Carb intake.
Replies
-
rckeeper22 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »But you're missing the point that carbs are not the issue here. Oils tend to be pretty poor in nutrients, and they're high calorie to boot. Do you limit all of your fat containing foods because of that? Do you single out fat, as a whole, as something you need to limit? The vast majority of foods people tend to overeat are also high fat. This narrow focus on carbs as something that, when you reduce, leads to better eating habits is as flawed as the focus on low fat foods. If telling someone to reduce fat encourages them to gorge on Captain Crunch and rice cakes, why are you so sure that telling them to reduce carbs won't throw them into a loop of fat bombs, Atkins bars, and butter coffee?
As for a nutrient crowding out the other goals, I agree, and this goes for any nutrient, and is bad planning.
Near as I can tell, he's saying that, for some people who may have a tendency to over-indulge in carbs to the point that it is a threatening their other nutritional needs, it may be a useful strategy to try limiting carb intake.
To your point, if someone gorges on Captain Crunch when told to reduce fat . . . then they would not be the target audience for that advice. For some people, it may help. For others, it may not.
If you've got a weakness for something that causes you to have trouble meeting your other nutrient needs or manage whatever your goals are . . . then it may be prudent to avoid that weakness. Key is the focus on *may,*; if that approach causes someone to go nuts in other areas, then it's not a useful strategy for them - but someone else may find it a viable method of approaching their goals.
That would be reasonable advice, better worded would be: if you tend to overeat something, find a strategy that would help you not overeat it. Generalizing it to carbs, fat, grains, or what have you, is poorly worded advice.
Some people do genuinely feel hungrier on certain macro distributions regardless of the foods eaten. Tackling the root of the problem (macro distribution in this case) would be wise, in which case reducing carbs as a whole is a sound strategy (or reducing fat in my case to make more room for starches). Again, this advice would be more individualized that simply telling people to stop eating pasta.3 -
Since carbs were the focus of the thread, perhaps that's why it was specified that way.
But agreed, simply telling folks to stop eating pasta, full stop, can be over-simplified.1 -
rckeeper22 wrote: »Since carbs were the focus of the thread, perhaps that's why it was specified that way.
But agreed, simply telling folks to stop eating pasta, full stop, can be over-simplified.
That was my issue with that derailment, this thread is not about carbs, It's about someone who wants carbs but is afraid them precisely because of all the misinformation that's devoid of context, such as the poor nutrient argument and how bad pasta is. Would it be good to tell someone who is struggling with fat containing foods because they're afraid of fat to stop eating fat?6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »I think the larger point is that overgeneralizing about carbs can obscure useful truths (and feed preexisting myths), and that context is important.
Here, we have an OP who comes in "eating clean" and craving carbs, and seemingly concerned that "too many" carbs might hinder weight-loss/health progress or be "unclean" or some such thing.
In this context, it's not terribly helpful to offer variations on "minimize carbs, they're mostly junk food" (I'm consciously oversimplifying, BTW).
Maybe this is where people keep misunderstanding my statements and jumping all over them. I was not offering that as a suggestion for the OP to follow. I was putting it out as a reason for one to limit carbs, which was supposed to intimate that she probably need not do so as one concerned about "eating clean" is probably not eating a bunch of junk food.
So let me reword my original comment: Unless you have a metabolic disorder, or you have a problem with filling your calorie goal on carbohydrates and crowding out your other nutrition goals, there is no reason to limit carbohydrate intake.
Does that maybe sound less controversial?
But you're missing the point that carbs are not the issue here. Oils tend to be pretty poor in nutrients, and they're high calorie to boot. Do you limit all of your fat containing foods because of that? Do you single out fat, as a whole, as something you need to limit? The vast majority of foods people tend to overeat are also high fat. This narrow focus on carbs as something that, when you reduce, leads to better eating habits is as flawed as the focus on low fat foods. If telling someone to reduce fat encourages them to gorge on Captain Crunch and rice cakes, why are you so sure that telling them to reduce carbs won't throw them into a loop of fat bombs, Atkins bars, and butter coffee?
As for a nutrient crowding out the other goals, I agree, and this goes for any nutrient, and is bad planning.
Yes, this.
Clearly we all agree that it makes sense to eat a nutrient dense diet that meets needs and a calorie appropriate one. Is the most efficient way to do that to say "I must limit carbs" and -- because of your specific tendencies -- cut out foods that are high in fat and carbs (the chips mentioned) and MAYBE replace them with something more nutrient dense? Is is the most efficient way to say "I should eat a well rounded diet that meets my nutrient needs" and focus on doing that?
I have personal rules that I follow because FOR ME they make it easier to make sure my diet is nutrient dense -- I plan meals around a source of protein (often a carb, like beans or lentils), add in a LOT of veg (my goal for all meals, although I am not perfect, and I will note these are carbs too), and then I fill out the meal with some fat for accent (I actively try to include sources of certain kinds of fat, like omega 3, and also actively focus on including some nuts and seeds, avocado), and -- depending on the source of my protein (like if it's meat), I might include some starch (potatoes, grains, etc.). I use fruit as dessert or for taste, mostly (apples with pork chops, berries in oats), or as a replacement for my starch course.
I don't cut carbs currently (as you can see this might be quite high carb, as I'm trying to cut way, way down on animal products), but also as you can see it's high in micronutrients.
Maybe some have an issue with overdoing pasta, but in my mind pasta is ALWAYS eaten with protein and fat and you don't need to cut carbs to make sure it's not excessive pasta (I usually eat a serving, not because it's magic, but the 2 oz dried pasta amount just works for me, and besides I've always loved the topping more than the pasta itself).
In general the general carb guidelines serve the idea that you don't want a diet that's super high in starchy carbs low in fat and protein (because being low in fat and protein might be a problem, not so much because starchy carbs are bad), but I don't think OP suggested that was actually a problem for her.0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »I think the larger point is that overgeneralizing about carbs can obscure useful truths (and feed preexisting myths), and that context is important.
Here, we have an OP who comes in "eating clean" and craving carbs, and seemingly concerned that "too many" carbs might hinder weight-loss/health progress or be "unclean" or some such thing.
In this context, it's not terribly helpful to offer variations on "minimize carbs, they're mostly junk food" (I'm consciously oversimplifying, BTW).
Maybe this is where people keep misunderstanding my statements and jumping all over them. I was not offering that as a suggestion for the OP to follow. I was putting it out as a reason for one to limit carbs, which was supposed to intimate that she probably need not do so as one concerned about "eating clean" is probably not eating a bunch of junk food.
So let me reword my original comment: Unless you have a metabolic disorder, or you have a problem with filling your calorie goal on carbohydrates and crowding out your other nutrition goals, there is no reason to limit carbohydrate intake.
Does that maybe sound less controversial?
Yup, and since it's pretty much what I wrote on page 1 of the thread (quoted below), I completely agree with what you just wrote.
Your addition of the metabolic disorder caveat is a useful improvement, in fact.
You can have as many carb-containing foods as you want, as long as that doesn't prevent you getting enough of essential nutrients like proteins, fats, fiber, micronutrients.
Strictly speaking, carbs aren't an essential nutrient, but some people definitely do better if they include carbs in their eating.1 -
The context of the thread is, OP asked how many carbs she should be eating, because she has been eating clean, seemed to think that meant she should be limiting carbs, but she was craving them. She is literally struggling because she is following your advice - thinking of carbs as junk food and avoiding them. There was absolutely no reason to think telling her she doesn't need to limit carbs means she's going to run out and eat a box of Captn Crunch.
Again, that was not advice. I was actually saying the opposite, that she is -not- one of the people who should limit carbs (unless she's diabetic and didn't share that info) because she is not maxing out her calories on them to the exclusion of other nutrients.
0 -
Strictly speaking, carbs aren't an essential nutrient,
At the risk of prolonging having people argue with me when I was actually agreeing with all of you, I will especially second this point... in that fats and protein both serve multiple functions within the body, whereas carbohydrates (exclusive of fiber) are pretty much calories only. That's not a bad thing, but it does affect how one's macro ratio fits into their nutritional goals.
0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Strictly speaking, carbs aren't an essential nutrient,
At the risk of prolonging having people argue with me when I was actually agreeing with all of you, I will especially second this point... in that fats and protein both serve multiple functions within the body, whereas carbohydrates (exclusive of fiber) are pretty much calories only. That's not a bad thing, but it does affect how one's macro ratio fits into their nutritional goals.
Indeed. But for most (?) people, eating isn't all nutrition, all the time.
Most well-adjusted people, I think, want to balance nutrition (including calories), satiation, tastiness, sustainability, pleasure, social/cultural factors, and more. Plus some endurance athletes find carbs essential for fueling (not all: there are keto athletes, as I understand it), even beyond factors that affect the average person.2 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Strictly speaking, carbs aren't an essential nutrient,
At the risk of prolonging having people argue with me when I was actually agreeing with all of you, I will especially second this point... in that fats and protein both serve multiple functions within the body, whereas carbohydrates (exclusive of fiber) are pretty much calories only. That's not a bad thing, but it does affect how one's macro ratio fits into their nutritional goals.
Carbs aren’t just calories, though. They also have micronutrients. Unless we are just talking about straight up white sugar.3 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Strictly speaking, carbs aren't an essential nutrient,
At the risk of prolonging having people argue with me when I was actually agreeing with all of you, I will especially second this point... in that fats and protein both serve multiple functions within the body, whereas carbohydrates (exclusive of fiber) are pretty much calories only. That's not a bad thing, but it does affect how one's macro ratio fits into their nutritional goals.
That's a misunderstand of what "not essential" means.
You don't need (for life) any carbs, because your body will make them, they are so important that that happens.
Your body can't make fat or protein (it can take it from your body, of course). We do therefore have an essential requirement, but it's pretty small, no one is going to die in the US from a shortfall of any macro without trying pretty hard to do so.
For health, requirements are greater, of course, but that's where it's absurd to say that carbs are just calories. Many foods that are mostly carbohydrate are among the most important and most nutrient dense foods (i.e., vegetables). I know we covered this before, but I so hate the idea that carbs are somewhere between unimportant and bad for you and have no redeeming qualities unless you need calories.
Many extremely healthful traditional diets are higher carb and lower in protein and fat than the US diet. The SAD is problematic, but not because of its macro ratios (and not because it has too many carbs).
This is why focusing on macros as the be-all, end-all for nutrition tends to be misleading.
I don't think we actually disagree much, but what you said could easily be interpreted to be the point I am rebutting here.4 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Strictly speaking, carbs aren't an essential nutrient,
At the risk of prolonging having people argue with me when I was actually agreeing with all of you, I will especially second this point... in that fats and protein both serve multiple functions within the body, whereas carbohydrates (exclusive of fiber) are pretty much calories only. That's not a bad thing, but it does affect how one's macro ratio fits into their nutritional goals.
But there's a difference between "carbs are not essential" and "carbs are pretty much calories only". I'm sorry, but the second simply isn't true. Just because I could get all my micros from fat and protein doesn't mean the micros in carbs don't count. Not to mention fiber.0 -
We're talking from different definitions here. I was referring to the actual carbohydrate content, not to foods with carbohydrates as a primary macro. There are no micro-nutrients in a gram of fructose, or of mono-unsaturated fat, or of any specific protein molecule. Protein molecules are broken down into amino acids which are recombined to build muscle and other tissues, as well as providing energy. Fat molecules serve a number of non-energy functions in the body, as well as being used for fuel. Carbohydrate molecules only break down to glucose to be 'burned' for energy. That is why it is not strictly necessary to consume them. We can get energy from the other macros, and even generate glucose from them for those functions in which no other molecule will work.
Granted, in practical consideration it's pretty hard to actually consume 0 grams of carbohydrates. That would be a diet pretty strictly of meat cuts and maybe some cheeses. That's why even though I personally eat low-carb, I don't agree with the extremes of keto diets. The idea that I could exceed my carbohydrate grams just by eating common vegetables sounds outrageous to me.
So yes, outside of fiber which is useful primarily because we can't digest it, sugars and starches only function in the body is to provide energy (calories).
Sugary and starchy -foods- on the other hand are definitely made up of more than sugars and/or starches, and many of them do indeed contain lots of important other nutrients.0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »We're talking from different definitions here. I was referring to the actual carbohydrate content, not to foods with carbohydrates as a primary macro. There are no micro-nutrients in a gram of fructose, or of mono-unsaturated fat, or of any specific protein molecule. Protein molecules are broken down into amino acids which are recombined to build muscle and other tissues, as well as providing energy. Fat molecules serve a number of non-energy functions in the body, as well as being used for fuel. Carbohydrate molecules only break down to glucose to be 'burned' for energy. That is why it is not strictly necessary to consume them. We can get energy from the other macros, and even generate glucose from them for those functions in which no other molecule will work.
Granted, in practical consideration it's pretty hard to actually consume 0 grams of carbohydrates. That would be a diet pretty strictly of meat cuts and maybe some cheeses. That's why even though I personally eat low-carb, I don't agree with the extremes of keto diets. The idea that I could exceed my carbohydrate grams just by eating common vegetables sounds outrageous to me.
So yes, outside of fiber which is useful primarily because we can't digest it, sugars and starches only function in the body is to provide energy (calories).
Sugary and starchy -foods- on the other hand are definitely made up of more than sugars and/or starches, and many of them do indeed contain lots of important other nutrients.
But what does this have to do with OP? It's not entirely accurate (carbs play a role in hormone regulation, some brain chemicals regulation, and muscle building, not to mention fiber is a carb) and it ignores the real life applications that make a diet sustainable. Some people just do better mentally and/or physically with more carbs, and vilifying them does no good to anyone. It's one thing for someone for someone to decide they find dieting easier on lower carbs, or they need it for medical reasons, and it's another to write it off as "bad and unimportant macro for everyone". There is a minimum requirement for fat too, and it's not very high. Going beyond that doesn't give significant extra benefits beyond adherence. Do we write it off as unimportant?5 -
I'm not vilifying carbs. I never claimed that 'not necessary' equals 'bad'. These associations some of you are leaping to are coming from someplace other than my actual words. My position is and has been, for some people it makes sense to limit the grams of carbohydrate they consume per day, for others (likely including the OP) it does not.
The mention that we don't strictly need to eat carbohydrates is just a related side topic, in that it isn't necessarily harmful to restrict carbs even though it may not be particularly helpful to many (most?) people. I'm certainly not one to go around beating myself up if I decide to have a sandwich on bread, or if I grab an occasional candy bar as a snack. But I do have a carbohydrate limit that I make sure not to exceed on most days. It's just one means of achieving certain goals, nothing more.1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »I'm not vilifying carbs. I never claimed that 'not necessary' equals 'bad'.
But the "not necessary" amount of fat is the vast majority of fat we eat, the "not necessary" part of protein is often most of the protein we eat too.
So after the small amount of essential fat and protein is met, the vast majority of our calories are left. Makes no sense to say that carbs are different than the other two, and very often higher carb foods are also higher in micros. A potato or whole grain bread (let alone some beans or an apple or brussels sprouts) compares very favorably to, say, a tbsp of butter or coconut oil.
This is a silly way to think of food anyway, because in a normal meal people COMBINE macros.
I actually agree that it makes sense for SOME (low carbers) to limit carbs, and for a broader # of people to focus on macros as a way to help them meet a balanced diet, but NOT because not limiting carbs leads to eating lots of low nutrient foods (often containing fat that is unneeded in your particular diet as you are well over any necessary amount) (you = general you). I would say that if someone goes low carb because their carb choices were mostly low nutrient junk, well, THAT was the problem with the diet (and probably inadequate amounts of foods that are mostly carbs, like veg, fruit, beans/lentils, etc.), and NOT that carbs were too high.
I think some percentage of people who find low carb helpful (not all) were eating poor diets and so cutting carbs = cutting junk food, but that doesn't change the fact that thinking carbs = junk food is kind of a messed up way to look at it (and inaccurate for all the reasons discussed above), and that the problem with the diet wasn't carbs, but it being a poor diet. People don't end up eating a poor diet because they don't limit carbs, they eat a poor diet because for whatever reason they choose to eat a poor diet.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So after the small amount of essential fat and protein is met, the vast majority of our calories are left. Makes no sense to say that carbs are different than the other two,
I have a quibble on this point. In the case of protein, there is a huge difference between 'essential' and 'healthy'. Yes, we can live on essential levels of protein and fat and get the rest of our energy from carbohydrates, but to truly thrive requires significantly more than essential levels of protein in order to support working muscle and faster recovery from general daily stresses/minor injuries and cellular entropy.
This is especially true when eating at a calorie deficit. Sure, if you're just looking to drop pounds and don't care where it comes from then essential protein levels are sufficient, but if looking to specifically reduce fat and maintain Lean Body Mass, more protein is required (along with actually using your muscles).
0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »So after the small amount of essential fat and protein is met, the vast majority of our calories are left. Makes no sense to say that carbs are different than the other two,
I have a quibble on this point. In the case of protein, there is a huge difference between 'essential' and 'healthy'. Yes, we can live on essential levels of protein and fat and get the rest of our energy from carbohydrates, but to truly thrive requires significantly more than essential levels of protein in order to support working muscle and faster recovery from general daily stresses/minor injuries and cellular entropy.
This is especially true when eating at a calorie deficit. Sure, if you're just looking to drop pounds and don't care where it comes from then essential protein levels are sufficient, but if looking to specifically reduce fat and maintain Lean Body Mass, more protein is required (along with actually using your muscles).
If you look again, I noted a difference between fat and protein: "But the "not necessary" amount of fat is the vast majority of fat we eat, the "not necessary" part of protein is often most of the protein we eat too."
That said, when someone is not at a deficit, you really don't need a lot of protein, especially if you are not that active. I always recommend more than the RDA, because I think it's helpful for body comp goals and at a deficit especially, but that doesn't mean that merely meeting the RDA is not adequate for "health."
Point stands that if you meet essential fat and protein needs (including for health) you are going to have lots of discretionary calories left over, and there is no need to avoid carbs to make sure you get enough of the others or whatever (and you really have to try hard not to get enough fat and protein for health, IMO, or (of course) be on a restrictive diet).1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions