What are the bad carbs?
Replies
-
Pick complex carbohydrates more often, that's all.
http://www.bellwood.ca/blog/addiction-treatment/carbohydrates-the-simple-and-complex-truth/
The water inflation method is flawed. chia seeds gotta beat them all out and they expand terrifically (insoluble fiber).
The simple vs. complex breakdown is flawed and means very little (as with fruit being a simple carb as normally defined and chips a complex carb). Also, generally-speaking foods are a mix.
I was pleased to notice, when over at diabetes.org in connection with another thread today that they don't go on about simple and complex, which is so commonly misunderstood or misused, but starches and fiber and sugars, which make up the contents of the various carbs in different proportions.
Ideally you should get a mix of these foods types of carbs, a decent amount of fiber, and watch the amount of high sugar, high calorie, low nutrient foods (although in those the calories are quite often largely from fat, not carbs and specifically not sugars).
0 -
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.
This makes no sense.
I don't even know what a Devil Dog is. Seriously, if you think everyone here wants to eat Twinkies constantly, you should see someone about your issue with projection. It's you who apparently thinks that without strict rules you'd eat Twinkies 24/7. And sorry to be a snob, but IMO that means you have poor taste.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Pick complex carbohydrates more often, that's all.
http://www.bellwood.ca/blog/addiction-treatment/carbohydrates-the-simple-and-complex-truth/
The water inflation method is flawed. chia seeds gotta beat them all out and they expand terrifically (insoluble fiber).
The simple vs. complex breakdown is flawed and means very little (as with fruit being a simple carb as normally defined and chips a complex carb). Also, generally-speaking foods are a mix.
I was pleased to notice, when over at diabetes.org in connection with another thread today that they don't go on about simple and complex, which is so commonly misunderstood or misused, but starches and fiber and sugars, which make up the contents of the various carbs in different proportions.
Ideally you should get a mix of these foods types of carbs, a decent amount of fiber, and watch the amount of high sugar, high calorie, low nutrient foods (although in those the calories are quite often largely from fat, not carbs and specifically not sugars).
Absolutely. The whole complex/simple thing should never be used.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »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.
More seriously, OP, this is right on the money.
In a sedentary world like many of us live in, you will want to watch the serving sizes and amount of carbs you eat and be careful to get a good amount of calories from protein and healthy fat and the most nutrient dense carbs like fruits and veggies (and beans and whole grains and starches like potatoes and sweet potatoes and corn are also good, but again just be careful with serving size). Plenty of other carbs are delicious and I would never cut them out of my diet, but I am conscious of how much I'm eating. If you are very active, that might be a reason to eat more carbs, of course--I tend to eat more when I'm exercising a lot.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
This makes no sense.
I don't even know what a Devil Dog is. Seriously, if you think everyone here wants to eat Twinkies constantly, you should see someone about your issue with projection. It's you who apparently thinks that without strict rules you'd eat Twinkies 24/7. And sorry to be a snob, but IMO that means you have poor taste.
Seriously. Butterscotch Krimpets are way better. At least they used to be. Who knows what happened to Tasty Kake when they stopped being local... I haven't had one of those in almost 20 years. Stupid celiac disease.
0 -
I don't eat twinkies or donuts. I do tend to eat more whole grain carbs than simple carbs because I have found that I am fuller longer and feel better with so-called "slow carbs."
However, I also eat cookies (had Girl Scout cookies today:) and fit other goodies in when and where I can, without going over calories. To me what is healthy is not only what is the most ideal diet on paper but the one you are most likely to enjoy and adhere to for the rest of your life.
That may be why 99 out of 100 anti-twinkie diets fail.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
emily_stew wrote: »I would like to be added to the list of twinkie-eaters. I've already been accused of eating solely twinkies and being a shill for Big Sugar several times in the last week or two, so I think that makes me one of the cool kids now. Might as well join the dark side. Actually, I don't really like Twinkies, but I'll take a couple of those instead:
Or a donut. MMM donuts.
PS- there's no such thing as "good" or "bad" carbs. The source and amount of carbs a person gets in their diet is dependent on context to make it good or bad (if you can even use those terms), and will also depend on a person's individual goals and needs..
I like biting the side, and then licking the cream out. Mmmmm.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
None are really bad, I just try to stay away from dessert type things, but they also involve refined sugars and fats. Nothing is bad in moderation though.-1
-
In terms of good and bad carbs, I wasn't referring to weight control, but rather the overall nutrient density of the carb source. In other words, the carb sources with the most nutrients should make up the majority of one's diet while the carb sources that are lacking in micros should be eaten in moderation.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 -
The only "bad" food, is rotten food.0
-
Why in the world would I pass up a Ding Dong for a Twinkie?0
-
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?
What's wrong with twinkies?
Especially, deep fried ones!
0 -
Both with weight and blood sugar issues. I understand it's a calorie surplus that does it with weight gain, but carbs is the macronutrient that's primarily responsible (in this case) for sending one into a calorie surplus, since it makes up the bulk of the diet. On the other hand, not only is my TDEE a bit higher but I don't have any medical issues that I'm aware of (aside from a little digestive discomfort) that are related to a high carb intake.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 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
In terms of good and bad carbs, I wasn't referring to weight control, but rather the overall nutrient density of the carb source. In other words, the carb sources with the most nutrients should make up the majority of one's diet while the carb sources that are lacking in micros should be eaten in moderation.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.
And why would carbs with lower micro values be "bad" then? No carbs are bad. I eat plenty of food in general with low nutrients. I also eat plenty with high nutrients. I just don't monitor this in any way, as it all balances out naturally. It's simply idiotic to delineate which carbs should be eaten more often than others outside of satiety, how quickly you need to benefit from the energy, and how tasty they are.
0 -
0
-
I don't think that low nutrient density carb foods in general are necessarily bad if one is meeting their nutrient needs. I don't think obesity stats would be where they are if everyone ate these foods in moderation while meeting 100% of their nutrient needs. That's not to say there wouldn't be any overweight people, but I'm sure the rates would be a lot lower.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In terms of good and bad carbs, I wasn't referring to weight control, but rather the overall nutrient density of the carb source. In other words, the carb sources with the most nutrients should make up the majority of one's diet while the carb sources that are lacking in micros should be eaten in moderation.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.
And why would carbs with lower micro values be "bad" then? No carbs are bad. I eat plenty of food in general with low nutrients. I also eat plenty with high nutrients. I just don't monitor this in any way, as it all balances out naturally. It's simply idiotic to delineate which carbs should be eaten more often than others outside of satiety, how quickly you need to benefit from the energy, and how tasty they are.
0 -
MKEgal wrote: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 it's best to have in moderation.
Complex ("good") carbs are usually more nutrient-dense and raise your blood sugar more slowly, 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
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
Did you not notice that "good" and "bad" are used as referents to what the OP was asking, to help him with the labels he seems to understand, while linking them to the more correct & acceptable terms 'simple' and 'complex' and the commonly-accepted suggestions to eat different amounts of them?elphie754 wrote:Nope. No such thing as good or bad carbs.
See the first link up there.ana wrote:Or you are like me and don't have any idea wtf a simple and complex carb is
Yes. Much more simply put.jason wrote:In terms of good and bad carbs, I wasn't referring to weight control, but rather the overall nutrient density of the carb source. In other words, the carb sources with the most nutrients should make up the majority of one's diet while the carb sources that are lacking in micros should be eaten in moderation.
(But then people have to figure out which foods are more nutrient-dense, and we're going to get someone who argues that carbs are a nutrient, so even pure sugar counts as being nutrient-dense...)
No, white bread or rice is not bad for you, in moderation. Have you not read anything people have been saying??mrm27 wrote: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?
No clue what the first 2 lines are saying.0 -
Obesity occurs regardless of nutrients. It occurs based on eating too many calories. Plenty of people here became overweight by "eating clean" or similarly.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't think that low nutrient density carb foods in general are necessarily bad if one is meeting their nutrient needs. I don't think obesity stats would be where they are if everyone ate these foods in moderation while meeting 100% of their nutrient needs. That's not to say there wouldn't be any overweight people, but I'm sure the rates would be a lot lower.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In terms of good and bad carbs, I wasn't referring to weight control, but rather the overall nutrient density of the carb source. In other words, the carb sources with the most nutrients should make up the majority of one's diet while the carb sources that are lacking in micros should be eaten in moderation.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.
And why would carbs with lower micro values be "bad" then? No carbs are bad. I eat plenty of food in general with low nutrients. I also eat plenty with high nutrients. I just don't monitor this in any way, as it all balances out naturally. It's simply idiotic to delineate which carbs should be eaten more often than others outside of satiety, how quickly you need to benefit from the energy, and how tasty they are.
All food must be eaten in moderation. Meaning eating reasonable calories for one's weight. You can have a day eating mostly nutrient-dense foods or a day eating mostly low-nutrient foods if you wanted.
So again, no carbs are bad or good. They are just carbs.
0 -
MKEgal wrote: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 it's best to have in moderation.
Complex ("good") carbs are usually more nutrient-dense and raise your blood sugar more slowly, 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
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
Did you not notice that "good" and "bad" are used as referents to what the OP was asking, to help him with the labels he seems to understand, while linking them to the more correct & acceptable terms 'simple' and 'complex' and the commonly-accepted suggestions to eat different amounts of them?elphie754 wrote:Nope. No such thing as good or bad carbs.
See the first link up there.ana wrote:Or you are like me and don't have any idea wtf a simple and complex carb is
Yes. Much more simply put.jason wrote:In terms of good and bad carbs, I wasn't referring to weight control, but rather the overall nutrient density of the carb source. In other words, the carb sources with the most nutrients should make up the majority of one's diet while the carb sources that are lacking in micros should be eaten in moderation.
(But then people have to figure out which foods are more nutrient-dense, and we're going to get someone who argues that carbs are a nutrient, so even pure sugar counts as being nutrient-dense...)
No, white bread or rice is not bad for you, in moderation. Have you not read anything people have been saying??mrm27 wrote: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?
No clue what the first 2 lines are saying.
There is no need to moderate simple vs complex carbs. Unless diabetic (where different things must be monitored), then one can eat almost exclusively complex or exclusively simple carbs as often as they want within their calorie needs.0 -
Science is science, but chances are you won't find too many 400 pound people walking around who got there by filling a large portion of their diet with high micro nutrient foods while keeping intake of low nutrient foods on the low side. A lot of people who are trying to gain muscle can attest to the fact that it can be very hard eating very "clean".
Obesity occurs regardless of nutrients. It occurs based on eating too many calories. Plenty of people here became overweight by "eating clean" or similarly.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't think that low nutrient density carb foods in general are necessarily bad if one is meeting their nutrient needs. I don't think obesity stats would be where they are if everyone ate these foods in moderation while meeting 100% of their nutrient needs. That's not to say there wouldn't be any overweight people, but I'm sure the rates would be a lot lower.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In terms of good and bad carbs, I wasn't referring to weight control, but rather the overall nutrient density of the carb source. In other words, the carb sources with the most nutrients should make up the majority of one's diet while the carb sources that are lacking in micros should be eaten in moderation.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.
And why would carbs with lower micro values be "bad" then? No carbs are bad. I eat plenty of food in general with low nutrients. I also eat plenty with high nutrients. I just don't monitor this in any way, as it all balances out naturally. It's simply idiotic to delineate which carbs should be eaten more often than others outside of satiety, how quickly you need to benefit from the energy, and how tasty they are.
All food must be eaten in moderation. Meaning eating reasonable calories for one's weight. You can have a day eating mostly nutrient-dense foods or a day eating mostly low-nutrient foods if you wanted.
Also, you seem to be looking at only weight control here. I'm looking at from a general health perspective. Someone who's eating a lot of low nutrient dense foods and not as much high nutrient dense foods will run the risk for micro nutrient deficiencies and other health issues.
0 -
There are no bad carbs. There are no bad foods.
There are more nutritious foods, but that's another question.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Science is science, but chances are you won't find too many 400 pound people walking around who got there by filling a large portion of their diet with high micro nutrient foods while keeping intake of low nutrient foods on the low side. A lot of people who are trying to gain muscle can attest to the fact that it can be very hard eating very "clean".
Obesity occurs regardless of nutrients. It occurs based on eating too many calories. Plenty of people here became overweight by "eating clean" or similarly.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't think that low nutrient density carb foods in general are necessarily bad if one is meeting their nutrient needs. I don't think obesity stats would be where they are if everyone ate these foods in moderation while meeting 100% of their nutrient needs. That's not to say there wouldn't be any overweight people, but I'm sure the rates would be a lot lower.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In terms of good and bad carbs, I wasn't referring to weight control, but rather the overall nutrient density of the carb source. In other words, the carb sources with the most nutrients should make up the majority of one's diet while the carb sources that are lacking in micros should be eaten in moderation.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.
And why would carbs with lower micro values be "bad" then? No carbs are bad. I eat plenty of food in general with low nutrients. I also eat plenty with high nutrients. I just don't monitor this in any way, as it all balances out naturally. It's simply idiotic to delineate which carbs should be eaten more often than others outside of satiety, how quickly you need to benefit from the energy, and how tasty they are.
All food must be eaten in moderation. Meaning eating reasonable calories for one's weight. You can have a day eating mostly nutrient-dense foods or a day eating mostly low-nutrient foods if you wanted.
Also, you seem to be looking at only weight control here. I'm looking at from a general health perspective. Someone who's eating a lot of low nutrient dense foods and not as much high nutrient dense foods will run the risk for micro nutrient deficiencies and other health issues.
And yet plenty of people here still did, as I said, became overweight by over-eating on home-made, nutrient-rich, "good" foods.
And a general health perspective also entails that there are no good or bad carbs. All food is food, and one's health is based on overall context -- variety in diet, genetic factors, activity levels, etc. Regularly eating simple carbs or having a donut every day isn't going to make person A less healthy by default than person B who doesn't eat donuts. Pretty much no one here that I know of who truly practices moderation of ALL foods eats solely donuts and chips every day. They eat plenty of complex AND simple carbs. Context, not individual items.
So again, no good or bad carbs in any way, shape, or form.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »Science is science, but chances are you won't find too many 400 pound people walking around who got there by filling a large portion of their diet with high micro nutrient foods while keeping intake of low nutrient foods on the low side. A lot of people who are trying to gain muscle can attest to the fact that it can be very hard eating very "clean".
It depends on what you consider "clean" (which is why that's a stupid term) and even what one means by "nutrient dense," but I initially gained weight eating what some would call "clean" and by focusing on eating a healthy diet.
Basically, at one point (after losing a bunch of weight following a similar plan, but being very careful with portion size), I became convinced that I could maintain by simply focusing on "eating healthy" which for me at the time meant "natural"--meat and veggies (and starches) from local farms and all that, real butter and olive oil vs. the spray stuff, make my own pasta and marinara from fresh tomatoes, blah, blah. Basically kind of like a nice restaurant might (except far less skilled and without the same sources of ingredients on the whole) in that I'd make some higher calorie sauces and such too, on occasion.
This even worked for a time, because although there was a good bit of fat (and stuff like pasta and potatoes) included, along with the many veggies and occasional homemade pie, the amount of calories I was eating was maintenance for a 5'3, 120 lb female of my age who was extremely active (I was doing triathlons and the like).
When my life crashed and burned for other reasons and I became sedentary, I continued eating in this "healthy" and "natural" way and gained a bunch of weight. Did my diet become worse and did I substitute Twinkies for all my veggies? No, I did not. But for someone of my size who is sedentary, maintenance is about 1600 calories or some dreadfully low number. So presto, about a lb a week gain.
For whatever reason I didn't care enough to notice or stop it for some time (vague depression and the rest related to the inactivity) and after a while I was too fat and knew I'd have to fix that but in the meantime started feeling like it didn't matter what I ate so I kept gaining.
Anyway, the bigger point is that none of the gain had to do with eating one kind of carb vs. another, that's silly. It had to do with overeating for my activity level.
And for the OP, talking about this in terms of "good" and "bad" carbs is not helpful.
Your effort to change that into nutrient density also seems to miss the point, since calories from carbs are hardly the only ones that don't bring along a lot of nutrient density (bulletproof coffee seems to me to be a silly thing to drink if one cares about nutrient density, for example, or the 1200 calories of coconut oil that some in these parts claim to consume). Instead, the "bad carbs" thing seems grounded in the idea that some carbs just magically make you gain weight, and that's not so, obviously. Better to really understand your diet and how nutrition works.
If you want to increase calories, of course, adding more carbs is a good approach. It's how most traditional diets have worked (and why they have tended to be rice or yam or potato or corn or wheat based).0 -
At this point I'm just quasi-correcting what he says so that others don't take to heart the wrong kind of information.MKEgal wrote: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 it's best to have in moderation.
Complex ("good") carbs are usually more nutrient-dense and raise your blood sugar more slowly, 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
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
Did you not notice that "good" and "bad" are used as referents to what the OP was asking, to help him with the labels he seems to understand, while linking them to the more correct & acceptable terms 'simple' and 'complex' and the commonly-accepted suggestions to eat different amounts of them?elphie754 wrote:Nope. No such thing as good or bad carbs.
See the first link up there.ana wrote:Or you are like me and don't have any idea wtf a simple and complex carb is
Yes. Much more simply put.jason wrote:In terms of good and bad carbs, I wasn't referring to weight control, but rather the overall nutrient density of the carb source. In other words, the carb sources with the most nutrients should make up the majority of one's diet while the carb sources that are lacking in micros should be eaten in moderation.
(But then people have to figure out which foods are more nutrient-dense, and we're going to get someone who argues that carbs are a nutrient, so even pure sugar counts as being nutrient-dense...)
No, white bread or rice is not bad for you, in moderation. Have you not read anything people have been saying??mrm27 wrote: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?
No clue what the first 2 lines are saying.
Oh please. You're the one that wrote up that long drawn out response saying stuff is either good or bad and now you're back tracking. You made silly blanket statements about carbs without taking into consideration many factors like lifestyle and training.
To the others, you're going to try and explain things over and over to Jason and end up in the same place. We've tried many times.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Science is science, but chances are you won't find too many 400 pound people walking around who got there by filling a large portion of their diet with high micro nutrient foods while keeping intake of low nutrient foods on the low side. A lot of people who are trying to gain muscle can attest to the fact that it can be very hard eating very "clean".
Obesity occurs regardless of nutrients. It occurs based on eating too many calories. Plenty of people here became overweight by "eating clean" or similarly.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't think that low nutrient density carb foods in general are necessarily bad if one is meeting their nutrient needs. I don't think obesity stats would be where they are if everyone ate these foods in moderation while meeting 100% of their nutrient needs. That's not to say there wouldn't be any overweight people, but I'm sure the rates would be a lot lower.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In terms of good and bad carbs, I wasn't referring to weight control, but rather the overall nutrient density of the carb source. In other words, the carb sources with the most nutrients should make up the majority of one's diet while the carb sources that are lacking in micros should be eaten in moderation.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.
And why would carbs with lower micro values be "bad" then? No carbs are bad. I eat plenty of food in general with low nutrients. I also eat plenty with high nutrients. I just don't monitor this in any way, as it all balances out naturally. It's simply idiotic to delineate which carbs should be eaten more often than others outside of satiety, how quickly you need to benefit from the energy, and how tasty they are.
All food must be eaten in moderation. Meaning eating reasonable calories for one's weight. You can have a day eating mostly nutrient-dense foods or a day eating mostly low-nutrient foods if you wanted.
Also, you seem to be looking at only weight control here. I'm looking at from a general health perspective. Someone who's eating a lot of low nutrient dense foods and not as much high nutrient dense foods will run the risk for micro nutrient deficiencies and other health issues.
I just shake my head at your posts sometimes, honestly.
Where does the 400 pounds come from?
Will 210 be enough to convince you that a micro-nutri dense diet isn't the be all and end all of diets?
I have celiac disease, I can't eat packaged foods and the like, and haven't touched the stuff in almost 20 years. A little diner near me has some food that I can eat and it's locally sourced farm-to table type stuff. I usually get vegetarian chili or roasted vegetables over quinoa when I go. So that's it for food I don't cook myself from scratch. I'm a whole foods vegetarian, I don't eat meat analogs, and make my own bean loaves and patties. I moderate my carb intake, aim to eat a high fiber diet, and eat a wide range of vegetables in good quantities. I also eat good amounts of Greek yogurt, eggs, and small amounts of healthy fats like olive oil and almonds.
I was convinced that eating this way should be enough to get me slim, but I'm older, I'm short, and I hit a bad spot in my life, and became a lot less active and the weight just piled on. Eating all that healthy food didn't matter. How much of it I was eating mattered.
0 -
I do agree here. I know I didn't state it with my earlier posts, but in this discussion I wasn't thinking of the situations with changing activity levels. Basically like you indirectly noted, if you had kept your activity level constant you wouldn't have gained weight from eating clean.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Science is science, but chances are you won't find too many 400 pound people walking around who got there by filling a large portion of their diet with high micro nutrient foods while keeping intake of low nutrient foods on the low side. A lot of people who are trying to gain muscle can attest to the fact that it can be very hard eating very "clean".
It depends on what you consider "clean" (which is why that's a stupid term) and even what one means by "nutrient dense," but I initially gained weight eating what some would call "clean" and by focusing on eating a healthy diet.
Basically, at one point (after losing a bunch of weight following a similar plan, but being very careful with portion size), I became convinced that I could maintain by simply focusing on "eating healthy" which for me at the time meant "natural"--meat and veggies (and starches) from local farms and all that, real butter and olive oil vs. the spray stuff, make my own pasta and marinara from fresh tomatoes, blah, blah. Basically kind of like a nice restaurant might (except far less skilled and without the same sources of ingredients on the whole) in that I'd make some higher calorie sauces and such too, on occasion.
This even worked for a time, because although there was a good bit of fat (and stuff like pasta and potatoes) included, along with the many veggies and occasional homemade pie, the amount of calories I was eating was maintenance for a 5'3, 120 lb female of my age who was extremely active (I was doing triathlons and the like).
When my life crashed and burned for other reasons and I became sedentary, I continued eating in this "healthy" and "natural" way and gained a bunch of weight. Did my diet become worse and did I substitute Twinkies for all my veggies? No, I did not. But for someone of my size who is sedentary, maintenance is about 1600 calories or some dreadfully low number. So presto, about a lb a week gain.
For whatever reason I didn't care enough to notice or stop it for some time (vague depression and the rest related to the inactivity) and after a while I was too fat and knew I'd have to fix that but in the meantime started feeling like it didn't matter what I ate so I kept gaining.
Anyway, the bigger point is that none of the gain had to do with eating one kind of carb vs. another, that's silly. It had to do with overeating for my activity level.
And for the OP, talking about this in terms of "good" and "bad" carbs is not helpful.
Your effort to change that into nutrient density also seems to miss the point, since calories from carbs are hardly the only ones that don't bring along a lot of nutrient density (bulletproof coffee seems to me to be a silly thing to drink if one cares about nutrient density, for example, or the 1200 calories of coconut oil that some in these parts claim to consume). Instead, the "bad carbs" thing seems grounded in the idea that some carbs just magically make you gain weight, and that's not so, obviously. Better to really understand your diet and how nutrition works.
If you want to increase calories, of course, adding more carbs is a good approach. It's how most traditional diets have worked (and why they have tended to be rice or yam or potato or corn or wheat based).
This is more of a general note, but in a way I don't think my viewpoint of food is all night-and-day from what most of you think. I'm not trying to eat a 100% clean diet from the standpoint of avoiding all low nutrient dense foods. I certainly do eat my share of foods that aren't very nutrient dense. Even just today, I ate donuts that were served at refreshments at a particular place. It's just that I wouldn't necessarily consider it "good" for me from a physical standpoint (although mentally it's obviously a different story).
To tie this in with the OP, mentally I would consider this "good carbs", but physically (which I'm assuming was meant in the OP) I would put it closer to "bad carbs".
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