Something I learned to avoid carbs
Replies
-
Sits Eagerly awaiting the lemurcat edit...0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
That's great. I'm glad you've found something that works for you. So the brownie the person is eating at the next table will have to be ignored? The pizza you smell walking by the pizza shop that gets your mouth watering?
I've actually been there where those things no longer tempted me. Of all things, oatmeal was my carb downfall.
It's the same with hedonic hunger. The desire for pleasure-sating passes.
You learn to realize it was JUST a desire for crunch, or to have the experience of a certain taste or combination of textures. You can easily talk yourself out of that. It's not an actual hunger.
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: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »What actually happens is those desires for those foods go away. To eat those foods do nothing for me one way or another. There is no desire,inclination to eat them. They don't bring me the pleasure i used to get. As I said, they mean nothing to me.
You've hit the nail on the head. You don't want them any more.
Let's turn your your argument around then, shall we? According to you two, ignoring psychological hunger does not make the problem go away, but ignoring the foods you want to overeat does?
In what world does that make sense?
Oh, what a good point.
Yeah. Complete abstinence; then there's no mental debating about can I/can't I have it. You don't have it, you know you're not having it and there's no angst about it.
That's great. I'm glad you've found something that works for you.
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: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »lilaclovebird wrote: »
I feel If I had issues with food, then dragons need to be slayed. I don't have any. This is also is inline with @Nony_Mouse comment. Maybe both of your issues are different than the issues you believe i have.mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
Eating the same types of foods in the same ratios, i doubt they'd go away. e.g. just focusing on calories and not macros and not changing your dietary choices. From my personal experience, i have done a lot of stuff through my weight loss. But i do recall when i made poor dietary choices e.g. junk food, i was hungrier and I'd weight knuckle my calorie goal.
Artificial hunger signals... are just that. They're not real. Do you think they're going to go away or do you plan to be hungry the rest of your life? This is why a lot of people adopt a lower carb life style, one of the benefits is those artificial hunger signals aren't presents.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mandyclay1982 wrote: »Carbs cause insulin levels to rise in your body, which in return make you eat more and gain weight. Carbs are horrible! You wanna see some fast weightloss? Just setyour carbs to 20%
and you will be blown away 
There is no such thing as a food that makes you eat more. You either eat or you don't.
If you're hungry, are you going to eat more or less of it?
I'm not going to eat anything just because my body is giving artificial hunger signals when it doesn't need anything. That was what got me overweight in the first place.
They do in fact subside but really who only fills their day with junk food?
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.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
Artificial hunger signals... are just that. They're not real. Do you think they're going to go away or do you plan to be hungry the rest of your life? This is why a lot of people adopt a lower carb life style, one of the benefits is those artificial hunger signals aren't presents.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mandyclay1982 wrote: »Carbs cause insulin levels to rise in your body, which in return make you eat more and gain weight. Carbs are horrible! You wanna see some fast weightloss? Just setyour carbs to 20% and you will be blown away
There is no such thing as a food that makes you eat more. You either eat or you don't.
If you're hungry, are you going to eat more or less of it?
I'm not going to eat anything just because my body is giving artificial hunger signals when it doesn't need anything. That was what got me overweight in the first place.
I ignore them, the same way I ignore commercial breaks on TV. It doesn't hurt, it's not a struggle, it's not torture, because I know for a fact I don't need any more food. Give it a try.
It's quite a bit different from a starvation diet. I'm not weak, tired, distracted, or having stomach pain because I haven't jumped up and raided the fridge every time I felt munchy. I'm fully nourished, I know I'm nourished, I feel nourished, and there isn't the slightest inclination to binge because I always have a little of something I enjoy, every single day.
I already demonstrated that an average high women has all her needs met on 900 calories a day, which of course is a starvation diet.
You said you get "false hunger signals" meaning you feel hungry, i do see this as an inclination to binge. But in all sincerity, i honestly hope what you believe is true for you, i frankly been in your shoes and it wasn't true for me.
I get "false hunger signals" with no inclination to binge. Boredom, stress, getting emotional.... I'm hungry! (no I'm not). I use willpower to not eat anything (let alone stuff my face), get on with something else and forget about food pretty quick.
SOrry wrong word, binging, "over eating" happy? If you're calorie goals are met, and you're hungry, you're "inclined" to over eat.. that's what hunger is, a desire for food.
No, not happy. Perhaps YOU are inclined to overeat because you can't control yourself, personally, I can say no to food and don't need to keep eating.
Lets break it down for you. "FALSE HUNGER SIGNALS"
False - not according with truth or fact; incorrect.
"the test can produce false results"
synonyms: incorrect, untrue, wrong, erroneous, fallacious, flawed, distorted, inaccurate, imprecise
Hunger - a feeling of discomfort or weakness caused by lack of food, coupled with the desire to eat.
"she was faint with hunger"
synonyms: lack of food, hungriness, ravenousness,
Signals - a gesture, action, or sound that is used to convey information or instructions, typically by prearrangement between the parties concerned.
"the firing of the gun was the signal for a chain of beacons to be lit"
synonyms: gesture, sign, wave, gesticulation, cue, indication, warning, motion
False hunger can be stated such as a incorrect instruction from the body that is accompanied by a desire to eat.
Question: why do you have the need to say "NO" ??? Doesn't sound like long term sustainable weight loss.
Pu, what is being referred to in this thread as "false hunger" is more appropriately called hedonic hunger. Look it up.
The bottom line? You don't need to give in to every desire you ever have. AND IT GOES AWAY OVER TIME.
Does it really go away? How you think i got down to my lowest, eating as much as i wanted of whatever? There have been countless times I denied myself of food. I did it for over 2yrs. Yet I started to gain again. This is why people relapse. I was on the verge of a massive relapse. Go look at people who have lost massive weight and gained it back. They couldn't lose the weight unless the deprived themselves of certain foods.
Chrysalid2014 said exactly what I have been trying to convey. I have said it in other topics. Calorie counting is a controlled environment. Once you deviate from calorie counting you will more than likely start gaining again. This is what happened to me. As I also suggested you can look at many others who have lost weight and gained it back. This is what I am trying to help people avoid.
Yes, it goes away. You haven't conquered your demons yet. It's apparent in everything you write.
Go slay some internal dragons son. You have work to do. Sorry to be blunt, but I don't know why it wasn't more evident to me until this point.
Regarding calorie counting being a controlled environment? SO WHAT? Wearing my eyeglasses is a controlled environment.
Calorie counting is a tool to control your portions. Nothing more, nothing less. I plan to do it to maintain, because I suck at eyeballing things. Just like I need my glasses to see, I need help gauging correct portion sizes to maintain an ideal weight for my frame. AND SO WHAT? Is it a problem that a handyman needs a hammer to bang in a nail? If calorie counting isn't for you? Great. No biggie. But don't project and try to make a "thing" out of your issues with it.
For every way of eating, there are people who regain weight. It's an invalid criticism of any type of eating plan to throw "weight regain" at it.
I am not trying to toot my own horn, but as I have mentioned, I have been over weight most of my life, been trying to lose weight since I was roughly 13yrs old, I am 33 now. After countless failed attempts, you think I didn't learn anything in over 20yrs of trial and error? My library is 90% books on diet and weight loss. Many of them are bad books, but they did was give me a learning experience.
I've been there in both of your situations. Well with the emotional eating thing... I am not sure if I can relate, maybe i call it something different yet we're both are talking about the same thing. Have I gained weight on low carb as mamapecahes has? Yes. This was due to the fact I simply lacked understanding of the subject.
As I said before, weight loss is a multifaceted issue. Psychological, emotional, genetics, dietary. I doubt that most people who came to MFP, didn't cut down on processed foods. There is a youtube video kind of long 2hrs i believe. It had the most popular diet authors. Atkins, Sears(The Zone), USDA, Obesity research people, the sugar buster guy, Dean Ornish, Mcdougull. The discussion started with Low carb, and it progressed through the carb guidelines of the authors. So it went from low carb, to high carbs, and everything in between. Of course they all disagreed on dietary choices. But 1 thing they all agreed on was to reduce the intake of refined carbs aka sugars.
Then I trust NONE of them because they ALL should have agreed on CICO as well.
I guess you missed what I said earlier. Proceesed foods are usually higher in calories. I said that insulin and calories go hand in hand. You can look at the problem from an insulin perspective or a calorie perspective. Anytime you eat, insulin goes up. Some foods increase insulin more than others. If you reduce the intake of these goods that cause a large increase of insulin, you're also reducing calories. It's not possible to have elevated levels of insulin and lose weight. Insulin is a storage hormone. Insulin is what stores excess calories as fat.
Low carb and high carb diets(vegan style carbs) have 1 thing in common. A reduction of insulin levels which goes in line with a reduction of calories. So indirectly they all agree about CICO.
IN A DEFICIT... it doesn't matter, Pu.
Stop banging on about insulin. Insulin won't lead to fat storage in a deficit.
That's not true. In a deficit one can assume that fat loss can occur, but that's not even 100% accurate. You can lose muscle in a deficit - not just fat. In fact, you can lose all muscle and no fat in a deficit.
You store energy when insulin levels are raised sufficiently that the muscle glycogen is replenished - the rest is stored as fat between fat cells and organs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083868/
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: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »lilaclovebird wrote: »
I feel If I had issues with food, then dragons need to be slayed. I don't have any. This is also is inline with @Nony_Mouse comment. Maybe both of your issues are different than the issues you believe i have.mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
Eating the same types of foods in the same ratios, i doubt they'd go away. e.g. just focusing on calories and not macros and not changing your dietary choices. From my personal experience, i have done a lot of stuff through my weight loss. But i do recall when i made poor dietary choices e.g. junk food, i was hungrier and I'd weight knuckle my calorie goal.
Artificial hunger signals... are just that. They're not real. Do you think they're going to go away or do you plan to be hungry the rest of your life? This is why a lot of people adopt a lower carb life style, one of the benefits is those artificial hunger signals aren't presents.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mandyclay1982 wrote: »Carbs cause insulin levels to rise in your body, which in return make you eat more and gain weight. Carbs are horrible! You wanna see some fast weightloss? Just setyour carbs to 20% and you will be blown away
There is no such thing as a food that makes you eat more. You either eat or you don't.
If you're hungry, are you going to eat more or less of it?
I'm not going to eat anything just because my body is giving artificial hunger signals when it doesn't need anything. That was what got me overweight in the first place.
They do in fact subside but really who only fills their day with junk food?
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.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
Artificial hunger signals... are just that. They're not real. Do you think they're going to go away or do you plan to be hungry the rest of your life? This is why a lot of people adopt a lower carb life style, one of the benefits is those artificial hunger signals aren't presents.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mandyclay1982 wrote: »Carbs cause insulin levels to rise in your body, which in return make you eat more and gain weight. Carbs are horrible! You wanna see some fast weightloss? Just setyour carbs to 20% and you will be blown away
There is no such thing as a food that makes you eat more. You either eat or you don't.
If you're hungry, are you going to eat more or less of it?
I'm not going to eat anything just because my body is giving artificial hunger signals when it doesn't need anything. That was what got me overweight in the first place.
I ignore them, the same way I ignore commercial breaks on TV. It doesn't hurt, it's not a struggle, it's not torture, because I know for a fact I don't need any more food. Give it a try.
It's quite a bit different from a starvation diet. I'm not weak, tired, distracted, or having stomach pain because I haven't jumped up and raided the fridge every time I felt munchy. I'm fully nourished, I know I'm nourished, I feel nourished, and there isn't the slightest inclination to binge because I always have a little of something I enjoy, every single day.
I already demonstrated that an average high women has all her needs met on 900 calories a day, which of course is a starvation diet.
You said you get "false hunger signals" meaning you feel hungry, i do see this as an inclination to binge. But in all sincerity, i honestly hope what you believe is true for you, i frankly been in your shoes and it wasn't true for me.
I get "false hunger signals" with no inclination to binge. Boredom, stress, getting emotional.... I'm hungry! (no I'm not). I use willpower to not eat anything (let alone stuff my face), get on with something else and forget about food pretty quick.
SOrry wrong word, binging, "over eating" happy? If you're calorie goals are met, and you're hungry, you're "inclined" to over eat.. that's what hunger is, a desire for food.
No, not happy. Perhaps YOU are inclined to overeat because you can't control yourself, personally, I can say no to food and don't need to keep eating.
Lets break it down for you. "FALSE HUNGER SIGNALS"
False - not according with truth or fact; incorrect.
"the test can produce false results"
synonyms: incorrect, untrue, wrong, erroneous, fallacious, flawed, distorted, inaccurate, imprecise
Hunger - a feeling of discomfort or weakness caused by lack of food, coupled with the desire to eat.
"she was faint with hunger"
synonyms: lack of food, hungriness, ravenousness,
Signals - a gesture, action, or sound that is used to convey information or instructions, typically by prearrangement between the parties concerned.
"the firing of the gun was the signal for a chain of beacons to be lit"
synonyms: gesture, sign, wave, gesticulation, cue, indication, warning, motion
False hunger can be stated such as a incorrect instruction from the body that is accompanied by a desire to eat.
Question: why do you have the need to say "NO" ??? Doesn't sound like long term sustainable weight loss.
Pu, what is being referred to in this thread as "false hunger" is more appropriately called hedonic hunger. Look it up.
The bottom line? You don't need to give in to every desire you ever have. AND IT GOES AWAY OVER TIME.
Does it really go away? How you think i got down to my lowest, eating as much as i wanted of whatever? There have been countless times I denied myself of food. I did it for over 2yrs. Yet I started to gain again. This is why people relapse. I was on the verge of a massive relapse. Go look at people who have lost massive weight and gained it back. They couldn't lose the weight unless the deprived themselves of certain foods.
Chrysalid2014 said exactly what I have been trying to convey. I have said it in other topics. Calorie counting is a controlled environment. Once you deviate from calorie counting you will more than likely start gaining again. This is what happened to me. As I also suggested you can look at many others who have lost weight and gained it back. This is what I am trying to help people avoid.
Yes, it goes away. You haven't conquered your demons yet. It's apparent in everything you write.
Go slay some internal dragons son. You have work to do. Sorry to be blunt, but I don't know why it wasn't more evident to me until this point.
Regarding calorie counting being a controlled environment? SO WHAT? Wearing my eyeglasses is a controlled environment.
Calorie counting is a tool to control your portions. Nothing more, nothing less. I plan to do it to maintain, because I suck at eyeballing things. Just like I need my glasses to see, I need help gauging correct portion sizes to maintain an ideal weight for my frame. AND SO WHAT? Is it a problem that a handyman needs a hammer to bang in a nail? If calorie counting isn't for you? Great. No biggie. But don't project and try to make a "thing" out of your issues with it.
For every way of eating, there are people who regain weight. It's an invalid criticism of any type of eating plan to throw "weight regain" at it.
I am not trying to toot my own horn, but as I have mentioned, I have been over weight most of my life, been trying to lose weight since I was roughly 13yrs old, I am 33 now. After countless failed attempts, you think I didn't learn anything in over 20yrs of trial and error? My library is 90% books on diet and weight loss. Many of them are bad books, but they did was give me a learning experience.
I've been there in both of your situations. Well with the emotional eating thing... I am not sure if I can relate, maybe i call it something different yet we're both are talking about the same thing. Have I gained weight on low carb as mamapecahes has? Yes. This was due to the fact I simply lacked understanding of the subject.
As I said before, weight loss is a multifaceted issue. Psychological, emotional, genetics, dietary. I doubt that most people who came to MFP, didn't cut down on processed foods. There is a youtube video kind of long 2hrs i believe. It had the most popular diet authors. Atkins, Sears(The Zone), USDA, Obesity research people, the sugar buster guy, Dean Ornish, Mcdougull. The discussion started with Low carb, and it progressed through the carb guidelines of the authors. So it went from low carb, to high carbs, and everything in between. Of course they all disagreed on dietary choices. But 1 thing they all agreed on was to reduce the intake of refined carbs aka sugars.
Then I trust NONE of them because they ALL should have agreed on CICO as well.
I guess you missed what I said earlier. Proceesed foods are usually higher in calories. I said that insulin and calories go hand in hand. You can look at the problem from an insulin perspective or a calorie perspective. Anytime you eat, insulin goes up. Some foods increase insulin more than others. If you reduce the intake of these goods that cause a large increase of insulin, you're also reducing calories. It's not possible to have elevated levels of insulin and lose weight. Insulin is a storage hormone. Insulin is what stores excess calories as fat.
Low carb and high carb diets(vegan style carbs) have 1 thing in common. A reduction of insulin levels which goes in line with a reduction of calories. So indirectly they all agree about CICO.
IN A DEFICIT... it doesn't matter, Pu.
Stop banging on about insulin. Insulin won't lead to fat storage in a deficit.
That's not true. In a deficit one can assume that fat loss can occur, but that's not even 100% accurate. You can lose muscle in a deficit - not just fat. In fact, you can lose all muscle and no fat in a deficit.
You store energy when insulin levels are raised sufficiently that the muscle glycogen is replenished - the rest is stored as fat between fat cells and organs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083868/
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.
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.
Eating the same types of foods in the same ratios, i doubt they'd go away. e.g. just focusing on calories and not macros and not changing your dietary choices. From my personal experience, i have done a lot of stuff through my weight loss. But i do recall when i made poor dietary choices e.g. junk food, i was hungrier and I'd weight knuckle my calorie goal.
Artificial hunger signals... are just that. They're not real. Do you think they're going to go away or do you plan to be hungry the rest of your life? This is why a lot of people adopt a lower carb life style, one of the benefits is those artificial hunger signals aren't presents.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mandyclay1982 wrote: »Carbs cause insulin levels to rise in your body, which in return make you eat more and gain weight. Carbs are horrible! You wanna see some fast weightloss? Just setyour carbs to 20% and you will be blown away
There is no such thing as a food that makes you eat more. You either eat or you don't.
If you're hungry, are you going to eat more or less of it?
I'm not going to eat anything just because my body is giving artificial hunger signals when it doesn't need anything. That was what got me overweight in the first place.
They do in fact subside but really who only fills their day with junk food?
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.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
Artificial hunger signals... are just that. They're not real. Do you think they're going to go away or do you plan to be hungry the rest of your life? This is why a lot of people adopt a lower carb life style, one of the benefits is those artificial hunger signals aren't presents.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mandyclay1982 wrote: »Carbs cause insulin levels to rise in your body, which in return make you eat more and gain weight. Carbs are horrible! You wanna see some fast weightloss? Just setyour carbs to 20% and you will be blown away
There is no such thing as a food that makes you eat more. You either eat or you don't.
If you're hungry, are you going to eat more or less of it?
I'm not going to eat anything just because my body is giving artificial hunger signals when it doesn't need anything. That was what got me overweight in the first place.
I ignore them, the same way I ignore commercial breaks on TV. It doesn't hurt, it's not a struggle, it's not torture, because I know for a fact I don't need any more food. Give it a try.
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.
How are simple carbs not good for us? Lots of fruit are simple carbs. Milk sugar is a simple carb. Maltose is a simple carb.LisaLydens - of course veggies are good carbs...low carb foods, good carbs. So I'm sure what you meant were the sweet carbs, the simple ones that are not good for us. Thank you for sharing.
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
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: »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.
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: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
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 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
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
Oh, I was thinking more of the blogging and media "experts". Not the people here.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
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
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: »mandyclay1982 wrote: »Carbs cause insulin levels to rise in your body, which in return make you eat more and gain weight. Carbs are horrible! You wanna see some fast weightloss? Just setyour carbs to 20% and you will be blown away
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.
-
melissalatzel25 wrote: »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
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
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions