Something I learned to avoid carbs
Replies
-
Sits Eagerly awaiting the lemurcat edit...0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
In that case I don't understand the half cupcake deal. If you have no desire for the pleasure it gives you why would you bother eating it at all?
About your other question, I'm trying to learn that I can enjoy the aroma of things without eating them. I like the smell of fresh cut grass, pine needles and decaying leaves too but I don't have any desire to put them in my mouth...
Your question is twisting the premise, because we were talking about hedonic hunger which led to overeating and now you're talking about me enjoying my half a cupcake within my calorie limits. Different scenarios.
One is allowing the pleasure to give you license to overeat. The other is not.
0 -
Eh, just hadn't deleted something I thought better of and didn't notice before I hit post.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Well, so far.
I think the angsting in the absence of abstinence is a pretty bad sign.
Time will tell, of course, for all of us.
For me, even over the past year things go in and out. At first I was eating 1250 (or less) and not being tempted at all, even in periods of stress. Now I find that I'm tempted when stressed again and having to work through some issues that the excitement of weight loss and the honeymoon period that many experience when first focusing on their diet in a positive way has worn off. (I'm sure I can.)
I went back for a time to the more restrictive habits I had at the beginning (to get to 1250, although this time I ate more other stuff since I didn't want to be that low) and found that the reduction in carbs was actually counterproductive as I was feeling a lot more deprived at the same calories. I did better during Lent when I cut meat other than fish and ate proportionally more carbs, but that could be because I gave myself a religious rationale, who knows.
Similarly, I maintained weight at 120-25 for 5 years without much in the way of temptation and then I did not.
Food issues are so weird and complicated and psychological.
Shhh... I'm being nice today. (I agree with you.)
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, just hadn't deleted something I thought better of and didn't notice before I hit post.
Hehe. I'm kind of scanning the posts but I was like... She's left us hanging here0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, just hadn't deleted something I thought better of and didn't notice before I hit post.
Umm hmm. I already saw it.
I've actually decided I'm probably spending too much time on this forum anyway.
0 -
whatever works for each person to control themselves is what really matters. why can't people just be more supportive instead of trying to say whats in their eyes right or wrong. my mother in law thinks she has a gluten allergy and has avoided carbs, its helped her lose weight. I'm not going to tell her she is losing weight from eating and consuming less starchy carbs, I'm just happy she is eating better.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »
That's not... even to the point I was arguing.
The paper you linked isn't even relevant because it's not even addressing the issue of being in a calorie deficit.
Do I need to link you to the abstract on DNL which states that carbs are fine as long as you don't overeat them beyond TEE?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
"Stop banging on about insulin. Insulin won't lead to fat storage in a deficit."
You said it - that's not necessarily true. Fat storage can happen in a deficit. Visceral fat is one - another is not enough protein - you will lose muscle.
I DID! I went through extensive testing and it was determined early on in my weight loss that I was losing more muscle than fat, even in a deficit. The corrections I made restored the balance necessary for me to lose fat over muscle.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
LisaLydens, Consider ignoring the dietician. As others have already noted, there is nothing wrong with carbs in your diet. Many "good" foods you eat ARE carbs. So, if the dietician told you to eat your protein and veggies before you got to your carbs, he or she likely was the student who finished at the bottom of the class and not the head of the class.0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
"Stop banging on about insulin. Insulin won't lead to fat storage in a deficit."
You said it - that's not necessarily true. Fat storage can happen in a deficit. Visceral fat is one - another is not enough protein - you will lose muscle.
I DID! I went through extensive testing and it was determined early on in my weight loss that I was losing more muscle than fat, even in a deficit. The corrections I made restored the balance necessary for me to lose fat over muscle.
Read the abstract I posted. What you are saying is false. If you lost muscle, there was something wrong with your protein intake.
AND.... what you're saying doesn't make sense.
Losing muscle does not mean you're storing fat.
How can you even equate those two things?
0 -
I really don't get this "unless you eat low carb you are doomed to stay hungry" thing. It's working for you? Great. It does not mean everyone would have the same reaction. My personal experience with low carb for example (back when I got diagnosed with pre-diabetes) was one of starvation and deprivation, and I got rid of my pre-diabetes eating at least 60% of my calories from carbs losing about 90 pounds rarely being hungry once I learned how to manipulate my food intake.
Many countries where obesity is not very widespread have at least 50% of their calories from carbs (an average of 250 grams). In Madagascar for example more than 75% of the calories are carbs and less than 10% in protein and a maximum of 15% from fat, with lots of rice and tubers (starches) and honey (sugar) yet they have one of the lowest obesity rates in the world. Are whole countries walking around hungry? If you take an obesity map and a carb consumption map you will notice there isn't even the slightest correlation. Conversely, Iceland has one of the highest fat and protein consumption ratios and an average BMI in the overweight category. So why do some countries have an obesity problem and some don't? The answer is simple, the thinner countries' culture and environment has taught them to eat less calories and they perform more physical activity, while the cultures of heavier populations involve more calorie intake and in some cases less physical activity (in this example an average of 2130 daily calories in madagascar and an average of 3330 daily calories in iceland if we assume a close level of activity since both perform manual labor).
0 -
ReeseG4350 wrote: »LisaLydens, Consider ignoring the dietician. As others have already noted, there is nothing wrong with carbs in your diet. Many "good" foods you eat ARE carbs. So, if the dietician told you to eat your protein and veggies before you got to your carbs, he or she likely was the student who finished at the bottom of the class and not the head of the class.
If it helps them then shouldn't have to ignore them, I just see people on my friends list that say yep processed stuff and carbs and sugar are evil and they cut them but don't monitor their intake then they wonder why they're not losing weight or that they binge because the neglected to learn some semblance of control. My dietician told me to eat the carbs. What matters for weight loss is calories In vs calories out,. She still recommended a balanced diet of varying nutrition.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I really don't get this "unless you eat low carb you are doomed to stay hungry" thing. It's working for you? Great. It does not mean everyone would have the same reaction. My personal experience with low carb for example (back when I got diagnosed with pre-diabetes) was one of starvation and deprivation, and I got rid of my pre-diabetes eating at least 60% of my calories from carbs losing about 90 pounds rarely being hungry once I learned how to manipulate my food intake.
Many countries where obesity is not very widespread have at least 50% of their calories from carbs (an average of 250 grams). In Madagascar for example more than 75% of the calories are carbs and less than 10% in protein and a maximum of 15% from fat, with lots of rice and tubers (starches) and honey (sugar) yet they have one of the lowest obesity rates in the world. Are whole countries walking around hungry? If you take an obesity map and a carb consumption map you will notice there isn't even the slightest correlation. Conversely, Iceland has one of the highest fat and protein consumption ratios and an average BMI in the overweight category. So why do some countries have an obesity problem and some don't? The answer is simple, the thinner countries' culture and environment has taught them to eat less calories and they perform more physical activity, while the cultures of heavier populations involve more calorie intake and in some cases less physical activity (in this example an average of 2130 daily calories in madagascar and an average of 3330 daily calories in iceland if we assume a close level of activity since both perform manual labor).
Oh you and your sense-making!
0 -
I think it's weird to eat one portion of your plate vs. another in a particular order--I eat foods together to taste good together and think that kind of regimentation is anti enjoyment. However, assuming the advice might be screwed up a little, the basics might be quite reasonable.
I think sensible advice for many people (not all) is to plan meals around protein and veggies and then add in a serving of starchy carbs or other extras (like fruit or dairy) based on filling out the plate and the number of calories you want. IME, this is an easy way to plan meals and need not be anti starchy carb at all.
It also seems clear to me that the people claiming it's about sweet carbs are dealing with their own issues, since you wouldn't include those (other than fruit) as part of a dinner plate like this.
And calling potatoes or pasta "heavy carbs" seems weird to me, as does avoiding them unless you have your own reasons for finding a low carb plan better for you. But for many such items are a perfectly good part of a healthy diet. (As are sweets in moderation, IMO, but not on the dinner plate.)0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I really don't get this "unless you eat low carb you are doomed to stay hungry" thing. It's working for you? Great. It does not mean everyone would have the same reaction. My personal experience with low carb for example (back when I got diagnosed with pre-diabetes) was one of starvation and deprivation, and I got rid of my pre-diabetes eating at least 60% of my calories from carbs losing about 90 pounds rarely being hungry once I learned how to manipulate my food intake.
Many countries where obesity is not very widespread have at least 50% of their calories from carbs (an average of 250 grams). In Madagascar for example more than 75% of the calories are carbs and less than 10% in protein and a maximum of 15% from fat, with lots of rice and tubers (starches) and honey (sugar) yet they have one of the lowest obesity rates in the world. Are whole countries walking around hungry? If you take an obesity map and a carb consumption map you will notice there isn't even the slightest correlation. Conversely, Iceland has one of the highest fat and protein consumption ratios and an average BMI in the overweight category. So why do some countries have an obesity problem and some don't? The answer is simple, the thinner countries' culture and environment has taught them to eat less calories and they perform more physical activity, while the cultures of heavier populations involve more calorie intake and in some cases less physical activity (in this example an average of 2130 daily calories in madagascar and an average of 3330 daily calories in iceland if we assume a close level of activity since both perform manual labor).
Yes, this.
I keep saying the problem with the SAD is not the macro ratios, which are within the wide range of ratios consistent with healthy traditional diets. But people want to have a scapegoat and right now carbs get to play that role.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I really don't get this "unless you eat low carb you are doomed to stay hungry" thing. It's working for you? Great. It does not mean everyone would have the same reaction. My personal experience with low carb for example (back when I got diagnosed with pre-diabetes) was one of starvation and deprivation, and I got rid of my pre-diabetes eating at least 60% of my calories from carbs losing about 90 pounds rarely being hungry once I learned how to manipulate my food intake.
Many countries where obesity is not very widespread have at least 50% of their calories from carbs (an average of 250 grams). In Madagascar for example more than 75% of the calories are carbs and less than 10% in protein and a maximum of 15% from fat, with lots of rice and tubers (starches) and honey (sugar) yet they have one of the lowest obesity rates in the world. Are whole countries walking around hungry? If you take an obesity map and a carb consumption map you will notice there isn't even the slightest correlation. Conversely, Iceland has one of the highest fat and protein consumption ratios and an average BMI in the overweight category. So why do some countries have an obesity problem and some don't? The answer is simple, the thinner countries' culture and environment has taught them to eat less calories and they perform more physical activity, while the cultures of heavier populations involve more calorie intake and in some cases less physical activity (in this example an average of 2130 daily calories in madagascar and an average of 3330 daily calories in iceland if we assume a close level of activity since both perform manual labor).
That's a fair question. In certain situations / cultures it's completely expected to be hungry and famished when it's meal time - you wouldn't necessarily have a snack waiting for you at every turn. And yes manual labor including walking or biking or taking public transportation everywhere. Would love to read more about this!
0 -
Of course I know that. I was addressing the point of "simple carbs" being the "bad" carbs. That's all. The person that posted it seems to think that simple carbs are bad.
Someone who is trying to make a point that "carbs" aren't the issue. It boils down to calories only. Which was my thinking a while ago. Yes a calorie deficit is a must for weight loss, but for long term weight loss, there is more to it than that.
Been there done that. You know what happens to people who "ignore" their hunger signals? They gain their weight back. It's not different than doing a starvation type diet. People usually end up binging and gaining the weight back. I did ignore it, i ignored it to lose 193lbs, then the weight started to come back. I knew it was getting out of control, i knew i was binging on processed carbs so i cut them out, wasn't hungry, and was losing effortlessly.
You know fiber does contribute to satiety. As you should know carb choice should be goal dependent and carbs with fiber usually are less calorie dense.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yes, this.
I keep saying the problem with the SAD is not the macro ratios, which are within the wide range of ratios consistent with healthy traditional diets. But people want to have a scapegoat and right now carbs get to play that role.
We're all fat because: Cars and desk jobs.
Why not? It's part of it.
The problem really is? It's a LOT of reasons. Those are two of them. And anyone who tries to point the finger at just one or tries to reduce it all down to a sound bite like "processed foods are poison"? Isn't helping. Is clouding the issue for a lot of people by giving them a scapegoat. Is missing the point. Is ultimately failing to even address the point.
The other problem is that I tend to think that all of the potential factors involved are like a deck of cards, and people who are overweight each got dealt a different hand. We each need to learn to deal with the issues on every card we've been dealt, one by one. What's in my hand might be very different than what's in yours.
Ultimately, the solution is of course, CICO, but what makes us able to comply with it? That's a bit of a tangle.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
We're all fat because: Cars and desk jobs.
Why not? It's part of it.
The problem really is? It's a LOT of reasons. Those are two of them. And anyone who tries to point the finger at just one or tries to reduce it all down to a sound bite like "processed foods are poison"? Isn't helping. Is clouding the issue for a lot of people by giving them a scapegoat. Is missing the point. Is ultimately failing to even address the point.
The other problem is that I tend to think that all of the potential factors involved are like a deck of cards, and people who are overweight each got dealt a different hand. We each need to learn to deal with the issues on every card we've been dealt, one by one. What's in my hand might be very different than what's in yours.
Ultimately, the solution is of course, CICO, but what makes us able to comply with it? That's a bit of a tangle.
Discussing one of those items doesn't necessarily mean you're discounting all the others, though. If we were restricted by this we'd never be able to discuss anything
0 -
The majority of people who have issues with excessive visceral fat are insulin resistant. For the general population that don't have this issue, they lose visceral and subcutaneous fat in calorie deficit.tedboosalis7 wrote: »You said it - that's not necessarily true. Fat storage can happen in a deficit. Visceral fat is one - another is not enough protein - you will lose muscle.
I DID! I went through extensive testing and it was determined early on in my weight loss that I was losing more muscle than fat, even in a deficit. The corrections I made restored the balance necessary for me to lose fat over muscle.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Discussing one of those items doesn't necessarily mean you're discounting all the others, though. If we were restricted by this we'd never be able to discuss anything
Oh, I was thinking more of the blogging and media "experts". Not the people here.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Oh, I was thinking more of the blogging and media "experts". Not the people here.
Wow, too true. In my mind, those guys pretty much just have to follow the money. Sometimes I wonder how much of what they say, that they actually believe. "Toxins" are trending? Yep, let's do a segment about that. Low carb low fat whatever. Meanwhile if we choose not to be discerning, our lives hang in the balance while we chase trends promoted by someone just trying to make a buck
0 -
Check our Zoe Harcombe diet/book. Utterly changed my thinking on low calorie diets and utterly convinced me about low carb diets. After over a year on a low calorie diet (which initially worked using MFP) and then gradually only basically being able to eat 800 calories a day (short) to lose half a pound a week (with over a stone to go) this diet has changed my life and I've started losing weight again while eating at least double this amount and never feeling hungry. It's a bloody revelation. I was totally in the MFP a calorie is a calorie camp and now I am totally not. Now I understand the science and tried it myself and it flaming works. This video is how I got hooked
http://youtu.be/goe3FmTSC1g and I am so happy I never have to count a calorie again...because MFP'ers a calorie is not a calorie after all. 0 -
This content has been removed.
-
But every cell in the human body requires glucose to function.. and carbs are the easiest source of this!! carbs = energy and fuel for the human being
the most easily digested and passed through our long and complicated intestines are FRUIT !! 
watch freely the banana girl for inspo and more info on this. carb up and lose weight if you do it right 0 -
Oh look, it's the magic carbs that defy the laws of CICO again. You can eat carbs day to day, and CICO applies. You can lower carbs, then raise them again, and like magic, CICO no longer exists. It's a miracle!!!JenniferInCt wrote: »
And you will gain it all right back the second you eat carbs. Sounds like a horrible long term plan for me. Good luck though. Everyone has their own way
0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
No, that is not true that every cells needs it to function.
And Freelee is pretty much the ignorant person on YouTube.
And now we've gone to banana girl being great? We've now entered the Twilight Zone.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions