galactose and sucrose.
- Starches: Longer chains of carbohydrate molecules that need to be broken down in the digestive system.
- Fiber: Carbohydrates that the body cannot digest.
The primary function of carbs is to provide the body with energy.
Most carbs are broken down into glucose in the digestive system and provide the body with fuel to perform essential functions.
Each gram of carbs provides the body with four calories. The exception to this is fiber, which generally does not provide many calories.
Bottom Line: Carbohydrates are a macronutrient that provides the body with energy. Carbs include sugars, starches and fiber.
Not All Carbs Are Created Equal
Part of the reason there is so much confusion regarding carbs is that not all carbs are created equal.
People tend to classify all carbs as either good or bad, but that doesn't make sense.
There are major differences in the health effects of different types of carbs, so they cannot all be lumped into one group.
One way that carbs are classified is by the terms "simple" and "complex." Some people define all starch and fiber as complex carbs and all sugars as simple carbs.
However, this definition can be confusing. Some starches like sweet potatoes, quinoa and legumes provide many health benefits, while other starches like refined wheat flour are associated with a myriad of health problems.
Additionally, not all sugars have the same effect on your body. Added sugars like those found in baked goods and sugary drinks can harm your health (1, 2, 3, 4).
However, the natural sugars found in fruits and vegetables do not have the same negative effects.
It makes more sense to define complex and simple carbs this way:
- Complex carbs: Carb-containing foods that are in their whole, unprocessed form. Foods in this category include fruits, vegetables and legumes.
- Simple carbs: Sugars and starches that have been refined and stripped of their natural fiber and nutrients.
Bottom Line: Complex carbs are healthy, whole foods in their unprocessed form. Simple carbs are refined grains and sugars that have very little nutritional value.
Complex Carbs Are Highly Nutritious, but Simple Carbs Are Not
Complex carbs are healthier than simple carbs because they are generally nutrient dense. This means they contain a large amount of nutrients in relation to the number of calories they provide.
Whole grains, fruits, vegetables and legumes are highly nutritious foods that are rich in antioxidants, fiber, vitamins and minerals.
On the contrary, simple carbs contain "empty" calories, meaning they have calories, but very little nutritional value.
To highlight the nutritional differences between complex and simple carbs, let's compare whole grains and refined grains.
A whole grain contains three distinct parts:
- Germ: The seed portion of the grain that's high in polyunsaturated fats and various important nutrients.
- Endosperm: The inner portion of the grain that's mostly made up of starch.
- Bran: The hard outer portion of the grain that's high in fiber and essential fatty acids.
The germ and bran of a grain are where the majority of its nutrition is found.
Interestingly, when grains are processed and refined, the highly nutritious germ and bran are removed, leaving only the starchy endosperm.
Below is a comparison of the nutritional content of one cup (120 grams) of whole wheat flour and one cup of refined wheat flour (5, 6):
Whole wheat flour is a source of several important nutrients, but those nutrients are lacking in wheat flour that has been processed and refined.
The same is true for fruits and vegetables. In their whole forms, they contain small amounts of fructose, but they are also packed with vitamins, minerals and fiber.
On the other hand, processed foods and sugary beverages contain large amounts of sugar and absolutely no nutrients. These added sugars are associated with all kinds of health problems (1, 2, 3, 4).
Bottom Line: Complex carbs, such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables and legumes, are highly nutritious. Simple carbs provide calories, but no nutritional value.
Health Benefits of Complex Carbs
Carbs are not essential for life, but eating the right kind may benefit your health.
Complex Carbs Are Less Likely to Cause Blood Sugar Spikes
Simple carbs are digested very quickly, which causes a spike in your blood sugar.
The blood sugar spike stimulates your pancreas to release a large dose of insulin, which often leads to a blood sugar "crash," leaving you hungry and craving more sugar (7, 8).
Fiber-rich, complex carbs take much longer to break down than simple carbs. This helps keep blood sugar levels steady, as sugar reaches the blood stream gradually (9, 10).
Because complex carbs are digested more slowly, they provide sustained energy and help you feel full for longer (11).
Complex Carbs May Reduce Your Risk of Some Chronic Diseases
Consuming complex carbs may help lower your risk of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17).
They tend to be high in dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and plant compounds. All of these components play a role in disease prevention (18, 19).
Furthermore, studies have found that eating whole foods high in dietary fiber may lower "bad" LDL cholesterol and blood sugar levels, as well as help raise "good" HDL cholesterol (20, 21, 22).
Complex Carbs Promote a Healthier Digestive System
There are billions of "good" bacteria lining your intestines. They're known as your gut microbiota.
They play a role in managing several digestive disorders and have been linked to various other aspects of health (22, 23, 24).
Soluble fibers found in complex carbs feed the beneficial bacteria and increase their presence in your gut. They also help the bacteria produce nutrients, such as short-chain fatty acids, which are beneficial for digestive health (23).
Complex Carbs May Reduce Inflammation
Inflammation is the body's natural response to infection or injury. However, long-term inflammation can increase the risk of several chronic diseases (25).
While sugary foods and refined flours promote inflammation, complex carbs help reduce inflammation (26).
Single-ingredient whole grains, fruits, vegetables and legumes contain fiber and plant compounds that have anti-inflammatory properties (27, 28).
Bottom Line: Complex carbs like whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables have multiple health benefits.
Simple Carbs Can Be Detrimental to Your Health
Simple carbs like refined grains and added sugars are horrible for your body.
Below are some of the detrimental health effects of simple carbs:
- They contribute to overeating: Simple carbs break down quickly and cause a blood sugar roller coaster. Studies have found that these blood sugar spikes and crashes contribute to cravings, hunger and overeating (7, 8, 29).
- High triglyceride levels: Large amounts of refined carbs can lead to elevated triglyceride levels, which increase the risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes (3, 30, 31, 32).
- Increased heart disease risk: Sugar and refined grains increase heart disease risk. A study found those who ate the most refined grains were 2–3 times more likely to develop heart disease than those who ate the least (33, 34, 35, 36, 37).
- Increased risk of type 2 diabetes: Excessive consumption of simple carbs can cause your cells to become resistant to insulin, which greatly increases your risk of type 2 diabetes (34, 38, 39, 40, 41).
- Sugar is addictive for some people: Similarly to recreational drugs, sugar causes the brain to release dopamine. For people that are prone to addiction, sugar can be highly addictive (42, 43).
- Increased chance of becoming obese: Simple carbs harm the hormones that regulate appetite, making them likely to contribute to obesity (29, 44).
Bottom Line: A diet high in refined carbs can have multiple negative health consequences.
Which Foods to Eat and Which Foods to Avoid
Carbs can be a healthy part of your diet if you choose the right ones.
The healthiest carbs are from foods that are in their whole, unprocessed form.
Complex Carbs to Eat
The following foods are good carbs to include in your diet:
- Whole grains: Whole, unprocessed grains like oats, quinoa, barley and brown rice.
- Legumes: Lentils, black beans, kidney beans, black-eyed peas, etc.
- Vegetables: Sweet potatoes, broccoli, green beans, carrots, asparagus, etc.
- Fruits: Apples, berries, oranges, kiwi, etc.
- Nuts and seeds: Almonds, walnuts, peanuts, chia seeds, etc.
Refined Carbs to Limit or Avoid
These foods tend to contain mostly refined carbs and should be limited:
- Sugary beverages: Soft drinks, sweetened tea, sports drinks, fruit juices, etc.
- Desserts and sweets: Donuts, cakes, cookies, ice cream, candy, etc.
- White bread: This includes "white wheat" bread.
- White pastas: These are made from refined wheat flour.
Bottom Line: Complex carbs that are in their whole form are generally healthy foods that are rich in fiber and nutrients.
Take Home Message
Complex carbs are far more nutritious than simple carbs.
They are high in nutrients and fiber and eating them on a regular basis can be beneficial for your health and waistline.
On the other hand, simple carbs provide little to no nutritional value and should be avoided as much as possible.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Authority Nutrition.
These longer periods of stratification could have "far-reaching implications" for lake ecosystems, the paper says, and can drive toxic algal blooms, fish die-offs and increased methane emissions.
The study, published in Nature Communications, finds that the average seasonal lake stratification period in the northern hemisphere could last almost two weeks longer by the end of the century, even under a low emission scenario. It finds that stratification could last over a month longer if emissions are extremely high.
If stratification periods continue to lengthen, "we can expect catastrophic changes to some lake ecosystems, which may have irreversible impacts on ecological communities," the lead author of the study tells Carbon Brief.
The study also finds that larger lakes will see more notable changes. For example, the North American Great Lakes, which house "irreplaceable biodiversity" and represent some of the world's largest freshwater ecosystems, are already experiencing "rapid changes" in their stratification periods, according to the study.
'Fatal Consequences'
As temperatures rise in the spring, many lakes begin the process of "stratification." Warm air heats the surface of the lake, heating the top layer of water, which separates out from the cooler layers of water beneath.
The stratified layers do not mix easily and the greater the temperature difference between the layers, the less mixing there is. Lakes generally stratify between spring and autumn, when hot weather maintains the temperature gradient between warm surface water and colder water deeper down.
Dr Richard Woolway from the European Space Agency is the lead author of the paper, which finds that climate change is driving stratification to begin earlier and end later. He tells Carbon Brief that the impacts of stratification are "widespread and extensive," and that longer periods of stratification could have "irreversible impacts" on ecosystems.
For example, Dr Dominic Vachon – a postdoctoral fellow from the Climate Impacts Research Centre at Umea University, who was not involved in the study – explains that stratification can create a "physical barrier" that makes it harder for dissolved gases and particles to move between the layers of water.
This can prevent the oxygen from the surface of the water from sinking deeper into the lake and can lead to "deoxygenation" in the depths of the water, where oxygen levels are lower and respiration becomes more difficult.
Oxygen depletion can have "fatal consequences for living organisms," according to Dr Bertram Boehrer, a researcher at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, who was not involved in the study.
Lead author Woolway tells Carbon Brief that the decrease in oxygen levels at deeper depths traps fish in the warmer surface waters:
"Fish often migrate to deeper waters during the summer to escape warmer conditions at the surface – for example during a lake heatwave. A decrease in oxygen at depth will mean that fish will have no thermal refuge, as they often can't survive when oxygen concentrations are too low."
This can be very harmful for lake life and can even increase "fish die-off events" the study notes.
However, the impacts of stratification are not limited to fish. The study notes that a shift to earlier stratification in spring can also encourage communities of phytoplankton – a type of algae – to grow sooner, and can put them out of sync with the species that rely on them for food. This is called a "trophic mismatch."
Prof Catherine O'Reilly, a professor of geography, geology and the environment at Illinois State University, who was not involved in the study, adds that longer stratified periods could also "increase the likelihood of harmful algae blooms."
The impact of climate change on lakes also extends beyond ecosystems. Low oxygen levels in lakes can enhance the production of methane, which is "produced in and emitted from lakes at globally significant rates," according to the study.
Woolway explains that higher levels of warming could therefore create a positive climate feedback in lakes, where rising temperatures mean larger planet-warming emissions:
"Low oxygen levels at depth also promotes methane production in lake sediments, which can then be released to the surface either via bubbles or by diffusion, resulting in a positive feedback to climate change."
Onset and Breakup
In the study, the authors determine historical changes in lake stratification periods using long-term observational data from some of the "best-monitored lakes in the world" and daily simulations from a collection of lake models.
They also run simulations of future changes in lake stratification period under three different emission scenarios, to determine how the process could change in the future. The study focuses on lakes in the northern hemisphere.
The figure below shows the average change in lake stratification days between 1900 and 2099, compared to the 1970-1999 average. The plot shows historical measurements (black), and the low emission RCP2.6 (blue), mid emissions RCP6.0 (yellow) and extremely high emissions RCP8.5 (red) scenarios.
Change in lake stratification duration compared to the 1970-1999 average, for historical measurements (black), the low emission RCP2.6 (blue) moderate emissions RCP6.0 (yellow) and extremely high emissions RCP8.5 (red). Credit: Woolway et al (2021).
The plot shows that the average lake stratification period has already lengthened. However, the study adds that some lakes are seeing more significant impacts than others.
For example, Blelham Tarn – the most well-monitored lake in the English Lake District – is now stratifying 24 days earlier and maintaining its stratification for an extra 18 days compared to its 1963-1972 averages, the study finds. Woolway tells Carbon Brief that as a result, the lake is already showing signs of oxygen depletion.
Climate change is increasing average stratification duration in lakes, the findings show, by moving the onset of stratification earlier and pushing the stratification "breakup" later. The table below shows projected changes in the onset, breakup and overall length of lake stratification under different emission scenarios, compared to a 1970-1999 baseline.
The table shows that even under the low emission scenario, the lake stratification period is expected to be 13 days longer by the end of the century. However, in the extremely high emissions scenario, it could be 33 days longer.
The table also shows that stratification onset has changed more significantly than stratification breakup. The reasons why are revealed by looking at the drivers of stratification more closely.
Warmer Weather and Weaker Winds
The timing of stratification onset and breakup in lakes is driven by two main factors – temperature and wind speed.
The impact of temperature on lake stratification is based on the fact that warm water is less dense than cool water, Woolway tells Carbon Brief:
"Warming of the water's surface by increasing air temperature causes the density of water to decrease and likewise results in distinct thermal layers within a lake to form – cooler, denser water settles to the bottom of the lake, while warmer, lighter water forms a layer on top."
This means that, as climate change causes temperatures to rise, lakes will begin to stratify earlier and remain stratified for longer. Lakes in higher altitudes are also likely to see greater changes in stratification, Woolway tells Carbon Brief, because "the prolonging of summer is very apparent in high latitude regions."
The figure below shows the expected increase in stratification duration from lakes in the northern hemisphere under the low (left), mid (center), and high (right) emission scenarios. Deeper colors indicate a larger increase in stratification period.
Expected increase in stratification duration in lakes in the northern hemisphere under the low (left), mid (centre) and high (right) emissions scenarios. Credit: Woolway et al (2021).
The figure shows that the expected impact of climate change on stratification duration becomes more pronounced at more northerly high latitudes.
The second factor is wind speed, Woolway explains:
"Wind speed also affects the timing of stratification onset and breakdown, with stronger winds acting to mix the water column, thus acting against the stratifying effect of increasing air temperature."
According to the study, wind speed is expected to decrease slightly as the planet warms. The authors note that the expected changes in near-surface wind speed are "relatively minor" compared to the likely temperature increase, but they add that it may still cause "substantial" changes in stratification.
The study finds that air temperature is the most important factor behind when a lake will begin to stratify. However, when looking at stratification breakup, it finds that wind speed is a more important driver.
Meanwhile, Vachon says that wind speeds also have implications for methane emissions from lakes. He notes that stratification prevents the methane produced on the bottom of the lake from rising and that, when the stratification period ends, methane is allowed to rise to the surface. However, according to Vachon, the speed of stratification breakup will affect how much methane is released into the atmosphere:
"My work has suggested that the amount of accumulated methane in bottom waters that will be finally emitted is related to how quickly the stratification break-up occurs. For example, a slow and progressive stratification break-up will most likely allow water oxygenation and allow the bacteria to oxidise methane into carbon dioxide. However, a stratification break-up that occurs rapidly – for example after storm events with high wind speed – will allow the accumulated methane to be emitted to the atmosphere more efficiently."
Finally, the study finds that large lakes take longer to stratify in spring and typically remain stratified for longer in the autumn – due to their higher volume of water. For example, the authors highlight the North American Great Lakes, which house "irreplaceable biodiversity" and represent some of the world's largest freshwater ecosystems.
These lakes have been stratifying 3.5 days earlier every decade since 1980, the authors find, and their stratification onset can vary by up to 48 days between some extreme years.
O'Reilly tells Carbon Brief that "it's clear that these changes will be moving lakes into uncharted territory" and adds that the paper "provides a framework for thinking about how much lakes will change under future climate scenarios."
Reposted with permission from Carbon Brief.
Currently the U.S. Supreme Court has on its docket a case between Texas, New Mexico and Colorado and another one between Mississippi and Tennessee. The court has already ruled this term on cases pitting Texas against New Mexico and Florida against Georgia.
Climate stresses are raising the stakes. Rising temperatures require farmers to use more water to grow the same amount of crops. Prolonged and severe droughts decrease available supplies. Wildfires are burning hotter and lasting longer. Fires bake the soil, reducing forests' ability to hold water, increasing evaporation from barren land and compromising water supplies.
As a longtime observer of interstate water negotiations, I see a basic problem: In some cases, more water rights exist on paper than as wet water – even before factoring in shortages caused by climate change and other stresses. In my view, states should put at least as much effort into reducing water use as they do into litigation, because there are no guaranteed winners in water lawsuits.
Alabama, pay attention to Supreme Court ruling against Florida in water war #Water #SDG6 https://t.co/wIjdoY6Ccr— Noah J. Sabich (@Noah J. Sabich)1617800452.0
Dry Times in the West
The situation is most urgent in California and the Southwest, which currently face "extreme or exceptional" drought conditions. California's reservoirs are half-empty at the end of the rainy season. The Sierra snowpack sits at 60% of normal. In March 2021, federal and state agencies that oversee California's Central Valley Project and State Water Project – regional water systems that each cover hundreds of miles – issued "remarkably bleak warnings" about cutbacks to farmers' water allocations.
The Colorado River Basin is mired in a drought that began in 2000. Experts disagree as to how long it could last. What's certain is that the "Law of the River" – the body of rules, regulations and laws governing the Colorado River – has allocated more water to the states than the river reliably provides.
The 1922 Colorado River Compact allocated 7.5 million acre-feet (one acre-foot is roughly 325,000 gallons) to California, Nevada and Arizona, and another 7.5 million acre-feet to Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. A treaty with Mexico secured that country 1.5 million acre-feet, for a total of 16.5 million acre-feet. However, estimates based on tree ring analysis have determined that the actual yearly flow of the river over the last 1,200 years is roughly 14.6 million acre-feet.
The inevitable train wreck has not yet happened, for two reasons. First, Lakes Mead and Powell – the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado – can hold a combined 56 million acre-feet, roughly four times the river's annual flow.
But diversions and increased evaporation due to drought are reducing water levels in the reservoirs. As of Dec. 16, 2020, both lakes were less than half full.
Second, the Upper Basin states – Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico – have never used their full allotment. Now, however, they want to use more water. Wyoming has several new dams on the drawing board. So does Colorado, which is also planning a new diversion from the headwaters of the Colorado River to Denver and other cities on the Rocky Mountains' east slope.
Drought conditions in the continental U.S. on April 13, 2021. U.S. Drought Monitor, CC BY-ND
Utah Stakes a Claim
The most controversial proposal comes from one of the nation's fastest-growing areas: St. George, Utah, home to approximately 90,000 residents and lots of golf courses. St. George has very high water consumption rates and very low water prices. The city is proposing to augment its water supply with a 140-mile pipeline from Lake Powell, which would carry 86,000 acre-feet per year.
Truth be told, that's not a lot of water, and it would not exceed Utah's unused allocation from the Colorado River. But the six other Colorado River Basin states have protested as though St. George were asking for their firstborn child.
In a joint letter dated Sept. 8, 2020, the other states implored the Interior Department to refrain from issuing a final environmental review of the pipeline until all seven states could "reach consensus regarding legal and operational concerns." The letter explicitly threatened a high "probability of multi-year litigation."
Utah blinked. Having earlier insisted on an expedited pipeline review, the state asked federal officials on Sept. 24, 2020 to delay a decision. But Utah has not given up: In March 2021, Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill creating a Colorado River Authority of Utah, armed with a $9 million legal defense fund, to protect Utah's share of Colorado River water. One observer predicted "huge, huge litigation."
How huge could it be? In 1930, Arizona sued California in an epic battle that did not end until 2006. Arizona prevailed by finally securing a fixed allocation from the water apportioned to California, Nevada and Arizona.
Litigation or Conservation
Before Utah takes the precipitous step of appealing to the Supreme Court under the court's original jurisdiction over disputes between states, it might explore other solutions. Water conservation and reuse make obvious sense in St. George, where per-person water consumption is among the nation's highest.
St. George could emulate its neighbor, Las Vegas, which has paid residents up to $3 per square foot to rip out lawns and replace them with native desert landscaping. In April 2021 Las Vegas went further, asking the Nevada Legislature to outlaw ornamental grass.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority estimates that the Las Vegas metropolitan area has eight square miles of "nonfunctional turf" – grass that no one ever walks on except the person who cuts it. Removing it would reduce the region's water consumption by 15%.
Water rights litigation is fraught with uncertainty. Just ask Florida, which thought it had a strong case that Georgia's water diversions from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin were harming its oyster fishery downstream.
That case extended over 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court ended the final chapter in April 2021. The court used a procedural rule that places the burden on plaintiffs to provide "clear and convincing evidence." Florida failed to convince the court, and walked away with nothing.
Robert Glennon is a Regents Professor and Morris K. Udall Professor of Law & Public Policy, University of Arizona.
Disclosure statement: Robert Glennon received funding from the National Science Foundation in the 1990s and 2000s.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.