Grains and Carbs
Options
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions