Why do carbs have such a bad rep?
Replies
-
FeedMeFish wrote: »I hear/see all of this chat about how horrible carbs are and how fats are more beneficial and all these weight loss stories with low carb. My question is, then why do some people function better on high carb? For example, I've tried low carb a few times which resulted in crankiness, tiredness, constipation, underperformance when exercising, and low carb was also the only time I would occasionally go over my calories (never satisfied/full). On high carb though, I perform well when exercising, am not cranky, am "regular", and lost a massive amount of weight. It also keeps my appetite under control. What's weird is when I do research on these eating lifestyles, the claims are exact opposite from my positive experience on carbs. I eat high carb, high protein, low fat. Have lost around 70 pounds. Lift weights, do cardio HIIT and/or yoga every other day, and daily walks. Can anyone else here relate? Do you operate better on carbs as well (along with better fitness results)?
I perform a lot better on a similar diet as you. When I did paleo my carbs were starting to dip down to 150-180g and i was suffering, even with higher fat and sodium still around 5000mg. So switching back to a moderate approach allows me to do HIIT and resistance training at optimal levels.1 -
Why do carbs get a bad rap? Because there are a lot of gullible people in the world that think what they read in Women's Day magazine is true.
8 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Two things:
-because of the increasing rates type 2 diabetes and obesity.
-because carbs do tend to have more calories than anything else
I don't think they're bad and I couldn't do a low carb diet. But I do know carb heavy foods like bagels, pasta, etc have more calories and it doesn't always fill people up.
In the end, it's about cals in vs cals out, low carb or not.
Really?
0 -
I got this one. No, not really.Colorscheme wrote: »Two things:
-because of the increasing rates type 2 diabetes and obesity.
-because carbs do tend to have more calories than anything else
I don't think they're bad and I couldn't do a low carb diet. But I do know carb heavy foods like bagels, pasta, etc have more calories and it doesn't always fill people up.
In the end, it's about cals in vs cals out, low carb or not.
Really?
7 -
rankinsect wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Yeah but I meant it like: a chocolate donut has more calories than say, some fruit, plain vegetables, or a small container of yogurt.
But that is becuse the donut has more fat. A KrispyKreme chocolate filled donut has about 400 cals, but has the same carb content as a 170g (large) banana (which is half the cals of the donut).Colorscheme wrote: »And products made with white flour tend to be nutritionally devoid.
Isn't true. bread, cake, pasta, pancakes all have nutritional value. Many flours are fortified to add in micro-nutrients but even without - Carbohydrate is nutritionally important.
I am talking about the flour only, not pre-packaged products of pasta or pancakes. I bake and I know for a fact white flour has only a little iron and 3 grams of protein for a quarter cup. Whole wheat flour has more fiber and protein in comparison.
The reason why flour is fortified now is because of an outbreak of pellagra back in the day which is from lack of niacin.
A lot of white flour actually has more iron than whole wheat due to fortification. For example, take King Arthur Flour as a brand. Their unbleached white flour has 33% more iron than their whole wheat flour, equal protein, and equal or greater amounts of all the micronutrients on the label. It certainly has a lot less fiber (that's what's removed when the bran is taken away).
Yes, white flour has more iron, but whole wheat has more fiber. King Arthur ww flour has 4 grams of protein and 4 grams dietary fiber per quarter cup. King Arthur unbleached white flour has 4 grams of protein and 1 gram dietary fiber for the same amount. Calorie wise, they're pretty much identical but because of the fiber I choose to use whole wheat flour instead of white. Sometimes I will use white though, if I am making something for other people. I know not everyone likes the taste of whole wheat flour.
That's just my personal preference.0 -
I got this one. No, not really.Colorscheme wrote: »Two things:
-because of the increasing rates type 2 diabetes and obesity.
-because carbs do tend to have more calories than anything else
I don't think they're bad and I couldn't do a low carb diet. But I do know carb heavy foods like bagels, pasta, etc have more calories and it doesn't always fill people up.
In the end, it's about cals in vs cals out, low carb or not.
Really?
Lol...1 -
When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.0 -
When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
Possibly things get more complicated once insulin resistance sets in...0 -
I can't cut out carbs either. Makes me weak or it could all be in my mind. I read so much conflicting stuff!
I just try to keep them low0 -
mwinslow69 wrote: »It's from the Atkins diet.
Not really.0 -
Yeah, I would say this is one answer to the OP's question. According to some sources, a relatively significant portion of the population (at least in the U.S.) has at least mild insulin resistance. So when it comes to dietary advice for the masses, carbs seem to take front stage. And in addition to its role in worsening pre-existing insulin resistance, it is the macro that most people tend to eat the most of percentage-wise.When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
Possibly things get more complicated once insulin resistance sets in...
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I would say this is one answer to the OP's question. According to some sources, a relatively significant portion of the population (at least in the U.S.) has at least mild insulin resistance. So when it comes to dietary advice for the masses, carbs seem to take front stage. And in addition to its role in worsening pre-existing insulin resistance, it is the macro that most people tend to eat the most of percentage-wise.When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
Possibly things get more complicated once insulin resistance sets in...
Especially when it's combined with fat and salt... fast food. Which begs the question, is it carbs? Is it fat? Or is it calories...?5 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I would say this is one answer to the OP's question. According to some sources, a relatively significant portion of the population (at least in the U.S.) has at least mild insulin resistance. So when it comes to dietary advice for the masses, carbs seem to take front stage. And in addition to its role in worsening pre-existing insulin resistance, it is the macro that most people tend to eat the most of percentage-wise.When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
Possibly things get more complicated once insulin resistance sets in...
Especially when it's combined with fat and salt... fast food. Which begs the question, is it carbs? Is it fat? Or is it calories...?
Logic. It's what's for dinner. Is logic a carb, protein or fat? Assuming it's a carb...3 -
Humans need a scapegoat. In the 70s it was fat, now it's carbs. As a nurse I believe we need all macros (protein, carbs, fats and water) in moderation. Too much of any one leads to malnutrition.1
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I would say this is one answer to the OP's question. According to some sources, a relatively significant portion of the population (at least in the U.S.) has at least mild insulin resistance. So when it comes to dietary advice for the masses, carbs seem to take front stage. And in addition to its role in worsening pre-existing insulin resistance, it is the macro that most people tend to eat the most of percentage-wise.When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
Possibly things get more complicated once insulin resistance sets in...
Since your body doesn't need particularly high amounts of fats and proteins, it's not weird that a high percentage of daily calories comes from carbs.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Two things:
-because of the increasing rates type 2 diabetes and obesity.
-because carbs do tend to have more calories than anything else
I don't think they're bad and I couldn't do a low carb diet. But I do know carb heavy foods like bagels, pasta, etc have more calories and it doesn't always fill people up.
In the end, it's about cals in vs cals out, low carb or not.
Its the obesity & lack of exercise as the cause of Type 2 Diabetes .Carbs & protein have the exact same caloric value, gram-for-gram. Fat has the most in this respect.
Maybe what you mean to say is that many of the traditional foods in our society have so many carbs (and are mostly carbs) that they end up being very high calorie-empty calories that dont carry much satisfaction.
your last sentence is truth.
When people rave about weight loss associated with low carbs I usually say "You know its not the carbs, but the fact that you're cutting out 23% of your calories, right?"
Weight loss means nothing unless you use it as a means to permanent life change.0 -
God I love carbs! A friend of mine follows a low carb diet and I would be so miserable eating the way she does. CI<CO for me. The only things I try to avoid are high calorie drinks (apart from smoothies as the fibre keeps me full or protein shakes) and salt as the salt really makes me retain water. Other than that I'll eat all the food.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I would say this is one answer to the OP's question. According to some sources, a relatively significant portion of the population (at least in the U.S.) has at least mild insulin resistance. So when it comes to dietary advice for the masses, carbs seem to take front stage. And in addition to its role in worsening pre-existing insulin resistance, it is the macro that most people tend to eat the most of percentage-wise.When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
Possibly things get more complicated once insulin resistance sets in...
IIRC, all obesity comes with some level of insulin resistance but not to the standard that people talk when they are truly insulin resistant. The masses don't promote carbs. If anything they promote calories, than protein and let fats and carbs fall where they stand. Excepting being the areas where people need higher levels of restriction.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I would say this is one answer to the OP's question. According to some sources, a relatively significant portion of the population (at least in the U.S.) has at least mild insulin resistance. So when it comes to dietary advice for the masses, carbs seem to take front stage. And in addition to its role in worsening pre-existing insulin resistance, it is the macro that most people tend to eat the most of percentage-wise.When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
Possibly things get more complicated once insulin resistance sets in...
Since your body doesn't need particularly high amounts of fats and proteins, it's not weird that a high percentage of daily calories comes from carbs.
Exactly, if I eat 200 grams of protein and 100 grams of fat, that puts me at 1700 calories. Still leaving me with 2300 calories left for the day. Not sure where those calories are supposed to come from.
To be frank, and taking nutritional opinions out of it, I couldn't afford to eat double the protein and fats.
1 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Two things:
-because of the increasing rates type 2 diabetes and obesity.
-because carbs do tend to have more calories than anything else
I don't think they're bad and I couldn't do a low carb diet. But I do know carb heavy foods like bagels, pasta, etc have more calories and it doesn't always fill people up.
In the end, it's about cals in vs cals out, low carb or not.
Obesity is caused by too many calories. Type II is correlated to genetics, obesity and inactivity. Neither is directly tied to just carbs.
And all the things you listed are heavy in carbs, fats and salts. In fact, many deserts how more calories from fat. But unfortunately, many see things like cookies and cake as only having carbs as that's the trends.
Yes I know. But what are the obese eating? not lots of fruit and vegs, it's processed stuff that carb, fat and salt heavy. Now, carbs are good in moderation as your body uses it for fuel but people like to find something to blame rather than admit they got fat from eating too many calories.
One question is simply why do people call "carbs" foods that are really half fat and half carbs (like donuts)? And not call carbs foods that are often a higher percentage of carbs, like fruits and vegetables.
Carbs have a bad reputation mainly because people think they are "junk foods" (although so many of the calories in those are from fat) or "white foods" (and people irrationally think that white=nutritionally void to the point of thinking that white potatoes are far less nutritious than something like a sweet potato).1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I would say this is one answer to the OP's question.When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
Possibly things get more complicated once insulin resistance sets in...
No, the answer to OP's question is that hating on carbs is trendy now.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I would say this is one answer to the OP's question. According to some sources, a relatively significant portion of the population (at least in the U.S.) has at least mild insulin resistance. So when it comes to dietary advice for the masses, carbs seem to take front stage. And in addition to its role in worsening pre-existing insulin resistance, it is the macro that most people tend to eat the most of percentage-wise.When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
Possibly things get more complicated once insulin resistance sets in...
Since your body doesn't need particularly high amounts of fats and proteins, it's not weird that a high percentage of daily calories comes from carbs.
Exactly, if I eat 200 grams of protein and 100 grams of fat, that puts me at 1700 calories. Still leaving me with 2300 calories left for the day. Not sure where those calories are supposed to come from.
To be frank, and taking nutritional opinions out of it, I couldn't afford to eat double the protein and fats.
And that's already a lot of protein and fat.0 -
When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
I love these forums, I always learn something new. I keep reading about insulin resistance here, but didn't look it up because I've never been told I had it. It wasn't until I saw your post that I did Google it, and it is the precursor to pre-diabetes. Thanks for enlightening me. What I'm about to post is in no way dissing you or trying to invalidate your own experience, I just want to provide a different experience.
I have been pre-diabetic since at least 2011, which is the earliest blood test report I have saved. I am 5'6.5" tall, and my weight since at least that date has been around 230 pounds, with 238 my highest weight. I'm 60 years old. Two years ago, still at 230 pounds, I started trying to lose weight, basically by starving myself. I found MFP in April 2015, at which point I started paying attention to nutrition as much as weight loss. MFP set me at 1200 calories a day to lose 2 pounds a week, which I pretty much have never done, more like 1 to 1.5 per week. I average about 1150 calories a day (safe to do because of my age and extremely sedentary status - plus my doctor approved it). My monthly loss since starting MFP was 5 to 6 pounds per month, which has slowed to about 4 pounds per month. I do not exercise. According to blood tests from July of 2015, I was still pre-diabetic at 193 pounds. As of November 2nd, at 174 pounds, I am no longer pre-diabetic, and my blood glucose in my follow-up blood test two weeks ago had dropped another 11 points to 79. Today I weigh 152.6 pounds.
I wish the "Reports" section would go back further than 90 days, but here is my carbs report for the last three months:
And for those who say that sugar causes diabetes or keeps you from losing weight:
I was eating the same foods the whole time I've been on MFP, so reports going back farther would be about the same. The only difference is that I haven't been eating bread lately, not because of carbs or calories, but because I'm tired it it molding so fast and having to throw it away.
Most of my daily sugar limit is reached quickly by drinking a lot of milk, but I also have sugar in coffee, in flavored greek yogurt, and in chocolate or donuts or other sweets.
And, although it has nothing to do with this thread, I no longer have high blood pressure or high cholesterol.
Anecdotal? Sure. But I have been able to lose a great deal of weight by eating plenty of carbs and lots of sugar, and I've improved my health considerably. So I am proof that you can lose weight and get healthier by consuming them.
2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I would say this is one answer to the OP's question. According to some sources, a relatively significant portion of the population (at least in the U.S.) has at least mild insulin resistance. So when it comes to dietary advice for the masses, carbs seem to take front stage. And in addition to its role in worsening pre-existing insulin resistance, it is the macro that most people tend to eat the most of percentage-wise.When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
Possibly things get more complicated once insulin resistance sets in...
Since your body doesn't need particularly high amounts of fats and proteins, it's not weird that a high percentage of daily calories comes from carbs.
Exactly, if I eat 200 grams of protein and 100 grams of fat, that puts me at 1700 calories. Still leaving me with 2300 calories left for the day. Not sure where those calories are supposed to come from.
To be frank, and taking nutritional opinions out of it, I couldn't afford to eat double the protein and fats.
And that's already a lot of protein and fat.
Yup. That's more than I average and more than I need. Did that on purpose. I guess I can find some fairy dust or something to fill in the calories.
0 -
There are refined and unrefined carbs. The refined ones are quickly digested, leaving you hungry again soon. The unrefined ones take longer for your body to process and are usually in a vegetable with fiber and vitamins naturally included. Eating the unrefined ones, your blood sugar won't spike and then crash, leaving you feeling gross and hungry like the highly refined ones do. You might want to start looking up the glycemic index of the foods you eat as a guide to which ones, particularly carbs, will be better at keeping you satisfied and your blood sugar level.1
-
There are refined and unrefined carbs. The refined ones are quickly digested, leaving you hungry again soon. The unrefined ones take longer for your body to process and are usually in a vegetable with fiber and vitamins naturally included. Eating the unrefined ones, your blood sugar won't spike and then crash, leaving you feeling gross and hungry like the highly refined ones do. You might want to start looking up the glycemic index of the foods you eat as a guide to which ones, particularly carbs, will be better at keeping you satisfied and your blood sugar level.
I don't eat any food in isolation very often so the glycemic load has little to no bearing on my appetite or blood sugar.0 -
There are refined and unrefined carbs. The refined ones are quickly digested, leaving you hungry again soon. The unrefined ones take longer for your body to process and are usually in a vegetable with fiber and vitamins naturally included. Eating the unrefined ones, your blood sugar won't spike and then crash, leaving you feeling gross and hungry like the highly refined ones do. You might want to start looking up the glycemic index of the foods you eat as a guide to which ones, particularly carbs, will be better at keeping you satisfied and your blood sugar level.
You know.. i have never felt this way. I tend to think people over blow that out of proportion.2 -
There are refined and unrefined carbs. The refined ones are quickly digested, leaving you hungry again soon. The unrefined ones take longer for your body to process and are usually in a vegetable with fiber and vitamins naturally included. Eating the unrefined ones, your blood sugar won't spike and then crash, leaving you feeling gross and hungry like the highly refined ones do. You might want to start looking up the glycemic index of the foods you eat as a guide to which ones, particularly carbs, will be better at keeping you satisfied and your blood sugar level.
It's not about the amount of refining. Technically, refined sugar is just dried sugar beet tea.
It's the fiber that makes it digest slower, nothing about the sugar itself.
Other things that make sugar digest slower is not having an empty stomach, eating it as part of a balanced diet with all macronutrients and fiber.2 -
Glad to hear you've made progress.LaceyBirds wrote: »When I tried to lose weight doing only CICO I didn't lose anything. Nothing. I couldn't understand it. I ate between 1000-1300 calories per day at 5'4" and 194 lbs.
I went to a dr, a metabolic specialist who did a glucose tolerance test on me and there it was, insulin resistance/prediabetes. Started low carb, first with macro 25% now >50 carbs /day and I lose. Never occurred to me that I'd have to do this, but I'm getting used to it as it comes up on almost a year. I may not lose as quickly as others but I lose.
Carbs are not my enemy, but they aren't my friend either.
I love these forums, I always learn something new. I keep reading about insulin resistance here, but didn't look it up because I've never been told I had it. It wasn't until I saw your post that I did Google it, and it is the precursor to pre-diabetes. Thanks for enlightening me. What I'm about to post is in no way dissing you or trying to invalidate your own experience, I just want to provide a different experience.
I have been pre-diabetic since at least 2011, which is the earliest blood test report I have saved. I am 5'6.5" tall, and my weight since at least that date has been around 230 pounds, with 238 my highest weight. I'm 60 years old. Two years ago, still at 230 pounds, I started trying to lose weight, basically by starving myself. I found MFP in April 2015, at which point I started paying attention to nutrition as much as weight loss. MFP set me at 1200 calories a day to lose 2 pounds a week, which I pretty much have never done, more like 1 to 1.5 per week. I average about 1150 calories a day (safe to do because of my age and extremely sedentary status - plus my doctor approved it). My monthly loss since starting MFP was 5 to 6 pounds per month, which has slowed to about 4 pounds per month. I do not exercise. According to blood tests from July of 2015, I was still pre-diabetic at 193 pounds. As of November 2nd, at 174 pounds, I am no longer pre-diabetic, and my blood glucose in my follow-up blood test two weeks ago had dropped another 11 points to 79. Today I weigh 152.6 pounds.
I wish the "Reports" section would go back further than 90 days, but here is my carbs report for the last three months:
And for those who say that sugar causes diabetes or keeps you from losing weight:
I was eating the same foods the whole time I've been on MFP, so reports going back farther would be about the same. The only difference is that I haven't been eating bread lately, not because of carbs or calories, but because I'm tired it it molding so fast and having to throw it away.
Most of my daily sugar limit is reached quickly by drinking a lot of milk, but I also have sugar in coffee, in flavored greek yogurt, and in chocolate or donuts or other sweets.
And, although it has nothing to do with this thread, I no longer have high blood pressure or high cholesterol.
Anecdotal? Sure. But I have been able to lose a great deal of weight by eating plenty of carbs and lots of sugar, and I've improved my health considerably. So I am proof that you can lose weight and get healthier by consuming them.
For most people with insulin resistance and associated conditions, excess weight has been linked as a risk factor. However, the issue is that there are definitely outliers, and in these situations people do have to pay more attention to their diet.
0 -
Functioning comes after your body adapts to using fat for fuel. There is a low carb adjustment period, you feel like *kitten* for a week then your body adapts and gets more efficient at using fat versus glucose. This is called ketosis. This is where some find benefits to low carb. Energy stays level, hunger decreases, and cravings go away with time. It's not for everyone. I couldn't keep it up any longer, but while it was working I felt pretty amazing. I think ketogenic lifestyles are indeed only for those who need or wish to do it for a lifetime. It's not a diet to be started and stopped.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions