High carb
Options
peter2100
Posts: 101 Member
I've seen a few threads on low carb, but I'm wondering if there's anyone here who prefers high carb. And if you are low carb, what convinced you to go low carb? And have you considered high carb?
0
Replies
-
Not sure if this is really a debate so may be better suited to the general Diet section.0
-
Is 55% carbs high? I eat "high" carb because it's sustainable for me.2
-
I think I eat moderate carb.
I have 1200 calories without exercise. I want a mix of foods to help me feel satisfied.0 -
When I'm food logging the only limit on my carbs is my overall daily calorie allowance once minimums for protein and fat have been met. I like carbs and carbs like me.
As a long distance cyclist I have some extraordinary high carb days, 645g I think was my highest day (and still in a large deficit).2 -
I feel like as wide a subject as "low-carb" can be, "high-carb" is going to get even more weird. Not just that, but subjective as hell too.
Using me as an example: I recently started reintroducing carbs into my diet as part of hormone stabilization, after come off of a hellcut. For year, I've been a keto eater. I'm currently around 125g carbs per day. That feels high-carb as *kitten* to me, though realistically, it's still within the upper 75% of "low-carb".3 -
I eat around 300-350 grams per day. High or low. I dunno.1
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I feel like as wide a subject as "low-carb" can be, "high-carb" is going to get even more weird. Not just that, but subjective as hell too.
Using me as an example: I recently started reintroducing carbs into my diet as part of hormone stabilization, after come off of a hellcut. For year, I've been a keto eater. I'm currently around 125g carbs per day. That feels high-carb as *kitten* to me, though realistically, it's still within the upper 75% of "low-carb".
Well let me objectify my definition a bit. I mean high carb, low fat. A diet where the vast majority of calories come from carbs, and which no more than about 10% fat. The protein is mainly set from day to day so any extra calories from day to day come from carbs.
Indeed, that is more like the upper bounds for low carb. 100g is definitely upper bounds for low carb, and 125g is still pretty low.Is 55% carbs high? I eat "high" carb because it's sustainable for me.
Sort of.When I'm food logging the only limit on my carbs is my overall daily calorie allowance once minimums for protein and fat have been met. I like carbs and carbs like me.
As a long distance cyclist I have some extraordinary high carb days, 645g I think was my highest day (and still in a large deficit).
Ah very cool.
1 -
high carb all the way here, I burn 1000 calories or more a day seven days a week, I need that fuel!2
-
I don't specifically pick low carb or high carb, I just eat what I want and let macros fall wherever, trying to put slightly more effort into protein because if I don't I tend to eat under 40 grams. As an average, the days that are most successfully satiating while still within calories happen to average at around 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat. That's about 250-280 grams of carbs, 70-90 grams of protein and 30-40 grams of fat.2
-
It used to be believed (and still is by many) that the only possible way to complete a long endurance competition (Ironman, ultra-marathon, and even marathons) is to constantly gobble down carbs throughout the competition. An industry was created (or perhaps the industry created this notion, I'm not sure) to make gel packs, energy bars, and sports drinks for quick and high carb snacks and drinks to consume during such activity. That does work, and there is a clear scientific reason why it works.
On the other hand, low carbers who have become fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than high carbers. It takes time to adapt to being very efficient using fat, but those people don't have to constantly eat gels and high-carb energy bars because they can get a lot of energy from fat (more than the high carber, and enough to complete the event). Low carbers need more electrolytes / sodium, which both groups need.
Both groups have a way that works to obtain energy for endurance activities. The high carb method has been touted for decades, and the low carb method has not received as much attention... and there is less profit to be made from gel pack, energy bar, and sports drink sales.
For non-endurance athletes, the debate is different. Obviously there are some of us with medical issues who benefit greatly from a low carb diet. But for the otherwise healthy person eating a SAD (high carb) diet, the question is about satiety. While everyone is different, 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese. This statistic makes me think that many Americans are still hungry after maintenance when eating SAD, thus leading to consumption of excess calories. So for the otherwise healthy person who is tracking and restricting calorie consumption to avoid over-consumption, high carb works.6 -
I was vegetarian for years and followed a low fat high carb way of eating. I stayed in my healthy bmi range all that time.
I ate lower carb to lose the weight I put on from eating all the everything I wanted for three years and have been successful thanks to logging food here at mfp.
I like both ways of eating for different reasons like ease of preparation, ethical considerations, and attainability of foods depending on where I am.
I think the lower carb leads me to eat a more regular way: three meals including breakfast, one snack.
Lower carb also enables me to eat more easily in social and traveling situations snd still get the macros and nutritional standard I have set for myself. Overeating has vanished from my life with lower carb.
For me attention must be more onto the calorie content and serving sizes. I do pay attention to nutritional values and the freshness of the food I buy.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »For non-endurance athletes, the debate is different. Obviously there are some of us with medical issues who benefit greatly from a low carb diet. But for the otherwise healthy person eating a SAD (high carb) diet, the question is about satiety. While everyone is different, 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese. This statistic makes me think that many Americans are still hungry after maintenance when eating SAD, thus leading to consumption of excess calories. So for the otherwise healthy person who is tracking and restricting calorie consumption to avoid over-consumption, high carb works.
The definition of SAD is not high carb. The typical HCLF diet that OP seems to be asking about isn't anything like SAD (which is normally defined as involving high intakes of red meat and processed meat, refined grains, sugar, and fat, and tends to be, if anything, about average carbs -- 50%, so consistent with the usual recommendations AND many healthy traditional diets -- and high fat (not compared to keto, obviously, but versus what is normally recommended and again many traditional diets). I'd personally say that macros don't seem to matter much -- countries that have weight problems have a range of macro mixes, whereas traditional healthful diets are all over, but the SAD and blue zones don't really differ based on carb percentage.
Now, do those eating the so called SAD (which is actually a problematic term, since obviously what people eat in the US vary and the SAD is not recommended by anyone) choose DIFFERENT carbs on average and different fats than in blue zones, and have other differences in their diet? Yeah, but it's not carb percentage.
I think Americans overeat because social constraints that used to restrain eating (eat at prescribed times, eat a balanced meat including vegetables, cook your own food, etc.) no longer really exist and people have an opportunity to eat all the time, high cal stuff they find tasty (and also stuff that isn't all that filling to many, that contains about half of its calories from carbs, half from fat, as well as high cal drinks), and stuff that is extremely available and involves no time or much cost to acquire. I've been honestly shocked at the number of MFPers who claim to not have experience eating regular meals or vegetables or cooking or the like, which I think is a change even from when I was a kid.
If it really was that we are hungry and there are obvious foods that fill us up and foods that don't, I think people would have to be idiots not to eat something that fills them up. (I'm starving, I'll have a yogurt.) I think much more likely people want to eat when they have foods around them that they perceive as highly palatable or get into habits of mindlessly eating or the like. (This even makes sense evolutionarily, as in times of scarcity it was important to be able to eat when food was around and we can easily adapt to eating less frequently no matter what we are eating when necessary.)
Of course, if one has a health issue where you have to eat more frequently or a certain balance of foods, that's not always the case.4 -
I was vegetarian for years and followed a low fat high carb way of eating.Lower carb also enables me to eat more easily in social and traveling situations snd still get the macros and nutritional standard I have set for myself.
Isn't it more likely that your difficulties in such situations are related to being a vegetarian?
When I ate SAD, I would go to fast food when I traveled and would usually get a sandwich / burger and fries.
On low carb, I get a sandwich / burger without a bun and no side. Sometimes I'll get 2 burgers instead.
I would guess that a vegetarian would just get fries and no sandwich.
Obviously there are some variations depending on where you go, but burger and fries is the typical in a lot of travel / on-the-go establishments. If I have time, I find that Subways are the most flexible to obtain more food that is low carb (and vegetarian if you want) because I can get a salad with meat in it while vegetarians can get a salad without meat. But that is a variation for a specific place... it is just a question of what is available in the specific location.
Then again, we all have different methods and speeds of travel. When I travel for leisure, it is different than when I travel for business. My longer leisure trips are always road trips and I'm driving around 500 miles per night (more or less). You would think that somewhere along the way in that many miles, I could find plenty of options. But since I do most of my driving at night and I don't move around or want to spend a lot of time during the day looking for fast food, I go by a lot of places that are not open anyway. For those that are, I have to spend a bit more time ordering low carb. I must be the only person in America who gets a meatball salad sometimes at Subway, for example, and have to help them figure out how to make it (except at my local Subway where they know me very well by now).0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Not sure if this is really a debate so may be better suited to the general Diet section.
I agree with this, but find it possibly an interesting discussion, even though misplaced. (A debate about one being better than the other would not be interesting to me.)
OP, I kind of accidentally did a LFHC way of eating for a period of time (Lent a few years ago) because I decided to do plant-based, and I actually found it a really satisfying way to eat in terms of enjoying my food and never being hungry. I think I would have gotten more tired of it for a longer period of time, and I found no animal products much more difficult than the low fat aspect (I wasn't logging so not sure how low the fat was -- I didn't make a hugh effort to cut fat as that wasn't the point, so I'm guessing more like 20% rather than 10%--I did cut out a lot of my normal sources of fat as they tend to be animal-based). That I was satiated on fewer calories than I normally ate (I dropped weight even though I was not trying to) was something I noticed, which in retrospect is despite likely not getting enough protein vs. what I now like (and I find protein satiating, fat isn't at all for me, though).
I don't try to hit any particular amount of fat or carbs now, although I find I range from 40-50% carbs when logging, depending on whether I am cutting down on meat and how many calories I am eating (I tend to eat more carbs when eating more overall since my protein percentage is less). This is more preference than for any particular reason (I don't find fat satiating, but I do find it tasty, so like to leave room for it), and I focus on choosing nutrient dense foods in general, not percentage of fat or carbs (I do generally try to eat in a way that will result in around 100 g of protein). I expect that if I chose the right foods I could be fine on a high carb diet, but it's not what I naturally seem to gravitate to.1 -
I eat a high fiber diet and that means I eat a significant number of carbs. IDK what you consider high carb, but my diet is certainly not low carb.0
-
I've seen a few threads on low carb, but I'm wondering if there's anyone here who prefers high carb. And if you are low carb, what convinced you to go low carb? And have you considered high carb?
I actually do prefer high carb on certain days. It depends on how much activity I do or what I am training for. It seems that if I do a higher Carb Day I have more energy.0 -
Quite a few vegetarians and vegans are high carb0
-
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I feel like as wide a subject as "low-carb" can be, "high-carb" is going to get even more weird. Not just that, but subjective as hell too.
Using me as an example: I recently started reintroducing carbs into my diet as part of hormone stabilization, after come off of a hellcut. For year, I've been a keto eater. I'm currently around 125g carbs per day. That feels high-carb as *kitten* to me, though realistically, it's still within the upper 75% of "low-carb".
Well let me objectify my definition a bit. I mean high carb, low fat. A diet where the vast majority of calories come from carbs, and which no more than about 10% fat. The protein is mainly set from day to day so any extra calories from day to day come from carbs.
Indeed, that is more like the upper bounds for low carb. 100g is definitely upper bounds for low carb, and 125g is still pretty low.Is 55% carbs high? I eat "high" carb because it's sustainable for me.
Sort of.When I'm food logging the only limit on my carbs is my overall daily calorie allowance once minimums for protein and fat have been met. I like carbs and carbs like me.
As a long distance cyclist I have some extraordinary high carb days, 645g I think was my highest day (and still in a large deficit).
Ah very cool.
Ahh, okay. I'm more like 30% carb, 50% protein, 20% fat at the moment.0 -
I've seen a few threads on low carb, but I'm wondering if there's anyone here who prefers high carb. And if you are low carb, what convinced you to go low carb? And have you considered high carb?
Higher carb, yes...but I'd call my carbs moderate....just higher than what you typically see around here. I eat vegetarian 3-4 days per week and vegetarian diets tend to be a bit higher carb. You don't want to cut out too much fat...dietary fat is essential to many functions of the human body and cutting out too much fat can be a health detriment.
Pretty much I think balance is where it's at...I don't see any need to go to any extreme...a balance of nutrients.1
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
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 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
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions