Good carbs
Options
Replies
-
williams969 wrote: »Sagenettle wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »Sagenettle wrote: »Yikes just saw all these replies. Sorry guys, guess I was just channeling my nutrition professor stressing against all the "white" carbs.
So no cauliflower, onions, mushrooms or garlic? Darn, if it were that easy I would've gone for that nutrition minor in college.
Haha, no. I was oversimplifying it. By "white" she mostly meant refined white flour-type carbs and that brown rice is more nutrient dense than white (I know, the difference is not drastic) and specifically with the sweet potato the high content of vitamin A and C. I can assure you she never told us to avoid any of the things you listed.
Your professor is not right. The sweet potato has 4% RDA of Vit C per 100g raw. Hardly a "high" Vit C food. Other than the Vit A, white (or Idaho russet) potatoes are very similar to sweet potatoes nutritionally.
And russets make better fries (totally my opinion, obvs).
I tried sweet potato fries. Maybe it's an acquired taste, but I found it to be kind of awful. Gimme those russets.
Also for seventy calories, I can eat a bag of my favorite fruit snacks and get 100% DV of vitamin C. That's a better deal for me.0 -
I don’t know why so many people are being kind of rude on this thread and treating this like a dumb question. A calorie = a calorie = a calorie is definitely false. Yeah, you can lose weight eating twinkies but what’s gonna fill you up more, 3 twinkies or 2 cups of brown rice? You gonna be hungry an hour after your twinkies? probably. Someone suggested a McDonalds fry, but a small fry has more calories than one cup of brown rice! Which will keep you hungrier? Which will
A carbohydrate is a chemical way of saying stored energy - that’s your calories! So a “good” carb is typically a name for a complex carb and a “bad” carb is a simple carb. Complex carbs require your body to process them longer to break them up to access the stored energy, while the simple carbs require much less work on your body’s part to break them up. The result is, you stay fuller longer eating complex carbs while your body has to break them up, while a simple carb gets quickly digested, calories absorbed, and waste pushed along.
One way of thinking about figuring out whether a carbohydrate is complex or simple is to think about the level of processing already completed in the factory: the bread you eat, even if it’s “whole grain” has already had some processing. On the other hand, the white bread has gotten a lot more processing - while substituting the bread for an unprocessed carb might seem like a good idea, you can also take the whole-grain, knowing that it will take longer for your body to process, keeping you fuller longer.
My go-to complex carbs are things like brown rice, whole grain bread, quinoa, sweet potato, etc. You can look at a lot more factors (fiber, protein, et cetera), but usually if there’s a “white” version of a carb and a “brown” version, go for the brown. (Whole grain bread vs white bread, brown rice vs white rice, et cetera).
The difference might not look that big (“But there’s whole wheat flour in white bread!”) but believe me, your body can tell the difference.-5 -
astridtheviking wrote: »
The difference might not look that big (“But there’s whole wheat flour in white bread!”) but believe me, your body can tell the difference.
Nope.0 -
In for more discussion on how some kcal are more caloric than another kcal depending on source and magic.0
-
williams969 wrote: »Sagenettle wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »Sagenettle wrote: »Yikes just saw all these replies. Sorry guys, guess I was just channeling my nutrition professor stressing against all the "white" carbs.
So no cauliflower, onions, mushrooms or garlic? Darn, if it were that easy I would've gone for that nutrition minor in college.
Haha, no. I was oversimplifying it. By "white" she mostly meant refined white flour-type carbs and that brown rice is more nutrient dense than white (I know, the difference is not drastic) and specifically with the sweet potato the high content of vitamin A and C. I can assure you she never told us to avoid any of the things you listed.
Your professor is not right. The sweet potato has 4% RDA of Vit C per 100g raw. Hardly a "high" Vit C food. Other than the Vit A, white (or Idaho russet) potatoes are very similar to sweet potatoes nutritionally.
And russets make better fries (totally my opinion, obvs).
The best fries are made from duck fat, duck fat, and more duck fat. With some salt.0 -
That's not the point... at all.astridtheviking wrote: »I don’t know why so many people are being kind of rude on this thread and treating this like a dumb question. A calorie = a calorie = a calorie is definitely false. Yeah, you can lose weight eating twinkies but what’s gonna fill you up more, 3 twinkies or 2 cups of brown rice? You gonna be hungry an hour after your twinkies? probably. Someone suggested a McDonalds fry, but a small fry has more calories than one cup of brown rice! Which will keep you hungrier?
ETA: sometimes I don't want to feel full, sometimes I want a twinkie!0 -
As you can see already, carbs are a ridiculously touchy subject on this site.
What carb sources are good or bad really varies from person to person. If you have diabetes or insulin resistance, then you should limit carbs altogether, and when you do eat them focus on slow digesting carbs. The higher the protein or fiber content, the slower food is digested so you don't get the blood sugar spike you do with fast digestion.
Getting most of your carbs from slow digesting sources is not a bad idea for anyone really, because slower digestion means you'll feel full longer. Pasta can be either slow or fast digesting, depending on how long it's cooked. Al dente digests slower.
But if you have no dietary restrictions and just need a few extra carbs, there's nothing wrong with having a cookie or some other sweet treat. As long as you can stop at just one or two, that is.
-1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »As you can see already, carbs are a ridiculously touchy subject on this site.
No kidding, definitely learned my lesson.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »I never heard of anyone losing fat by eating Twinkies. Ever heard of visceral fat and skinny fat syndrome????
Yes, as noted above. To add to that there's also this one;
Teacher Loses 37 Pounds After Eating Only Mcdonalds For 3 Months.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
0 -
A banana has 30g of carbs.
And it's delicious! Try a banana ice cream! It easy, delicious, and you can add WHATEVER you want to it. Chocolate chips, nuts, etc. If you eat for 2 bananas worth, it's 60g of carbs! Here's a recipe: http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-creamy-ice-cream-with-just-one-ingredient-cooking-lessons-from-the-kitchn-93414 0 -
Sagenettle wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »As you can see already, carbs are a ridiculously touchy subject on this site.
No kidding, definitely learned my lesson.
Are you sure you learned?-1 -
In for more discussion on how some kcal are more caloric than another kcal depending on source and magic.
Nobody said that some calories are “more caloric” depending on source. What’s being said is that some foods will fill you up more based on other macros. Let’s compare:
1.5 oz hershey’s chocolate = 210 calories
7 cups broccoli = 210 calories
Which will keep you full longer? Which will keep your blood sugar from spiking? Which can I eat more of?
That is the point. Yeah, you can eat 10 hershey’s bar and count that as your 2100 calories for the day. But you’re gonna be hungry as hell. By contrast, if you eat a meal more based in lower-processed foods you can eat more food. I wouldn’t recommend eating either 10 chocolate bars or 70 cups of broccoli in a day as your meal, but it’s easy to see that one of these will fill your stomach longer. That’s not to say you can’t or shouldn’t have a [shock, horror] foods that are fried or contain sugar, et cetera that we traditionally look at as “unhealthy.” But when looking for a healthy side to a meal, as OP says she is doing, brown rice might be a little more helpful to her.
Not everyone is looking for the same thing out of their diet; by all means, fill your diet with the foods you want, that you like, and that make you happy - but also know that other people are looking for other things in their foods.-3 -
Ted did while he was trying to hypnotize me.astridtheviking wrote: »In for more discussion on how some kcal are more caloric than another kcal depending on source and magic.
Nobody said that some calories are “more caloric” depending on source. What’s being said is that some foods will fill you up more based on other macros. Let’s compare:
1.5 oz hershey’s chocolate = 210 calories
7 cups broccoli = 210 calories
Which will keep you full longer? Which will keep your blood sugar from spiking? Which can I eat more of?
That is the point. Yeah, you can eat 10 hershey’s bar and count that as your 2100 calories for the day. But you’re gonna be hungry as hell. By contrast, if you eat a meal more based in lower-processed foods you can eat more food. I wouldn’t recommend eating either 10 chocolate bars or 70 cups of broccoli in a day as your meal, but it’s easy to see that one of these will fill your stomach longer. That’s not to say you can’t or shouldn’t have a [shock, horror] foods that are fried or contain sugar, et cetera that we traditionally look at as “unhealthy.” But when looking for a healthy side to a meal, as OP says she is doing, brown rice might be a little more helpful to her.
Not everyone is looking for the same thing out of their diet; by all means, fill your diet with the foods you want, that you like, and that make you happy - but also know that other people are looking for other things in their foods.
tl;dr the white knighting. Clif's?
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »As a diabetic, I have to be concerned about 'good' and 'bad' carbs. Here is a rule of thumb: If the carb is highly processed (such as white rice) then that is a bad carb as it will turn to sugar without giving your pancreas enough time to produce the insilin to convert the sugar to energy. Try to stick with whole grains, nut products (Blue Diamond has a line of crackers made out of almonds and pecans), fruit (a large navel orange as 32 carbs). Let's be realistic: We are going to have a slice of pizza and sometimes some regular pasta. Plan for it. Another good substitue is sweet potatos instead of regular potatos. All of these break down slower thus allowing the insilin to produce and convert the sugar. Also because they have more bulk and nutrients, you are less likely to binge.
This deserves a bump, so does Sagenettle.
There's a big misconception on metabolics on this site with some users regarding the difference between a simple carb and a complex carb. Thankfully, we have responses such as the ones I bumped above that satisfy the question being asked.
I never heard of anyone losing fat by eating Twinkies. Ever heard of visceral fat and skinny fat syndrome????
The component of calories DO matter. Not all calories are alike.
Many on this site purport there is no Zero Sum Game when it comes to caloric intake, but that's not even close to being true.
Take regular pasta and it's nutritional content against let's say... almonds - same calorie count. Which one processes faster, which one stores as fat easier, which one is worse for wear over the long run???
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/ < now you have
calorie is a calorie is a calorie ...
I don't really get your comparison of pasta to almonds. One is a snack and one is a dinner food...
Fat is stored in a surplus..
fat is burned in a deficit...
Yup,
"Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent"0 -
astridtheviking wrote: »I don’t know why so many people are being kind of rude on this thread and treating this like a dumb question. A calorie = a calorie = a calorie is definitely false. Yeah, you can lose weight eating twinkies but what’s gonna fill you up more, 3 twinkies or 2 cups of brown rice? You gonna be hungry an hour after your twinkies? probably. Someone suggested a McDonalds fry, but a small fry has more calories than one cup of brown rice! Which will keep you hungrier? Which will
A carbohydrate is a chemical way of saying stored energy - that’s your calories! So a “good” carb is typically a name for a complex carb and a “bad” carb is a simple carb. Complex carbs require your body to process them longer to break them up to access the stored energy, while the simple carbs require much less work on your body’s part to break them up. The result is, you stay fuller longer eating complex carbs while your body has to break them up, while a simple carb gets quickly digested, calories absorbed, and waste pushed along.
One way of thinking about figuring out whether a carbohydrate is complex or simple is to think about the level of processing already completed in the factory: the bread you eat, even if it’s “whole grain” has already had some processing. On the other hand, the white bread has gotten a lot more processing - while substituting the bread for an unprocessed carb might seem like a good idea, you can also take the whole-grain, knowing that it will take longer for your body to process, keeping you fuller longer.
My go-to complex carbs are things like brown rice, whole grain bread, quinoa, sweet potato, etc. You can look at a lot more factors (fiber, protein, et cetera), but usually if there’s a “white” version of a carb and a “brown” version, go for the brown. (Whole grain bread vs white bread, brown rice vs white rice, et cetera).
The difference might not look that big (“But there’s whole wheat flour in white bread!”) but believe me, your body can tell the difference.
Sorry but a calorie is a calorie. If it's not then what is it?
How can your body tell the difference between white bread and whole wheat bread. Tell us how it really does that, not what you think.
It's a kilocalorie, obviously.
Some are more kilocaloric than others, apparently. Since a kcal is not a kcal is not a kcal.0 -
Sagenettle wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »As you can see already, carbs are a ridiculously touchy subject on this site.
No kidding, definitely learned my lesson.
Are you sure you learned?
Learned that carbs are a really touchy topic on this site? Learned to not get involved in discussions like this in the future? Yes, I'm sure.
0 -
astridtheviking wrote: »In for more discussion on how some kcal are more caloric than another kcal depending on source and magic.
Nobody said that some calories are “more caloric” depending on source. What’s being said is that some foods will fill you up more based on other macros. Let’s compare:
1.5 oz hershey’s chocolate = 210 calories
7 cups broccoli = 210 calories
Which will keep you full longer? Which will keep your blood sugar from spiking? Which can I eat more of?
That is the point. Yeah, you can eat 10 hershey’s bar and count that as your 2100 calories for the day. But you’re gonna be hungry as hell. By contrast, if you eat a meal more based in lower-processed foods you can eat more food. I wouldn’t recommend eating either 10 chocolate bars or 70 cups of broccoli in a day as your meal, but it’s easy to see that one of these will fill your stomach longer. That’s not to say you can’t or shouldn’t have a [shock, horror] foods that are fried or contain sugar, et cetera that we traditionally look at as “unhealthy.” But when looking for a healthy side to a meal, as OP says she is doing, brown rice might be a little more helpful to her.
Not everyone is looking for the same thing out of their diet; by all means, fill your diet with the foods you want, that you like, and that make you happy - but also know that other people are looking for other things in their foods.
Once again, people are confusing energy input and output with nutrition and satiety.
A calorie is a calorie in how your body uses energy.
Different foods and macros make a difference in how you feel and how many nutrients you get. This part is different for every person and can have a mental aspect as well as physical. In your scenario (Hershey bar vs. broccoli). One day the broccoli might be more satisfying but on a different day the Hershey bar may be more satisfying.
0 -
Nobody said that some calories are “more caloric” depending on source. What’s being said is that some foods will fill you up more based on other macros. Let’s compare:
1.5 oz hershey’s chocolate = 210 calories
7 cups broccoli = 210 calories
Which will keep you full longer? Which will keep your blood sugar from spiking? Which can I eat more of?
1. Satiety is personal. For example, fiber means just exactly nothing to me when it comes to satiety over hours. Fat, on the other hand, does wonders for me. A fiber-filled stir fry will keep me full for about half an hour. Some cheese is much more effective over time.
2. I promise you that I would regret eating 7 cups of broccoli more than 1.5 ounces of chocolate. Just thinking about it causes some cramping.
As long as one's nutritional needs (micro and macro) are being met, and that person feels satisfied, stop trying to think that huge amounts of vegetables are some sort of miracle. You don't get bonus nutrition points for shoveling kale in your mouth.0 -
astridtheviking wrote: »I don’t know why so many people are being kind of rude on this thread and treating this like a dumb question. A calorie = a calorie = a calorie is definitely false. Yeah, you can lose weight eating twinkies but what’s gonna fill you up more, 3 twinkies or 2 cups of brown rice? You gonna be hungry an hour after your twinkies? probably. Someone suggested a McDonalds fry, but a small fry has more calories than one cup of brown rice! Which will keep you hungrier? Which will
A carbohydrate is a chemical way of saying stored energy - that’s your calories! So a “good” carb is typically a name for a complex carb and a “bad” carb is a simple carb. Complex carbs require your body to process them longer to break them up to access the stored energy, while the simple carbs require much less work on your body’s part to break them up. The result is, you stay fuller longer eating complex carbs while your body has to break them up, while a simple carb gets quickly digested, calories absorbed, and waste pushed along.
One way of thinking about figuring out whether a carbohydrate is complex or simple is to think about the level of processing already completed in the factory: the bread you eat, even if it’s “whole grain” has already had some processing. On the other hand, the white bread has gotten a lot more processing - while substituting the bread for an unprocessed carb might seem like a good idea, you can also take the whole-grain, knowing that it will take longer for your body to process, keeping you fuller longer.
My go-to complex carbs are things like brown rice, whole grain bread, quinoa, sweet potato, etc. You can look at a lot more factors (fiber, protein, et cetera), but usually if there’s a “white” version of a carb and a “brown” version, go for the brown. (Whole grain bread vs white bread, brown rice vs white rice, et cetera).
The difference might not look that big (“But there’s whole wheat flour in white bread!”) but believe me, your body can tell the difference.
you are confusing calories (energy) with satiety..two different concepts..
and yes a calories is a calorie is a calorie = they are a unit of energy ..
rice may fill you up more than twinkies...but you can have a diet that consists of eggs, chicken, vegetable, rice, AND twinkies and there is nothing wrong wit that..
if a calorie is not a calorie ..does that mean I can eat 5000 calories of brown rice and chicken and lose weight..?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions