Grains and Carbs
Replies
-
Asher_Ethan wrote: »I went from 100% paleo (no grains... and gaining weight) to actually eating grains in a calorie deficit and losing weight. I really want to believe in low carb because it worked so so well for my mom.... But I really really really really really really like carbsssssss
if you are losing weight eating carbs, why do you want to believe in low carb? I mean low carb is not a religion or deity, is it?0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Insulin causes fat to be stored rather than used for energy. Starches raise your insulin. Here are a couple of quotes from wikipedia on the effects of insulin:
Increased lipid synthesis – insulin forces fat cells to take in blood lipids, which are converted to triglycerides; lack of insulin causes the reverse.
Increased esterification of fatty acids – forces adipose tissue to make fats (i.e., triglycerides) from fatty acid esters; lack of insulin causes the reverse.
Decreased proteolysis – decreasing the breakdown of protein
Decreased lipolysis – forces reduction in conversion of fat cell lipid stores into blood fatty acids; lack of insulin causes the reverse.
You do know protein is highly insulinogenic, right?
So if you have any circulating insulin, you cannot burn any fat? It can only be stored? Hmmmm
I didn't say 'any' or 'only' - for most people (particularly overweight people) if they keep their insulin down they will tend to burn fat rather than store it.
Yeah. The whole thing about low carb and fat burning? They burn the fat they eat. Not body fat.
You really need to read more about insulin and how energy balance works.
I guess I should stop eating protein, because insulin spikes...0 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »I went from 100% paleo (no grains... and gaining weight) to actually eating grains in a calorie deficit and losing weight. I really want to believe in low carb because it worked so so well for my mom.... But I really really really really really really like carbsssssss
I think lower carb--like OP does, not necessarily keto--seems to work for two or three major groups. Those who aren't that into carbs (or starchy carbs, like grains) and find them an easy part of the meal to reduce or eliminate without it being particularly noticeable. That's how it worked for me, although with more calories I'm back at 40 percent, since there's a limit to the amount of fat I actually want. And, I guess, for those who love starches or sugars so much that they find they have no self control over them or want to overeat them. I can see why it would work for them, but it seems unsustainable. Oh, and of course those who say they experience a real difference in their hunger level depending on how many carbs they eat and need to lower carbs to feel satisfied (my guess is this is related to insulin resistance in some people and I just wish they'd stop assuming everyone has the same reaction). Otherwise, I see no reason low carb would be helpful, so if you have a normal liking for carbs I wouldn't wish otherwise!0 -
I am glad I got to read everyone's comments. I can't last on low carb .I know i need to get strict about writing everything down and actually counting the calories as a place to start.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »So when people say 'you are losing body fat because you are in a calorie-deficit', they are confusing cause and effect. I would phrase it as 'you are in a calorie-deficit because your metabolism is burning body fat'. Reducing the carbs is causing your metabolism to burn body fat and as a result you are less hungry and have more energy (which results in the calorie-deficit).
Mind-boggling in its wrongness.
From what i understand, the advantage of low-carb diets is that you reduce *sugar* intake. It's pretty well understood at this point that sugar is an addictive substance-- Have some and you'll want more (have none over a longer period, and you won't crave it anymore). If you eat sugar, you'll eat more calories because you'll desire more (sugar-based) foods (as snacks, etc), which will affect your calorie deficit.
I still eat sugar myself, but not as much. I've definitely cut way back on cola for example, though -- having it at most once a week.
Carbs, from what i remember 20+ years ago reading, are the bodies source of energy. You don't want to get rid of them.0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So when people say 'you are losing body fat because you are in a calorie-deficit', they are confusing cause and effect. I would phrase it as 'you are in a calorie-deficit because your metabolism is burning body fat'. Reducing the carbs is causing your metabolism to burn body fat and as a result you are less hungry and have more energy (which results in the calorie-deficit).
Mind-boggling in its wrongness.
From what i understand, the advantage of low-carb diets is that you reduce *sugar* intake. It's pretty well understood at this point that sugar is an addictive substance-- Have some and you'll want more (have none over a longer period, and you won't crave it anymore). If you eat sugar, you'll eat more calories because you'll desire more (sugar-based) foods (as snacks, etc), which will affect your calorie deficit.
I still eat sugar myself, but not as much. I've definitely cut way back on cola for example, though -- having it at most once a week.
Carbs, from what i remember 20+ years ago reading, are the bodies source of energy. You don't want to get rid of them.
No, no it's not well understood to be the case at all.
And please, by all the gods that Romans bow before, can this NOT devolve into another sugar thread?
Let's stick to carbs and the scapegoating of insulin, I'm begging everyone.
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So when people say 'you are losing body fat because you are in a calorie-deficit', they are confusing cause and effect. I would phrase it as 'you are in a calorie-deficit because your metabolism is burning body fat'. Reducing the carbs is causing your metabolism to burn body fat and as a result you are less hungry and have more energy (which results in the calorie-deficit).
Mind-boggling in its wrongness.
From what i understand, the advantage of low-carb diets is that you reduce *sugar* intake. It's pretty well understood at this point that sugar is an addictive substance-- Have some and you'll want more (have none over a longer period, and you won't crave it anymore). If you eat sugar, you'll eat more calories because you'll desire more (sugar-based) foods (as snacks, etc), which will affect your calorie deficit.
I still eat sugar myself, but not as much. I've definitely cut way back on cola for example, though -- having it at most once a week.
Carbs, from what i remember 20+ years ago reading, are the bodies source of energy. You don't want to get rid of them.
Wait, you think sugar is addictive and you still eat it???
And for the record sugar is not addictive so your entire premise is wrong....0 -
Back to the original post,
Improving the satiety of your diet is a great idea. While I don't think most people should entirely eliminate enjoyable foods from their diet, if you're better satiated by replacing energy dense foods with other foods you enjoy that are higher in satiety, and it causes you to be able to stick to your diet long term, then have at it.
So for example when people say "great now you're in a calorie deficit, it's all about the calories" they are right in the sense that it's the energy deficit causing the weight loss and in theory you could eat all the bread you want and still lose weight if you're able to maintain a calorie deficit by doing that. But the key word here is "if".0 -
>Wait, you think sugar is addictive and you still eat it???
>And for the record sugar is not addictive so your entire premise is wrong....
I did a quick google (which, surprisingly, i did on yahoo) and the first result (because i hate digging deep) seems to say sugar is addictive with some amount of science backing it....
http://blog.fooducate.com/2012/03/15/food-and-the-brain-is-sugar-addictive/
I tend to trust search engine ranking algorithms...
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »>Wait, you think sugar is addictive and you still eat it???
>And for the record sugar is not addictive so your entire premise is wrong....
I did a quick google (which, surprisingly, i did on yahoo) and the first result (because i hate digging deep) seems to say sugar is addictive with some amount of science backing it....
http://blog.fooducate.com/2012/03/15/food-and-the-brain-is-sugar-addictive/
I tend to trust search engine ranking algorithms...
SMH0 -
mjones1029 wrote: »I am glad I got to read everyone's comments. I can't last on low carb .I know i need to get strict about writing everything down and actually counting the calories as a place to start.
Weight loss is about eating at a calorie deficit. Everything else is secondary. Getting accurate with tracking your calorie intake is the best place to start so you're on the right track
Also, a food scale is a great tool to help with this, if you're not already using one. 0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »>Wait, you think sugar is addictive and you still eat it???
>And for the record sugar is not addictive so your entire premise is wrong....
I did a quick google (which, surprisingly, i did on yahoo) and the first result (because i hate digging deep) seems to say sugar is addictive with some amount of science backing it....
http://blog.fooducate.com/2012/03/15/food-and-the-brain-is-sugar-addictive/
I tend to trust search engine ranking algorithms...
SMH
x2 * I read it and I am seriously sitting here shaking my head*0 -
I was. (Where "lots" is relative to other macros, not "lots" such that I wasn't in a caloric deficit.) And I was losing a lot more than four pounds a month when I started.Without looking at your profile, something tells me that you are not 100+ pounds overweight. If you were and were losing 4 pounds a month by eating lots of carbs and sugar and exercising a lot I would find your example more compelling.
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »>Wait, you think sugar is addictive and you still eat it???
>And for the record sugar is not addictive so your entire premise is wrong....
I did a quick google (which, surprisingly, i did on yahoo) and the first result (because i hate digging deep) seems to say sugar is addictive with some amount of science backing it....
http://blog.fooducate.com/2012/03/15/food-and-the-brain-is-sugar-addictive/
I tend to trust search engine ranking algorithms...
from your link
"Information in part from “Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake,” Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews 32 (2008) 20-39."
Oh the Avena rat study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
"This review summarizes evidence of sugar dependence in an animal model"
Rats=/=Humans0 -
I have to admit, i added those comments on purpose because i didn't want to have to convince *you* something i'm not 100% convinced of myself....
What i know for me is..
-Sugar has calories
-Soda has sugar hence soda has calories
-Switching from Soda to Filtered Water was not an easy switch.
-Eventually i preferred water (though, must be cold)
-Now soda almost tastes horrible.
I also no longer like "Sweet" foods like i used to, again like soda they now taste almost like poison to me.
I've seen a lot of information, on radio, in tv, in magazines, and in books that says, yes, sugar is addictive... But, of course, if you don't believe it it must not be true.
-rob0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
0 -
I've seen the same things that say we're being visited by extraterrestrials, too.robertwilkens wrote: »I've seen a lot of information, on radio, in tv, in magazines, and in books that says, yes, sugar is addictive... But, of course, if you don't believe it it must not be true.
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »
I have to admit, i added those comments on purpose because i didn't want to have to convince *you* something i'm not 100% convinced of myself....
What i know for me is..
-Sugar has calories
-Soda has sugar hence soda has calories
-Switching from Soda to Filtered Water was not an easy switch.
-Eventually i preferred water (though, must be cold)
-Now soda almost tastes horrible.
I also no longer like "Sweet" foods like i used to, again like soda they now taste almost like poison to me.
I've seen a lot of information, on radio, in tv, in magazines, and in books that says, yes, sugar is addictive... But, of course, if you don't believe it it must not be true.
-rob
I agree that there likely is a psychological preference for sweet things because it does hit the pleasure center of the brain of many people. That is not the same as a physical addiction where the body NEEDS the substance.
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »>Wait, you think sugar is addictive and you still eat it???
>And for the record sugar is not addictive so your entire premise is wrong....
I did a quick google (which, surprisingly, i did on yahoo) and the first result (because i hate digging deep) seems to say sugar is addictive with some amount of science backing it....
http://blog.fooducate.com/2012/03/15/food-and-the-brain-is-sugar-addictive/
I tend to trust search engine ranking algorithms...
Please find me a study that was conducted on humans....and a blog is not a peer reviewed source0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So when people say 'you are losing body fat because you are in a calorie-deficit', they are confusing cause and effect. I would phrase it as 'you are in a calorie-deficit because your metabolism is burning body fat'. Reducing the carbs is causing your metabolism to burn body fat and as a result you are less hungry and have more energy (which results in the calorie-deficit).
Mind-boggling in its wrongness.
From what i understand, the advantage of low-carb diets is that you reduce *sugar* intake. It's pretty well understood at this point that sugar is an addictive substance-- Have some and you'll want more (have none over a longer period, and you won't crave it anymore). If you eat sugar, you'll eat more calories because you'll desire more (sugar-based) foods (as snacks, etc), which will affect your calorie deficit.
I still eat sugar myself, but not as much. I've definitely cut way back on cola for example, though -- having it at most once a week.
Carbs, from what i remember 20+ years ago reading, are the bodies source of energy. You don't want to get rid of them.
No, no it's not well understood to be the case at all.
And please, by all the gods that Romans bow before, can this NOT devolve into another sugar thread?
Let's stick to carbs and the scapegoating of insulin, I'm begging everyone.
Too late! LMAO. <shakesheadandwalksawayquietly>
0 -
I agree that there likely is a psychological preference for sweet things because it does hit the pleasure center of the brain of many people. That is not the same as a physical addiction where the body NEEDS the substance.
I took some psych classes in college (it was my minor), and from what i remember what you are describing is "dependence" which is different than "addiction". They can be related but dependence is not addiction, dependence is a physical thing where- for example your body gets used to having x amount off caffeine in the body, and when you withdraw you have problems so you have to have the caffeine just to be stable like you were before you started it. "addiction" is more psychological (mental process). A quick "yahoo" agrees with my previous learning http://www.diffen.com/difference/Addiction_vs_Dependence0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »
I have to admit, i added those comments on purpose because i didn't want to have to convince *you* something i'm not 100% convinced of myself....
What i know for me is..
-Sugar has calories
-Soda has sugar hence soda has calories
-Switching from Soda to Filtered Water was not an easy switch.
-Eventually i preferred water (though, must be cold)
-Now soda almost tastes horrible.
I also no longer like "Sweet" foods like i used to, again like soda they now taste almost like poison to me.
I've seen a lot of information, on radio, in tv, in magazines, and in books that says, yes, sugar is addictive... But, of course, if you don't believe it it must not be true.
-rob
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »
I have to admit, i added those comments on purpose because i didn't want to have to convince *you* something i'm not 100% convinced of myself....
What i know for me is..
-Sugar has calories
-Soda has sugar hence soda has calories
-Switching from Soda to Filtered Water was not an easy switch.
-Eventually i preferred water (though, must be cold)
-Now soda almost tastes horrible.
I also no longer like "Sweet" foods like i used to, again like soda they now taste almost like poison to me.
I've seen a lot of information, on radio, in tv, in magazines, and in books that says, yes, sugar is addictive... But, of course, if you don't believe it it must not be true.
-rob
Radio, tv, magazines, and popular books aren't scientific research, though. They often rush out to promote preliminary research as fact. Science bases conclusions on a preponderance of findings gleaned from extensive research, and frankly, the research into food addiction of any kind is in its infancy.
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »I agree that there likely is a psychological preference for sweet things because it does hit the pleasure center of the brain of many people. That is not the same as a physical addiction where the body NEEDS the substance.
I took some psych classes in college (it was my minor), and from what i remember what you are describing is "dependence" which is different than "addiction". They can be related but dependence is not addiction, dependence is a physical thing where- for example your body gets used to having x amount off caffeine in the body, and when you withdraw you have problems so you have to have the caffeine just to be stable like you were before you started it. "addiction" is more psychological (mental process). A quick "yahoo" agrees with my previous learning http://www.diffen.com/difference/Addiction_vs_Dependence
you have derailed this thread enough, so this is going to be my last response.
Just because you googled and yahoo searched something does not make it true. I can run a search for "aliens living among us" and I will get plenty of "papers" stating that is a fact.
If you want to start a sugar thread and post your google and yahoo results then by all means do; however, I would recommend that you actually find some peer reviewed sources to back up your claims.
the end.0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »>Wait, you think sugar is addictive and you still eat it???
>And for the record sugar is not addictive so your entire premise is wrong....
I did a quick google (which, surprisingly, i did on yahoo) and the first result (because i hate digging deep) seems to say sugar is addictive with some amount of science backing it....
http://blog.fooducate.com/2012/03/15/food-and-the-brain-is-sugar-addictive/
I tend to trust search engine ranking algorithms...
SMH
x2 * I read it and I am seriously sitting here shaking my head*
It is truly a gift when someone unknowingly admits to being intellectually lazy0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Radio, tv, magazines, and popular books aren't scientific research, though. They often rush out to promote preliminary research as fact. Science bases conclusions on a preponderance of findings gleaned from extensive research, and frankly, the research into food addiction of any kind is in its infancy.
Much 'scientific' research is based on statistics, which to me isn't science it's guesswork...... If something were true science it would be true 100% of the time, not a statistically significant portion of the time. But that's just me.
Ok, I'll end my position on this topic by saying i'd rather lose more weight than you (I probably have a lot more weight to lose than you) so i'll continue eating less calories (sugar as an example) and if you eat more calories then that's fine with me....
-Rob0 -
-
Back to the original post,
Improving the satiety of your diet is a great idea. While I don't think most people should entirely eliminate enjoyable foods from their diet, if you're better satiated by replacing energy dense foods with other foods you enjoy that are higher in satiety, and it causes you to be able to stick to your diet long term, then have at it.
So for example when people say "great now you're in a calorie deficit, it's all about the calories" they are right in the sense that it's the energy deficit causing the weight loss and in theory you could eat all the bread you want and still lose weight if you're able to maintain a calorie deficit by doing that. But the key word here is "if".
Too late!
I haven't eliminated any food group from my diet but I have certainly had to restrict certain foods. They were foods that for whatever reason I just couldn't seem eat a reasonable amount of and stay in a calorie deficit. Most of those foods just happened to be carbs.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Radio, tv, magazines, and popular books aren't scientific research, though. They often rush out to promote preliminary research as fact. Science bases conclusions on a preponderance of findings gleaned from extensive research, and frankly, the research into food addiction of any kind is in its infancy.
Much 'scientific' research is based on statistics, which to me isn't science it's guesswork...... If something were true science it would be true 100% of the time, not a statistically significant portion of the time. But that's just me.
Ok, I'll end my position on this topic by saying i'd rather lose more weight than you (I probably have a lot more weight to lose than you) so i'll continue eating less calories (sugar as an example) and if you eat more calories then that's fine with me....
-Rob
No, that's... really not how science works. I explained the process to you in the laymen's terms by which I understand it. There are actual scientists on this board who can help you out here. I need caffeine, help me out real science nerds!!!
Even a basic high school level knowledge of the scientific method knows that "100%" doesn't happen.
Read the wiki on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions