What are the bad carbs?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Every single one of your posts has to do with Twinkies or Donuts. What's your obsession with making up stories of how people eat? Then you always say 98 or 99% of the people eat that. I guess I'm in the 1% because it's been years.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Your obsession with twinkies is showing again.prettykitty1515 wrote: »Twinkies are bad carbs, based on the recommendations of 99 out of 100 diets. And guess which is the one lone diet that tells you that when it comes to carbs, they are all the same, whether they are from Twinkies or veggies?
OK, how about Devil Dogs?
My theory was validated. MFP is the one pro-Twinkie (or pro-Devil Dog) diet.
I can't eat either due to allergies so I'll join you in the 1%.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Every single one of your posts has to do with Twinkies or Donuts. What's your obsession with making up stories of how people eat? Then you always say 98 or 99% of the people eat that. I guess I'm in the 1% because it's been years.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Your obsession with twinkies is showing again.prettykitty1515 wrote: »Twinkies are bad carbs, based on the recommendations of 99 out of 100 diets. And guess which is the one lone diet that tells you that when it comes to carbs, they are all the same, whether they are from Twinkies or veggies?
OK, how about Devil Dogs?
My theory was validated. MFP is the one pro-Twinkie (or pro-Devil Dog) diet.
I can't eat either due to allergies so I'll join you in the 1%.
Nice. I guess it's a party.
May I join? I've never had a twinkie, and I don't like doughnuts. Last time I had a doughnut was in 2002.0 -
Every single one of your posts has to do with Twinkies or Donuts. What's your obsession with making up stories of how people eat? Then you always say 98 or 99% of the people eat that. I guess I'm in the 1% because it's been years.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Your obsession with twinkies is showing again.prettykitty1515 wrote: »Twinkies are bad carbs, based on the recommendations of 99 out of 100 diets. And guess which is the one lone diet that tells you that when it comes to carbs, they are all the same, whether they are from Twinkies or veggies?
OK, how about Devil Dogs?
My theory was validated. MFP is the one pro-Twinkie (or pro-Devil Dog) diet.
I can't eat either due to allergies so I'll join you in the 1%.
Nice. I guess it's a party.
Joining the party. I don't eat them either.
I do, however have to have a laugh at the idea of being "pro-Devil Dog" (or Twinkie, or Donut). I'm imagining a crowd, with signs. With pictures. Half the crowd has thumbs up under the images of the snack cakes, the rest has the confections in the middle of those big red circles with the lines through them. The crowd trash talks and hurls insults at each other. A big straw man sits on stage, looking out over the crowd, and smiles.
0 -
I regularly eat donuts but I've never had a twinkie
http://www.moreteawesley.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/xander_twinkie.gif0 -
Oreo cookies could be considered bad carbs. If those are bad, I don't wanna be good!
Another bad carb could be alcohol. Actually the calories are from hydrocarbons, not carbohydrates. But if I can't have a dram of good Scotch occasionally, what's the point?
In moderation. Especially the Oreos.
Thanks for mentioning Twinkies. Now I'm jonseing for Twinkies. They have to be good for you - instead of a expiration date, they have a half-life.0 -
carbs are generally very good. Many healthy world diets have their basis in carbs like rice and pasta. However, you are vulnerable to problems with carbs if you eat very large portions, don't exercise regularly, don't get enough fat, protein, and fiber.0
-
Carbohydrate, consumed in sufficient quantity, will absolutely stimulate weight gain in a way other nutrients do not, due in part to the action on the hormone insulin, which is essentially a handbrake for your metabolism.
Different people seem to be born with different 'tolerances', that is, some can eat more carbohydrate than others and not have any ill effects. Others may start seeing effects in teenagerhood. One possible reason for this diversity is ancestry.
I am not denying personal responsibility, it plays a major role in one's success. However, if someone is unlucky('insulin resistant'), and continues to eat carbohydrate at a level which maintains that condition, telling them to 'just exercise more' is essentially like telling a person eating sleeping pills to 'just stay awake'. They can do it, but their entire body is screaming at them not to. This is suboptimal, as willpower is a finite resource.
When insulin resistance shows up, people start needing to eat less and less and exercise more and more, just to maintain weight, all whilst feeling like they are malnourished. They can also start getting sick with fatigue, depression, things not healing correctly and bad blood numbers.
To say that calories is all that matters is out-and-out wrong and, amusingly, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 .
Anyone who has put diesel in a petrol car should be able to appreciate that there is more to a well-running engine than just the number of calories in the tank.
There is some (a lot, in my view) evidence to suggest that the condition of insulin resistance is built up through carb-eating, specifically rapidly-absorbed (high-GI) carbs, such as juices, anything made with some kind of flour and even potatoes.
Carbs less likely to produce this condition include oatmeal.
Calories in the form of different nutrients absolutely have differing effects on the whole body, specifically on the 'calories out' side of the equation. In the grand scheme of things, one cannot control 'calories out', therefore a calorie-centric approach to energy partitioning (fattening and unfattening) is not always going to be of use.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The saddest Valentine's dessert ever:
Twinkies with raspberry jam. For two. This. This is a bad carb.0 -
obscuremusicreference wrote: »The saddest Valentine's dessert ever:
Twinkies with raspberry jam. For two. This. This is a bad carb.
Why is it bad? It actually looks cute:0 -
obscuremusicreference wrote: »The saddest Valentine's dessert ever:
Twinkies with raspberry jam. For two. This. This is a bad carb.
Why is it bad? It actually looks cute:
It does look cute, but it also says "I don't love you enough to prepare a dessert that I have to look away from my phone for. Happy Valentine's Day, your present is still in the Wal-Mart bag."0 -
obscuremusicreference wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »The saddest Valentine's dessert ever:
Twinkies with raspberry jam. For two. This. This is a bad carb.
Why is it bad? It actually looks cute:
It does look cute, but it also says "I don't love you enough to prepare a dessert that I have to look away from my phone for. Happy Valentine's Day, your present is still in the Wal-Mart bag."
to me, they are making valentines day into a joke, which i approve of. it's funny.
just sort of says they don't take a hallmark holiday seriously. says nothing about their love though.0 -
obscuremusicreference wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »The saddest Valentine's dessert ever:
Twinkies with raspberry jam. For two. This. This is a bad carb.
Why is it bad? It actually looks cute:
It does look cute, but it also says "I don't love you enough to prepare a dessert that I have to look away from my phone for. Happy Valentine's Day, your present is still in the Wal-Mart bag."
To me it says- I was really busy but still thought of you so I made do with what I could. Or his/her favorite treat could be twinkies and this was very well thought out. Just because it isn't your idea of a romantic treat, doesn't mean it isn't for someone else.0 -
obscuremusicreference wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »The saddest Valentine's dessert ever:
Twinkies with raspberry jam. For two. This. This is a bad carb.
Why is it bad? It actually looks cute:
It does look cute, but it also says "I don't love you enough to prepare a dessert that I have to look away from my phone for. Happy Valentine's Day, your present is still in the Wal-Mart bag."
they are making valentines day into a joke, which i approve of. it's funny.
I first saw this in a Woman's Day or Good Housekeeping or something. It was a three-ingredient recipe. I think it's a joke, but it was pretty earnest.0 -
obscuremusicreference wrote: »The saddest Valentine's dessert ever:
Twinkies with raspberry jam. For two. This. This is a bad carb.
Why is it bad? It actually looks cute:
It looks cute, but Twinkies are gross. They're just off-tasting grease with flour and sugar suspended in it.
0 -
i like twinkies.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »The saddest Valentine's dessert ever:
Twinkies with raspberry jam. For two. This. This is a bad carb.
Why is it bad? It actually looks cute:
It looks cute, but Twinkies are gross. They're just off-tasting grease with flour and sugar suspended in it.
One of many foods that didn't survive the change to cheaper ingredients in the late 70's/early 80's. There are only a few foods I can't have anymore that I miss. They're definitely not on the list.0 -
Well no, I don't think they would be bad for you in that case, but I'd say they're still to be eating in moderation, like the other poster said. However, I could still see it as being "bad carbs" since the "good carbs" should make up more of one's diet.njitaliana wrote: »Here are some links to help answer your question:
http://www.nutritionmd.org/nutrition_tips/nutrition_tips_understand_foods/carbs_versus.html
http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/101/nutrition-basics/good-carbs-bad-carbs.aspx
http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/carbs/simple-vs-complex-carbohydrates.html#b
So I will ask again....
What it I just finished training heavy?
What is I just finished training heavy while bulking?
Would some white bread or white rice be bad for me?
Would some write rice and steak be bad for me since the whole GI rating of the rice chages?
Bumping this because I guess those that are preaching about bad carbs didn't see it.
0 -
I have wondered about this for a while. I do have a sibling who seems to be more carb sensitive than me, and I came to the conclusion that maybe we did inherit different genes from our parents when it comes to carb tolerance.bizarrefish wrote: »Carbohydrate, consumed in sufficient quantity, will absolutely stimulate weight gain in a way other nutrients do not, due in part to the action on the hormone insulin, which is essentially a handbrake for your metabolism.
Different people seem to be born with different 'tolerances', that is, some can eat more carbohydrate than others and not have any ill effects. Others may start seeing effects in teenagerhood. One possible reason for this diversity is ancestry.
I am not denying personal responsibility, it plays a major role in one's success. However, if someone is unlucky('insulin resistant'), and continues to eat carbohydrate at a level which maintains that condition, telling them to 'just exercise more' is essentially like telling a person eating sleeping pills to 'just stay awake'. They can do it, but their entire body is screaming at them not to. This is suboptimal, as willpower is a finite resource.
When insulin resistance shows up, people start needing to eat less and less and exercise more and more, just to maintain weight, all whilst feeling like they are malnourished. They can also start getting sick with fatigue, depression, things not healing correctly and bad blood numbers.
To say that calories is all that matters is out-and-out wrong and, amusingly, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 .
Anyone who has put diesel in a petrol car should be able to appreciate that there is more to a well-running engine than just the number of calories in the tank.
There is some (a lot, in my view) evidence to suggest that the condition of insulin resistance is built up through carb-eating, specifically rapidly-absorbed (high-GI) carbs, such as juices, anything made with some kind of flour and even potatoes.
Carbs less likely to produce this condition include oatmeal.
Calories in the form of different nutrients absolutely have differing effects on the whole body, specifically on the 'calories out' side of the equation. In the grand scheme of things, one cannot control 'calories out', therefore a calorie-centric approach to energy partitioning (fattening and unfattening) is not always going to be of use.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
bizarrefish wrote: »Carbohydrate, consumed in sufficient quantity, will absolutely stimulate weight gain in a way other nutrients do not, due in part to the action on the hormone insulin, which is essentially a handbrake for your metabolism.
Different people seem to be born with different 'tolerances', that is, some can eat more carbohydrate than others and not have any ill effects. Others may start seeing effects in teenagerhood. One possible reason for this diversity is ancestry.
I am not denying personal responsibility, it plays a major role in one's success. However, if someone is unlucky('insulin resistant'), and continues to eat carbohydrate at a level which maintains that condition, telling them to 'just exercise more' is essentially like telling a person eating sleeping pills to 'just stay awake'. They can do it, but their entire body is screaming at them not to. This is suboptimal, as willpower is a finite resource.
When insulin resistance shows up, people start needing to eat less and less and exercise more and more, just to maintain weight, all whilst feeling like they are malnourished. They can also start getting sick with fatigue, depression, things not healing correctly and bad blood numbers.
To say that calories is all that matters is out-and-out wrong and, amusingly, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 .
Anyone who has put diesel in a petrol car should be able to appreciate that there is more to a well-running engine than just the number of calories in the tank.
There is some (a lot, in my view) evidence to suggest that the condition of insulin resistance is built up through carb-eating, specifically rapidly-absorbed (high-GI) carbs, such as juices, anything made with some kind of flour and even potatoes.
Carbs less likely to produce this condition include oatmeal.
Calories in the form of different nutrients absolutely have differing effects on the whole body, specifically on the 'calories out' side of the equation. In the grand scheme of things, one cannot control 'calories out', therefore a calorie-centric approach to energy partitioning (fattening and unfattening) is not always going to be of use.
I have a bone to pick with this post, and even a bigger bone to pick with that "study". Either Feinman and Fine somehow forgot how chemistry works, or they are intentionally stating things that are "technically" true on to mislead into an agenda, with some statements being blatantly wrong.. Entropy does not work in isolation in chemistry. Have they intentionally left out the energetic factor?
And what's up with using thermogenesis as a means towards their end? Wouldn't a more logical replacement be to go back to near-zero fat diets and the whole "fat makes you fat" mantra?
I'll stop there... really have no desire to discuss this.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well no, I don't think they would be bad for you in that case, but I'd say they're still to be eating in moderation, like the other poster said. However, I could still see it as being "bad carbs" since the "good carbs" should make up more of one's diet.njitaliana wrote: »Here are some links to help answer your question:
http://www.nutritionmd.org/nutrition_tips/nutrition_tips_understand_foods/carbs_versus.html
http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/101/nutrition-basics/good-carbs-bad-carbs.aspx
http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/carbs/simple-vs-complex-carbohydrates.html#b
So I will ask again....
What it I just finished training heavy?
What is I just finished training heavy while bulking?
Would some white bread or white rice be bad for me?
Would some write rice and steak be bad for me since the whole GI rating of the rice chages?
Bumping this because I guess those that are preaching about bad carbs didn't see it.
Why? Am i going to somehow get fat if I eat the same calories of "bad carbs" that I did "good carbs"?
Good and bad is subjective and based on your goals. If you want something that will digest more quickly, you'd opt for a simple carb. Maybe you'd opt for complex carbs in the AM because it keeps you fuller.
And in 40 years some scientist will probably publish a paper discussing the negatives of consuming too many complex carbs vs simple carbs and everyone will thus preach that "bad" carbs are now complex carbs.
Or you are like me and don't have any idea wtf a simple and complex carb is because food is food is food.0 -
.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have wondered about this for a while. I do have a sibling who seems to be more carb sensitive than me, and I came to the conclusion that maybe we did inherit different genes from our parents when it comes to carb tolerance.bizarrefish wrote: »Carbohydrate, consumed in sufficient quantity, will absolutely stimulate weight gain in a way other nutrients do not, due in part to the action on the hormone insulin, which is essentially a handbrake for your metabolism.
Different people seem to be born with different 'tolerances', that is, some can eat more carbohydrate than others and not have any ill effects. Others may start seeing effects in teenagerhood. One possible reason for this diversity is ancestry.
I am not denying personal responsibility, it plays a major role in one's success. However, if someone is unlucky('insulin resistant'), and continues to eat carbohydrate at a level which maintains that condition, telling them to 'just exercise more' is essentially like telling a person eating sleeping pills to 'just stay awake'. They can do it, but their entire body is screaming at them not to. This is suboptimal, as willpower is a finite resource.
When insulin resistance shows up, people start needing to eat less and less and exercise more and more, just to maintain weight, all whilst feeling like they are malnourished. They can also start getting sick with fatigue, depression, things not healing correctly and bad blood numbers.
To say that calories is all that matters is out-and-out wrong and, amusingly, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 .
Anyone who has put diesel in a petrol car should be able to appreciate that there is more to a well-running engine than just the number of calories in the tank.
There is some (a lot, in my view) evidence to suggest that the condition of insulin resistance is built up through carb-eating, specifically rapidly-absorbed (high-GI) carbs, such as juices, anything made with some kind of flour and even potatoes.
Carbs less likely to produce this condition include oatmeal.
Calories in the form of different nutrients absolutely have differing effects on the whole body, specifically on the 'calories out' side of the equation. In the grand scheme of things, one cannot control 'calories out', therefore a calorie-centric approach to energy partitioning (fattening and unfattening) is not always going to be of use.
"carb sensitive" in what way? they gain more weight when eating more carbs? in that case it's because they are eating more food than they require to maintain their weight, and carby foods can easily be calorie-dense nad thus easy to over-eat. Or maybe they have diabetes; type 2s on here will quickly chime in about how ALL carbs must be monitored, not just "bad" carbs/sugar.0 -
-
Simple ("bad") carbs are usually less nutrient-dense and raise your blood sugar faster (then drop it faster, making you feel hungry again sooner). These are things like candy, white rice, sugar, white flour, crackers, cookies, white bread, fruit juice, regular pasta, and to some extent white potatos (though they do have some redeeming fiber if you eat the skin). These are things it's best to have in moderation.
Complex ("good") carbs are usually more nutrient-dense and raise your blood sugar more slowly, for longer. They usually have more fiber, which (in addition to helping your GI system & cholesterol level) helps you feel more full for longer. These are things it's good to have more of, but keep it in a healthy amount & don't go over your calories for the day ... vegetables of all sorts, whole grains, whole grain bread, whole wheat pasta, and fruits (even though they have fructose, a simple sugar, they also have fiber).
Here's some very simply-stated info about simple & complex carbs.
http://www.kosairchildrenshospital.com/mobile.cfm?id=764&action=detail&ref=39821
And a discussion of empty calories.
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html
But for me, simple carbs are the things that got me ridiculously fast times as a runner. Simple carbs are the ones that spike my insulin to transport amino acids into my muscle cells after weight training and give me a body of someone 20 years younger. I classify them as 'GOOOOOOD'.
When I'm being sedentary, I don't need too much of them and as long as they don't take me over my calorie needs, they are delicious and healthy. I make sure I've met my macro and micro needs first though.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Every single one of your posts has to do with Twinkies or Donuts. What's your obsession with making up stories of how people eat? Then you always say 98 or 99% of the people eat that. I guess I'm in the 1% because it's been years.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Your obsession with twinkies is showing again.prettykitty1515 wrote: »Twinkies are bad carbs, based on the recommendations of 99 out of 100 diets. And guess which is the one lone diet that tells you that when it comes to carbs, they are all the same, whether they are from Twinkies or veggies?
OK, how about Devil Dogs?
My theory was validated. MFP is the one pro-Twinkie (or pro-Devil Dog) diet.
I can't eat either due to allergies so I'll join you in the 1%.
Nice. I guess it's a party.
Joining the party. I don't eat them either.
I do, however have to have a laugh at the idea of being "pro-Devil Dog" (or Twinkie, or Donut). I'm imagining a crowd, with signs. With pictures. Half the crowd has thumbs up under the images of the snack cakes, the rest has the confections in the middle of those big red circles with the lines through them. The crowd trash talks and hurls insults at each other. A big straw man sits on stage, looking out over the crowd, and smiles.
Count me in. I'd love a Twinkie. But I don't think I've seen one in 10 years plus. And donuts here suck.
So I don't eat them by default.
In that wild crowd, I'm the guy dancing to the invisible bong drums and wearing red Lycra.0 -
I just popped in to agree that Twinkies are gross.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions