good carbs and bad carbs...
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nicoleduran81 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »i see people put that they only "eat good carbs and not the bad ones". "I stick with the simple carbs and not the complex ones. "
what are some good ones as opposed to the ones that arent good. Curious as i want to change some things that i eat to maybe help with the lifestyle.
I would assume people are talking about things like veg, fruit, whole grains, legumes, lentils, etc as good carbs and things like candy and soda and whatnot as bad carbs.
This is how I look at it. In my brain junk=bad carbs.
Most so-call junk food is carbs and fat (often half fat or more) and sometimes (depending on what you call junk) protein also. I will never understand why people insist on calling something like potato chips "bad carbs" when half the calories are from oil and the reason it's different (more caloric, maybe less healthful) than roasted plain potatoes is the amount (sometimes type) of added fat and salt, NOT the carbs.
Something like cake at least has refined flour and sugar which are lower nutrient carbs, but again about half the calories are from added fat, so why is this a "carb"?
(I'd say it's not inherently bad anyway, but only bad if you eat it in excess and thus have a bad diet, but this is a separate argument that I'm not even talking about now. I don't understand why foods that are made up significantly of other macros get called "carbs.")
I realize it will vary by recipe but half of the calories in cake are from fat?
One local example of a classic chocolate cake with nutrition information in the system is the Portillo's chocolate cake, which is 48% fat and 48% carbs. I rarely make cake so haven't put many recipes in my recipe box (I make pie more often but haven't put those in either). Cookie might have been a better example, or donuts, and we can also look at the potato chips I mentioned or fries (or most of the stuff at a fast food place if that is "junk" as it's got lots of fat, carbs, and protein). Checking my recipe box, I have a cupcake recipe with 34% of calories from fat (64% from carbs) -- still weird to call that food "carbs." I have chocolate chip cookies (very buttery) that are 57% fat and 43% carb (there's a tiny bit of protein, so something off about the rounding).
Anyway, not sure what difference it makes to the overall point whether one particular form of junk food that contains significant fat (in most cases, yes angel food would be different) is exactly half fat.
It was surprising to me is all.
But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all.
Not all, some are purely sugar (soda, candy), but those have never appealed to me. Bigger issue, since clearly some like them, is that a huge amount of junk foods and some of the most commonly referred to in these discussions are things like donuts and potato chips, that have as much fat as carbs. (And I would not consider potatoes without a lot of added salt and fat to be junk food, or else would a roasted potato or roasted sweet potato be such? But this is why some people hate the term.)But still it's the food as a whole that is generally considered junk and the common ingredient in what is commonly considered junk food is usually carbs. Few people consider a well marbled steak junk food, for instance. Typically it's refined flour or sugars that are the deciding junk factor.
I disagree, and again will hold up potato chips or fries vs. a roasted potato as an example. Why are the former "junk food"? No added sugar or refined flour. Potatoes? Most don't consider plain potatoes "junk" (and I don't think they could defend it if they did). It's the calories per amount/per nutrient, and that's because of the fat. Or for some the excessive sodium (which depends on the product). Or, for some, because they are a snack food, normally (or often) consumed between meals.
Another example is white pasta, which some might consider a "junk food," but I don't think that's a common usage of the term, and white pasta with salmon and lots of vegetables, and a bit of olive oil is a healthy dinner and I'd certainly argue with anyone who called that junk food. Another food using white flour, though, like a cookie, often would be called junk food -- is this because white flour makes something such, or because it's got lots of calories due to added fat, added sugar, and an absence of more nutrient-dense additives? Or, again, because it's typically a snack or dessert food (which often is what I think "junk food" may mean)?
Even focusing on sugar (which I think is no more significant than fat -- see, again, potato chips or, I dunno, many dips or buffalo wings or fried cheese -- all junk foods that are mostly fat), you have sugar in nutrient dense foods (like fruit) or a small amount used in a food no one would normally call junk food (oats) vs. that on its own (soda) or with fat (a donut -- also with refined flour, of course).
So calling "junk foods" in general "bad carbs" or "carbs" strikes me as a odd misuse of the term.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »...But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all. It's a subjective term but I would consider baked potato chips a junk food just like I would regular potato chips. I'd consider skittles and gummy worms junk food...
Tell it to an ultra-endurance athlete who's looking for quick carbs to refuel during an event.
Again, context matters. Skittles and gummy worms might not be very useful for a fat kid sitting on the couch playing video games, but they could be highly useful and beneficial to a marathon runner around mile 22. Or a TdF rider near the end of a stage, shortly before the sprint to the finish begins.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nicoleduran81 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »i see people put that they only "eat good carbs and not the bad ones". "I stick with the simple carbs and not the complex ones. "
what are some good ones as opposed to the ones that arent good. Curious as i want to change some things that i eat to maybe help with the lifestyle.
I would assume people are talking about things like veg, fruit, whole grains, legumes, lentils, etc as good carbs and things like candy and soda and whatnot as bad carbs.
This is how I look at it. In my brain junk=bad carbs.
Most so-call junk food is carbs and fat (often half fat or more) and sometimes (depending on what you call junk) protein also. I will never understand why people insist on calling something like potato chips "bad carbs" when half the calories are from oil and the reason it's different (more caloric, maybe less healthful) than roasted plain potatoes is the amount (sometimes type) of added fat and salt, NOT the carbs.
Something like cake at least has refined flour and sugar which are lower nutrient carbs, but again about half the calories are from added fat, so why is this a "carb"?
(I'd say it's not inherently bad anyway, but only bad if you eat it in excess and thus have a bad diet, but this is a separate argument that I'm not even talking about now. I don't understand why foods that are made up significantly of other macros get called "carbs.")
I realize it will vary by recipe but half of the calories in cake are from fat?
Shortcrust easily reaches that.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »...But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all. It's a subjective term but I would consider baked potato chips a junk food just like I would regular potato chips. I'd consider skittles and gummy worms junk food...
Tell it to an ultra-endurance athlete who's looking for quick carbs to refuel during an event.
Again, context matters. Skittles and gummy worms might not be very useful for a fat kid sitting on the couch playing video games, but they could be highly useful and beneficial to a marathon runner around mile 22. Or a TdF rider near the end of a stage, shortly before the sprint to the finish begins.
yes! lol! i use gummy bears as part of my fueling during marathons - cheaper than "sport specific" gummies etc
I will say the potato chips and chicken broth at mile 20 of my ironman marathon were like manna from heaven2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nicoleduran81 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »i see people put that they only "eat good carbs and not the bad ones". "I stick with the simple carbs and not the complex ones. "
what are some good ones as opposed to the ones that arent good. Curious as i want to change some things that i eat to maybe help with the lifestyle.
I would assume people are talking about things like veg, fruit, whole grains, legumes, lentils, etc as good carbs and things like candy and soda and whatnot as bad carbs.
This is how I look at it. In my brain junk=bad carbs.
Most so-call junk food is carbs and fat (often half fat or more) and sometimes (depending on what you call junk) protein also. I will never understand why people insist on calling something like potato chips "bad carbs" when half the calories are from oil and the reason it's different (more caloric, maybe less healthful) than roasted plain potatoes is the amount (sometimes type) of added fat and salt, NOT the carbs.
Something like cake at least has refined flour and sugar which are lower nutrient carbs, but again about half the calories are from added fat, so why is this a "carb"?
(I'd say it's not inherently bad anyway, but only bad if you eat it in excess and thus have a bad diet, but this is a separate argument that I'm not even talking about now. I don't understand why foods that are made up significantly of other macros get called "carbs.")
I realize it will vary by recipe but half of the calories in cake are from fat?
One local example of a classic chocolate cake with nutrition information in the system is the Portillo's chocolate cake, which is 48% fat and 48% carbs. I rarely make cake so haven't put many recipes in my recipe box (I make pie more often but haven't put those in either). Cookie might have been a better example, or donuts, and we can also look at the potato chips I mentioned or fries (or most of the stuff at a fast food place if that is "junk" as it's got lots of fat, carbs, and protein). Checking my recipe box, I have a cupcake recipe with 34% of calories from fat (64% from carbs) -- still weird to call that food "carbs." I have chocolate chip cookies (very buttery) that are 57% fat and 43% carb (there's a tiny bit of protein, so something off about the rounding).
Anyway, not sure what difference it makes to the overall point whether one particular form of junk food that contains significant fat (in most cases, yes angel food would be different) is exactly half fat.
It was surprising to me is all.
But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all.
Not all, some are purely sugar (soda, candy), but those have never appealed to me. Bigger issue, since clearly some like them, is that a huge amount of junk foods and some of the most commonly referred to in these discussions are things like donuts and potato chips, that have as much fat as carbs. (And I would not consider potatoes without a lot of added salt and fat to be junk food, or else would a roasted potato or roasted sweet potato be such? But this is why some people hate the term.)But still it's the food as a whole that is generally considered junk and the common ingredient in what is commonly considered junk food is usually carbs. Few people consider a well marbled steak junk food, for instance. Typically it's refined flour or sugars that are the deciding junk factor.
I disagree, and again will hold up potato chips or fries vs. a roasted potato as an example. Why are the former "junk food"? No added sugar or refined flour. Potatoes? Most don't consider plain potatoes "junk" (and I don't think they could defend it if they did). It's the calories per amount/per nutrient, and that's because of the fat. Or for some the excessive sodium (which depends on the product). Or, for some, because they are a snack food, normally (or often) consumed between meals.
Another example is white pasta, which some might consider a "junk food," but I don't think that's a common usage of the term, and white pasta with salmon and lots of vegetables, and a bit of olive oil is a healthy dinner and I'd certainly argue with anyone who called that junk food. Another food using white flour, though, like a cookie, often would be called junk food -- is this because white flour makes something such, or because it's got lots of calories due to added fat, added sugar, and an absence of more nutrient-dense additives? Or, again, because it's typically a snack or dessert food (which often is what I think "junk food" may mean)?
Even focusing on sugar (which I think is no more significant than fat -- see, again, potato chips or, I dunno, many dips or buffalo wings or fried cheese -- all junk foods that are mostly fat), you have sugar in nutrient dense foods (like fruit) or a small amount used in a food no one would normally call junk food (oats) vs. that on its own (soda) or with fat (a donut -- also with refined flour, of course).
So calling "junk foods" in general "bad carbs" or "carbs" strikes me as a odd misuse of the term.
I've never heard anyone call pasta "junk food". I would think that's rare enough not to need discussion.
Not all cookies or cakes have much added fat. Snackwells, using applesauce in place of the oil, glaze instead of icing, etc. But hey, if you want to go with fat as the main culprit that's cool. Certainly it is in a lot of junk food.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nicoleduran81 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »i see people put that they only "eat good carbs and not the bad ones". "I stick with the simple carbs and not the complex ones. "
what are some good ones as opposed to the ones that arent good. Curious as i want to change some things that i eat to maybe help with the lifestyle.
I would assume people are talking about things like veg, fruit, whole grains, legumes, lentils, etc as good carbs and things like candy and soda and whatnot as bad carbs.
This is how I look at it. In my brain junk=bad carbs.
Most so-call junk food is carbs and fat (often half fat or more) and sometimes (depending on what you call junk) protein also. I will never understand why people insist on calling something like potato chips "bad carbs" when half the calories are from oil and the reason it's different (more caloric, maybe less healthful) than roasted plain potatoes is the amount (sometimes type) of added fat and salt, NOT the carbs.
Something like cake at least has refined flour and sugar which are lower nutrient carbs, but again about half the calories are from added fat, so why is this a "carb"?
(I'd say it's not inherently bad anyway, but only bad if you eat it in excess and thus have a bad diet, but this is a separate argument that I'm not even talking about now. I don't understand why foods that are made up significantly of other macros get called "carbs.")
I realize it will vary by recipe but half of the calories in cake are from fat?
One local example of a classic chocolate cake with nutrition information in the system is the Portillo's chocolate cake, which is 48% fat and 48% carbs. I rarely make cake so haven't put many recipes in my recipe box (I make pie more often but haven't put those in either). Cookie might have been a better example, or donuts, and we can also look at the potato chips I mentioned or fries (or most of the stuff at a fast food place if that is "junk" as it's got lots of fat, carbs, and protein). Checking my recipe box, I have a cupcake recipe with 34% of calories from fat (64% from carbs) -- still weird to call that food "carbs." I have chocolate chip cookies (very buttery) that are 57% fat and 43% carb (there's a tiny bit of protein, so something off about the rounding).
Anyway, not sure what difference it makes to the overall point whether one particular form of junk food that contains significant fat (in most cases, yes angel food would be different) is exactly half fat.
It was surprising to me is all.
But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all.
Not all, some are purely sugar (soda, candy), but those have never appealed to me. Bigger issue, since clearly some like them, is that a huge amount of junk foods and some of the most commonly referred to in these discussions are things like donuts and potato chips, that have as much fat as carbs. (And I would not consider potatoes without a lot of added salt and fat to be junk food, or else would a roasted potato or roasted sweet potato be such? But this is why some people hate the term.)But still it's the food as a whole that is generally considered junk and the common ingredient in what is commonly considered junk food is usually carbs. Few people consider a well marbled steak junk food, for instance. Typically it's refined flour or sugars that are the deciding junk factor.
I disagree, and again will hold up potato chips or fries vs. a roasted potato as an example. Why are the former "junk food"? No added sugar or refined flour. Potatoes? Most don't consider plain potatoes "junk" (and I don't think they could defend it if they did). It's the calories per amount/per nutrient, and that's because of the fat. Or for some the excessive sodium (which depends on the product). Or, for some, because they are a snack food, normally (or often) consumed between meals.
Another example is white pasta, which some might consider a "junk food," but I don't think that's a common usage of the term, and white pasta with salmon and lots of vegetables, and a bit of olive oil is a healthy dinner and I'd certainly argue with anyone who called that junk food. Another food using white flour, though, like a cookie, often would be called junk food -- is this because white flour makes something such, or because it's got lots of calories due to added fat, added sugar, and an absence of more nutrient-dense additives? Or, again, because it's typically a snack or dessert food (which often is what I think "junk food" may mean)?
Even focusing on sugar (which I think is no more significant than fat -- see, again, potato chips or, I dunno, many dips or buffalo wings or fried cheese -- all junk foods that are mostly fat), you have sugar in nutrient dense foods (like fruit) or a small amount used in a food no one would normally call junk food (oats) vs. that on its own (soda) or with fat (a donut -- also with refined flour, of course).
So calling "junk foods" in general "bad carbs" or "carbs" strikes me as a odd misuse of the term.
I've never heard anyone call pasta "junk food". I would think that's rare enough not to need discussion.
Not all cookies or cakes have much added fat. Snackwells, using applesauce in place of the oil, glaze instead of icing, etc. But hey, if you want to go with fat as the main culprit that's cool. Certainly it is in a lot of junk food.
I have heard people refer to (white) pasta as "junk carbs" or "empty calories." I think it's becoming fairly common in some circles to view pasta as a junky food.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »...But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all. It's a subjective term but I would consider baked potato chips a junk food just like I would regular potato chips. I'd consider skittles and gummy worms junk food...
Tell it to an ultra-endurance athlete who's looking for quick carbs to refuel during an event.
Again, context matters. Skittles and gummy worms might not be very useful for a fat kid sitting on the couch playing video games, but they could be highly useful and beneficial to a marathon runner around mile 22. Or a TdF rider near the end of a stage, shortly before the sprint to the finish begins.
Exactly this. I take Sour Patch Kids or Haribo gummy peaches to my powerlifting meets for quick shots of carbs.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nicoleduran81 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »i see people put that they only "eat good carbs and not the bad ones". "I stick with the simple carbs and not the complex ones. "
what are some good ones as opposed to the ones that arent good. Curious as i want to change some things that i eat to maybe help with the lifestyle.
I would assume people are talking about things like veg, fruit, whole grains, legumes, lentils, etc as good carbs and things like candy and soda and whatnot as bad carbs.
This is how I look at it. In my brain junk=bad carbs.
Most so-call junk food is carbs and fat (often half fat or more) and sometimes (depending on what you call junk) protein also. I will never understand why people insist on calling something like potato chips "bad carbs" when half the calories are from oil and the reason it's different (more caloric, maybe less healthful) than roasted plain potatoes is the amount (sometimes type) of added fat and salt, NOT the carbs.
Something like cake at least has refined flour and sugar which are lower nutrient carbs, but again about half the calories are from added fat, so why is this a "carb"?
(I'd say it's not inherently bad anyway, but only bad if you eat it in excess and thus have a bad diet, but this is a separate argument that I'm not even talking about now. I don't understand why foods that are made up significantly of other macros get called "carbs.")
I realize it will vary by recipe but half of the calories in cake are from fat?
One local example of a classic chocolate cake with nutrition information in the system is the Portillo's chocolate cake, which is 48% fat and 48% carbs. I rarely make cake so haven't put many recipes in my recipe box (I make pie more often but haven't put those in either). Cookie might have been a better example, or donuts, and we can also look at the potato chips I mentioned or fries (or most of the stuff at a fast food place if that is "junk" as it's got lots of fat, carbs, and protein). Checking my recipe box, I have a cupcake recipe with 34% of calories from fat (64% from carbs) -- still weird to call that food "carbs." I have chocolate chip cookies (very buttery) that are 57% fat and 43% carb (there's a tiny bit of protein, so something off about the rounding).
Anyway, not sure what difference it makes to the overall point whether one particular form of junk food that contains significant fat (in most cases, yes angel food would be different) is exactly half fat.
It was surprising to me is all.
But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all.
Not all, some are purely sugar (soda, candy), but those have never appealed to me. Bigger issue, since clearly some like them, is that a huge amount of junk foods and some of the most commonly referred to in these discussions are things like donuts and potato chips, that have as much fat as carbs. (And I would not consider potatoes without a lot of added salt and fat to be junk food, or else would a roasted potato or roasted sweet potato be such? But this is why some people hate the term.)But still it's the food as a whole that is generally considered junk and the common ingredient in what is commonly considered junk food is usually carbs. Few people consider a well marbled steak junk food, for instance. Typically it's refined flour or sugars that are the deciding junk factor.
I disagree, and again will hold up potato chips or fries vs. a roasted potato as an example. Why are the former "junk food"? No added sugar or refined flour. Potatoes? Most don't consider plain potatoes "junk" (and I don't think they could defend it if they did). It's the calories per amount/per nutrient, and that's because of the fat. Or for some the excessive sodium (which depends on the product). Or, for some, because they are a snack food, normally (or often) consumed between meals.
Another example is white pasta, which some might consider a "junk food," but I don't think that's a common usage of the term, and white pasta with salmon and lots of vegetables, and a bit of olive oil is a healthy dinner and I'd certainly argue with anyone who called that junk food. Another food using white flour, though, like a cookie, often would be called junk food -- is this because white flour makes something such, or because it's got lots of calories due to added fat, added sugar, and an absence of more nutrient-dense additives? Or, again, because it's typically a snack or dessert food (which often is what I think "junk food" may mean)?
Even focusing on sugar (which I think is no more significant than fat -- see, again, potato chips or, I dunno, many dips or buffalo wings or fried cheese -- all junk foods that are mostly fat), you have sugar in nutrient dense foods (like fruit) or a small amount used in a food no one would normally call junk food (oats) vs. that on its own (soda) or with fat (a donut -- also with refined flour, of course).
So calling "junk foods" in general "bad carbs" or "carbs" strikes me as a odd misuse of the term.
I've never heard anyone call pasta "junk food". I would think that's rare enough not to need discussion.
Not all cookies or cakes have much added fat. Snackwells, using applesauce in place of the oil, glaze instead of icing, etc. But hey, if you want to go with fat as the main culprit that's cool. Certainly it is in a lot of junk food.
I have heard people refer to (white) pasta as "junk carbs" or "empty calories." I think it's becoming fairly common in some circles to view pasta as a junky food.
I shun people in those circles.0 -
No such thing. The reality is there are nutrient dense varied diets and nutrient poor un-varied diets. Get your nutrients, vary your food, eat an appropriate calorie level in accordance with your goals and you are good to go...2
-
raven56706 wrote: »i see people put that they only "eat good carbs and not the bad ones".
"I distrust people who show no sign of naughtiness or self-indulgence...
–Alan Watts
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nicoleduran81 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »i see people put that they only "eat good carbs and not the bad ones". "I stick with the simple carbs and not the complex ones. "
what are some good ones as opposed to the ones that arent good. Curious as i want to change some things that i eat to maybe help with the lifestyle.
I would assume people are talking about things like veg, fruit, whole grains, legumes, lentils, etc as good carbs and things like candy and soda and whatnot as bad carbs.
This is how I look at it. In my brain junk=bad carbs.
Most so-call junk food is carbs and fat (often half fat or more) and sometimes (depending on what you call junk) protein also. I will never understand why people insist on calling something like potato chips "bad carbs" when half the calories are from oil and the reason it's different (more caloric, maybe less healthful) than roasted plain potatoes is the amount (sometimes type) of added fat and salt, NOT the carbs.
Something like cake at least has refined flour and sugar which are lower nutrient carbs, but again about half the calories are from added fat, so why is this a "carb"?
(I'd say it's not inherently bad anyway, but only bad if you eat it in excess and thus have a bad diet, but this is a separate argument that I'm not even talking about now. I don't understand why foods that are made up significantly of other macros get called "carbs.")
I realize it will vary by recipe but half of the calories in cake are from fat?
One local example of a classic chocolate cake with nutrition information in the system is the Portillo's chocolate cake, which is 48% fat and 48% carbs. I rarely make cake so haven't put many recipes in my recipe box (I make pie more often but haven't put those in either). Cookie might have been a better example, or donuts, and we can also look at the potato chips I mentioned or fries (or most of the stuff at a fast food place if that is "junk" as it's got lots of fat, carbs, and protein). Checking my recipe box, I have a cupcake recipe with 34% of calories from fat (64% from carbs) -- still weird to call that food "carbs." I have chocolate chip cookies (very buttery) that are 57% fat and 43% carb (there's a tiny bit of protein, so something off about the rounding).
Anyway, not sure what difference it makes to the overall point whether one particular form of junk food that contains significant fat (in most cases, yes angel food would be different) is exactly half fat.
It was surprising to me is all.
But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all.
Not all, some are purely sugar (soda, candy), but those have never appealed to me. Bigger issue, since clearly some like them, is that a huge amount of junk foods and some of the most commonly referred to in these discussions are things like donuts and potato chips, that have as much fat as carbs. (And I would not consider potatoes without a lot of added salt and fat to be junk food, or else would a roasted potato or roasted sweet potato be such? But this is why some people hate the term.)But still it's the food as a whole that is generally considered junk and the common ingredient in what is commonly considered junk food is usually carbs. Few people consider a well marbled steak junk food, for instance. Typically it's refined flour or sugars that are the deciding junk factor.
I disagree, and again will hold up potato chips or fries vs. a roasted potato as an example. Why are the former "junk food"? No added sugar or refined flour. Potatoes? Most don't consider plain potatoes "junk" (and I don't think they could defend it if they did). It's the calories per amount/per nutrient, and that's because of the fat. Or for some the excessive sodium (which depends on the product). Or, for some, because they are a snack food, normally (or often) consumed between meals.
Another example is white pasta, which some might consider a "junk food," but I don't think that's a common usage of the term, and white pasta with salmon and lots of vegetables, and a bit of olive oil is a healthy dinner and I'd certainly argue with anyone who called that junk food. Another food using white flour, though, like a cookie, often would be called junk food -- is this because white flour makes something such, or because it's got lots of calories due to added fat, added sugar, and an absence of more nutrient-dense additives? Or, again, because it's typically a snack or dessert food (which often is what I think "junk food" may mean)?
Even focusing on sugar (which I think is no more significant than fat -- see, again, potato chips or, I dunno, many dips or buffalo wings or fried cheese -- all junk foods that are mostly fat), you have sugar in nutrient dense foods (like fruit) or a small amount used in a food no one would normally call junk food (oats) vs. that on its own (soda) or with fat (a donut -- also with refined flour, of course).
So calling "junk foods" in general "bad carbs" or "carbs" strikes me as a odd misuse of the term.
I've never heard anyone call pasta "junk food". I would think that's rare enough not to need discussion.
Not all cookies or cakes have much added fat. Snackwells, using applesauce in place of the oil, glaze instead of icing, etc. But hey, if you want to go with fat as the main culprit that's cool. Certainly it is in a lot of junk food.
I have heard people refer to (white) pasta as "junk carbs" or "empty calories." I think it's becoming fairly common in some circles to view pasta as a junky food.
I shun people in those circles.
I am friends with some people who think this way . . . but I try not to have dinner with them too often unless I can choose my own food.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nicoleduran81 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »i see people put that they only "eat good carbs and not the bad ones". "I stick with the simple carbs and not the complex ones. "
what are some good ones as opposed to the ones that arent good. Curious as i want to change some things that i eat to maybe help with the lifestyle.
I would assume people are talking about things like veg, fruit, whole grains, legumes, lentils, etc as good carbs and things like candy and soda and whatnot as bad carbs.
This is how I look at it. In my brain junk=bad carbs.
Most so-call junk food is carbs and fat (often half fat or more) and sometimes (depending on what you call junk) protein also. I will never understand why people insist on calling something like potato chips "bad carbs" when half the calories are from oil and the reason it's different (more caloric, maybe less healthful) than roasted plain potatoes is the amount (sometimes type) of added fat and salt, NOT the carbs.
Something like cake at least has refined flour and sugar which are lower nutrient carbs, but again about half the calories are from added fat, so why is this a "carb"?
(I'd say it's not inherently bad anyway, but only bad if you eat it in excess and thus have a bad diet, but this is a separate argument that I'm not even talking about now. I don't understand why foods that are made up significantly of other macros get called "carbs.")
I realize it will vary by recipe but half of the calories in cake are from fat?
One local example of a classic chocolate cake with nutrition information in the system is the Portillo's chocolate cake, which is 48% fat and 48% carbs. I rarely make cake so haven't put many recipes in my recipe box (I make pie more often but haven't put those in either). Cookie might have been a better example, or donuts, and we can also look at the potato chips I mentioned or fries (or most of the stuff at a fast food place if that is "junk" as it's got lots of fat, carbs, and protein). Checking my recipe box, I have a cupcake recipe with 34% of calories from fat (64% from carbs) -- still weird to call that food "carbs." I have chocolate chip cookies (very buttery) that are 57% fat and 43% carb (there's a tiny bit of protein, so something off about the rounding).
Anyway, not sure what difference it makes to the overall point whether one particular form of junk food that contains significant fat (in most cases, yes angel food would be different) is exactly half fat.
It was surprising to me is all.
But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all.
Not all, some are purely sugar (soda, candy), but those have never appealed to me. Bigger issue, since clearly some like them, is that a huge amount of junk foods and some of the most commonly referred to in these discussions are things like donuts and potato chips, that have as much fat as carbs. (And I would not consider potatoes without a lot of added salt and fat to be junk food, or else would a roasted potato or roasted sweet potato be such? But this is why some people hate the term.)But still it's the food as a whole that is generally considered junk and the common ingredient in what is commonly considered junk food is usually carbs. Few people consider a well marbled steak junk food, for instance. Typically it's refined flour or sugars that are the deciding junk factor.
I disagree, and again will hold up potato chips or fries vs. a roasted potato as an example. Why are the former "junk food"? No added sugar or refined flour. Potatoes? Most don't consider plain potatoes "junk" (and I don't think they could defend it if they did). It's the calories per amount/per nutrient, and that's because of the fat. Or for some the excessive sodium (which depends on the product). Or, for some, because they are a snack food, normally (or often) consumed between meals.
Another example is white pasta, which some might consider a "junk food," but I don't think that's a common usage of the term, and white pasta with salmon and lots of vegetables, and a bit of olive oil is a healthy dinner and I'd certainly argue with anyone who called that junk food. Another food using white flour, though, like a cookie, often would be called junk food -- is this because white flour makes something such, or because it's got lots of calories due to added fat, added sugar, and an absence of more nutrient-dense additives? Or, again, because it's typically a snack or dessert food (which often is what I think "junk food" may mean)?
Even focusing on sugar (which I think is no more significant than fat -- see, again, potato chips or, I dunno, many dips or buffalo wings or fried cheese -- all junk foods that are mostly fat), you have sugar in nutrient dense foods (like fruit) or a small amount used in a food no one would normally call junk food (oats) vs. that on its own (soda) or with fat (a donut -- also with refined flour, of course).
So calling "junk foods" in general "bad carbs" or "carbs" strikes me as a odd misuse of the term.
I've never heard anyone call pasta "junk food". I would think that's rare enough not to need discussion.
Not all cookies or cakes have much added fat. Snackwells, using applesauce in place of the oil, glaze instead of icing, etc. But hey, if you want to go with fat as the main culprit that's cool. Certainly it is in a lot of junk food.
I have heard people refer to (white) pasta as "junk carbs" or "empty calories." I think it's becoming fairly common in some circles to view pasta as a junky food.
I shun people in those circles.
I am friends with some people who think this way . . . but I try not to have dinner with them too often unless I can choose my own food.
I unashamedly eat it in front of them and when they say, "how do you eat that and stay in shape and so lean?" I respond, "I have no idea, I must be an outlier...".0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nicoleduran81 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »i see people put that they only "eat good carbs and not the bad ones". "I stick with the simple carbs and not the complex ones. "
what are some good ones as opposed to the ones that arent good. Curious as i want to change some things that i eat to maybe help with the lifestyle.
I would assume people are talking about things like veg, fruit, whole grains, legumes, lentils, etc as good carbs and things like candy and soda and whatnot as bad carbs.
This is how I look at it. In my brain junk=bad carbs.
Most so-call junk food is carbs and fat (often half fat or more) and sometimes (depending on what you call junk) protein also. I will never understand why people insist on calling something like potato chips "bad carbs" when half the calories are from oil and the reason it's different (more caloric, maybe less healthful) than roasted plain potatoes is the amount (sometimes type) of added fat and salt, NOT the carbs.
Something like cake at least has refined flour and sugar which are lower nutrient carbs, but again about half the calories are from added fat, so why is this a "carb"?
(I'd say it's not inherently bad anyway, but only bad if you eat it in excess and thus have a bad diet, but this is a separate argument that I'm not even talking about now. I don't understand why foods that are made up significantly of other macros get called "carbs.")
I realize it will vary by recipe but half of the calories in cake are from fat?
One local example of a classic chocolate cake with nutrition information in the system is the Portillo's chocolate cake, which is 48% fat and 48% carbs. I rarely make cake so haven't put many recipes in my recipe box (I make pie more often but haven't put those in either). Cookie might have been a better example, or donuts, and we can also look at the potato chips I mentioned or fries (or most of the stuff at a fast food place if that is "junk" as it's got lots of fat, carbs, and protein). Checking my recipe box, I have a cupcake recipe with 34% of calories from fat (64% from carbs) -- still weird to call that food "carbs." I have chocolate chip cookies (very buttery) that are 57% fat and 43% carb (there's a tiny bit of protein, so something off about the rounding).
Anyway, not sure what difference it makes to the overall point whether one particular form of junk food that contains significant fat (in most cases, yes angel food would be different) is exactly half fat.
It was surprising to me is all.
But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all.
Not all, some are purely sugar (soda, candy), but those have never appealed to me. Bigger issue, since clearly some like them, is that a huge amount of junk foods and some of the most commonly referred to in these discussions are things like donuts and potato chips, that have as much fat as carbs. (And I would not consider potatoes without a lot of added salt and fat to be junk food, or else would a roasted potato or roasted sweet potato be such? But this is why some people hate the term.)But still it's the food as a whole that is generally considered junk and the common ingredient in what is commonly considered junk food is usually carbs. Few people consider a well marbled steak junk food, for instance. Typically it's refined flour or sugars that are the deciding junk factor.
I disagree, and again will hold up potato chips or fries vs. a roasted potato as an example. Why are the former "junk food"? No added sugar or refined flour. Potatoes? Most don't consider plain potatoes "junk" (and I don't think they could defend it if they did). It's the calories per amount/per nutrient, and that's because of the fat. Or for some the excessive sodium (which depends on the product). Or, for some, because they are a snack food, normally (or often) consumed between meals.
Another example is white pasta, which some might consider a "junk food," but I don't think that's a common usage of the term, and white pasta with salmon and lots of vegetables, and a bit of olive oil is a healthy dinner and I'd certainly argue with anyone who called that junk food. Another food using white flour, though, like a cookie, often would be called junk food -- is this because white flour makes something such, or because it's got lots of calories due to added fat, added sugar, and an absence of more nutrient-dense additives? Or, again, because it's typically a snack or dessert food (which often is what I think "junk food" may mean)?
Even focusing on sugar (which I think is no more significant than fat -- see, again, potato chips or, I dunno, many dips or buffalo wings or fried cheese -- all junk foods that are mostly fat), you have sugar in nutrient dense foods (like fruit) or a small amount used in a food no one would normally call junk food (oats) vs. that on its own (soda) or with fat (a donut -- also with refined flour, of course).
So calling "junk foods" in general "bad carbs" or "carbs" strikes me as a odd misuse of the term.
I've never heard anyone call pasta "junk food". I would think that's rare enough not to need discussion.
Not all cookies or cakes have much added fat. Snackwells, using applesauce in place of the oil, glaze instead of icing, etc. But hey, if you want to go with fat as the main culprit that's cool. Certainly it is in a lot of junk food.
I have heard people refer to (white) pasta as "junk carbs" or "empty calories." I think it's becoming fairly common in some circles to view pasta as a junky food.
I shun people in those circles.
I am friends with some people who think this way . . . but I try not to have dinner with them too often unless I can choose my own food.
I unashamedly eat it in front of them and when they say, "how do you eat that and stay in shape and so lean?" I respond, "I have no idea, I must be an outlier...".
You could have some fun and tell them it is your cayenne pepper and apple cider vinegar smoothies . . .1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »nicoleduran81 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »i see people put that they only "eat good carbs and not the bad ones". "I stick with the simple carbs and not the complex ones. "
what are some good ones as opposed to the ones that arent good. Curious as i want to change some things that i eat to maybe help with the lifestyle.
I would assume people are talking about things like veg, fruit, whole grains, legumes, lentils, etc as good carbs and things like candy and soda and whatnot as bad carbs.
This is how I look at it. In my brain junk=bad carbs.
Most so-call junk food is carbs and fat (often half fat or more) and sometimes (depending on what you call junk) protein also. I will never understand why people insist on calling something like potato chips "bad carbs" when half the calories are from oil and the reason it's different (more caloric, maybe less healthful) than roasted plain potatoes is the amount (sometimes type) of added fat and salt, NOT the carbs.
Something like cake at least has refined flour and sugar which are lower nutrient carbs, but again about half the calories are from added fat, so why is this a "carb"?
(I'd say it's not inherently bad anyway, but only bad if you eat it in excess and thus have a bad diet, but this is a separate argument that I'm not even talking about now. I don't understand why foods that are made up significantly of other macros get called "carbs.")
I realize it will vary by recipe but half of the calories in cake are from fat?
One local example of a classic chocolate cake with nutrition information in the system is the Portillo's chocolate cake, which is 48% fat and 48% carbs. I rarely make cake so haven't put many recipes in my recipe box (I make pie more often but haven't put those in either). Cookie might have been a better example, or donuts, and we can also look at the potato chips I mentioned or fries (or most of the stuff at a fast food place if that is "junk" as it's got lots of fat, carbs, and protein). Checking my recipe box, I have a cupcake recipe with 34% of calories from fat (64% from carbs) -- still weird to call that food "carbs." I have chocolate chip cookies (very buttery) that are 57% fat and 43% carb (there's a tiny bit of protein, so something off about the rounding).
Anyway, not sure what difference it makes to the overall point whether one particular form of junk food that contains significant fat (in most cases, yes angel food would be different) is exactly half fat.
It was surprising to me is all.
But I would argue that not all junk food has fat at all.
Not all, some are purely sugar (soda, candy), but those have never appealed to me. Bigger issue, since clearly some like them, is that a huge amount of junk foods and some of the most commonly referred to in these discussions are things like donuts and potato chips, that have as much fat as carbs. (And I would not consider potatoes without a lot of added salt and fat to be junk food, or else would a roasted potato or roasted sweet potato be such? But this is why some people hate the term.)But still it's the food as a whole that is generally considered junk and the common ingredient in what is commonly considered junk food is usually carbs. Few people consider a well marbled steak junk food, for instance. Typically it's refined flour or sugars that are the deciding junk factor.
I disagree, and again will hold up potato chips or fries vs. a roasted potato as an example. Why are the former "junk food"? No added sugar or refined flour. Potatoes? Most don't consider plain potatoes "junk" (and I don't think they could defend it if they did). It's the calories per amount/per nutrient, and that's because of the fat. Or for some the excessive sodium (which depends on the product). Or, for some, because they are a snack food, normally (or often) consumed between meals.
Another example is white pasta, which some might consider a "junk food," but I don't think that's a common usage of the term, and white pasta with salmon and lots of vegetables, and a bit of olive oil is a healthy dinner and I'd certainly argue with anyone who called that junk food. Another food using white flour, though, like a cookie, often would be called junk food -- is this because white flour makes something such, or because it's got lots of calories due to added fat, added sugar, and an absence of more nutrient-dense additives? Or, again, because it's typically a snack or dessert food (which often is what I think "junk food" may mean)?
Even focusing on sugar (which I think is no more significant than fat -- see, again, potato chips or, I dunno, many dips or buffalo wings or fried cheese -- all junk foods that are mostly fat), you have sugar in nutrient dense foods (like fruit) or a small amount used in a food no one would normally call junk food (oats) vs. that on its own (soda) or with fat (a donut -- also with refined flour, of course).
So calling "junk foods" in general "bad carbs" or "carbs" strikes me as a odd misuse of the term.
I've never heard anyone call pasta "junk food". I would think that's rare enough not to need discussion.
Not all cookies or cakes have much added fat. Snackwells, using applesauce in place of the oil, glaze instead of icing, etc. But hey, if you want to go with fat as the main culprit that's cool. Certainly it is in a lot of junk food.
I also think pasta is not junk food. That was kind of my point, after all.
I am not saying fat is the main culprit. I'm saying it's dumb or just wrong to refer to junk food as a general category as "bad carbs" or "carbs," and specifically that it's odd to refer to specific foods often mentioned (chips, fries, cookies, donuts) as "carbs" when they are roughly half fat. Same with something like a Whopper (which some people do refer to as junk food), but which has significant amounts of fat and protein.
I'm not saying the fat is the problem (I'm in fact saying that singling out a macronutrient as the problem is wrong and silly, whether fat or carbs), but the reason chips are considered "bad" (not by me, but by those who call them such) or "junk food" is not really the potatoes, which don't get referred to as "bad" or "junk" when they aren't fried and covered with lots of salt and eaten as a snack rather than as part of the meal. And they have no white flour (which is also in non junk foods like pasta, as we have apparently agreed) or sugar (in most cases).3
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
- 424 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