Are there really no bad carbs?
Options
Replies
-
-
I also wonder if people know that excess fat gets stored via asp? Protein can cause a massive insulin response as well. One of the reasons a protein shake, especial a clean one like whey, is taken after a heavy weight lifting session. Insulin will push protein into the muscles to help restore it after break down. I also remember a study that showed whey protein for type 2 dm patients showed an increase in insulin production.0
-
psychod787 wrote: »I also wonder if people know that excess fat gets stored via asp? Protein can cause a massive insulin response as well. One of the reasons a protein shake, especial a clean one like whey, is taken after a heavy weight lifting session. Insulin will push protein into the muscles to help restore it after break down. I also remember a study that showed whey protein for type 2 dm patients showed an increase in insulin production.
For whatever reason (lack of knowledge about physiology, I guess), the current belief du jour is that fat somehow magically doesn't get stored as fat, even though it's the easiest macronutrient for the body to store with minimal conversion involved.
The ketovangelist quacks have convinced everybody that carbs immediately and irrevocably get stored as fat (even if you're in a deficit) - even though the truth is that a) there is no net fat storage while in a caloric deficit regardless of your macro split, and b) de novo lipogenesis (carbs being converted to/stored as fat) is a process that almost never happens in the human body because it's inefficient and metabolically 'expensive'.
And yes - protein is as insulogenic as carbs are. And insulin is not the devil ketovangelists make it out to be, either.10 -
When carbs go really bad...
9 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
You just need better cakeJanetBiard wrote: »Eating highly processed carbs with no fibre, lots of added sugars and god knows what chemicals are simply not a help if you are trying to lose weight.
I can’t think of a chemical I’ve ever put in a came either.
You know, it's interesting but true that these kinds of posts seem to assume that everyone eats tons of packaged cakes or some such (although read the label if you want to know). If I have cake (which isn't that often because I don't enjoy making it and pie is better anyways), it will be homemade (not by me, normally) or from a bakery that uses stuff like eggs, butter, sugar, flour. I mean, like everything else those are made up of chemicals, but I suspect that's not what OP meant.
I think part of this is the desire to believe that it's these mysterious chemicals that made you fat and not simply overeating (which some people hate admitting to).
Why fight? She's ceding you the cake! 2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
You just need better cakeJanetBiard wrote: »Eating highly processed carbs with no fibre, lots of added sugars and god knows what chemicals are simply not a help if you are trying to lose weight.
I can’t think of a chemical I’ve ever put in a came either.
You know, it's interesting but true that these kinds of posts seem to assume that everyone eats tons of packaged cakes or some such (although read the label if you want to know). If I have cake (which isn't that often because I don't enjoy making it and pie is better anyways), it will be homemade (not by me, normally) or from a bakery that uses stuff like eggs, butter, sugar, flour. I mean, like everything else those are made up of chemicals, but I suspect that's not what OP meant.
I think part of this is the desire to believe that it's these mysterious chemicals that made you fat and not simply overeating (which some people hate admitting to).
Why fight? She's ceding you the cake!
Splitting hares or there is more than one way to skin a cat? Lol2 -
JanetBiard wrote: »I know that I am going to be shot down in flames for saying this but I have become increasingly fed up by the people posting on MFP that there are no such things as bad carbs. This is really poor advice. The theory that as long as you maintain a calorie deficit you will lose weight may be true but it is appalling advice. On this basis you are suggesting that a diet of only cake and cookies is as valid as one full of vegetables, and as likely to lead to weight loss. That is simply wrong. On the cake diet I would feel dreadful, and I am setting myself up for failure as I am unlikely to feel satisfied with the portions of cake I can eat to stay in deficit.
Learning how to eat a nutritionally sound diet which is satisfying, energising and likely to stop me getting diabetes is part of the journey that people need to be on if they want to lose weight permanently. You can all call this woo and tell me the problem with cake is not the carbs it is the fat but really? Eating highly processed carbs with no fibre, lots of added sugars and god knows what chemicals are simply not a help if you are trying to lose weight.
I posted this hypothetical question in another thread and none of the "clean eaters" seemed to want to take it on. I'll repost it here:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
That's easy, you kill the other two and then get big macs, beans, peas, broccoli, and carrots and have lived the longest. Such a stupid question.5 -
Yeah but what foods are going to have these undiscovered nutrients? Fruits, veggies, meats, nuts and seeds or cakes, cookies, twinkies, snickers, doritos, and soda?TheDevastator wrote: »
Sorry that was a run-on sentence. I've been up all night. I was testing how long you could hold your breath.TheDevastator wrote: »I'd say there are bad foods because it's almost impossible just getting all the micro-nutrients with the top foods and supplements in each micro-nutrient category let alone nutrient poor foods or foods high in omega 6s that will throw your omega 6s to omega 3s ratio out of balance.
Can anyone parse this sentence?
Or tell me what a ‘top food’ is?
Or how the human race has survived if micro-nutrients are so darn impossible to get?
Top foods as in each micro-nutrient.
The human race can survive without 100% of their daily amounts of micro-nutrients. They just don't have optimal health or can get diseases if going without a certain one for too long. I also didn't say they were impossible to get. Getting all of them in a day is impossible without supplementation or even a week can be hard.
Not on topic for this thread, really, but: It's worse than that. I'd lay money that there are beneficial (perhaps even essential) nutrients that science hasn't discovered yet. (It's discovered bunches of them during my 62-year lifespan.) You can't track them, you can't knowingly supplement them, but you'll be healthier if you eat them. They've been in food all along.
1 -
TheDevastator wrote: »
Yeah but what foods are going to have these undiscovered nutrients? Fruits, veggies, meats, nuts and seeds or cakes, cookies, twinkies, snickers, doritos, and soda?TheDevastator wrote: »
Sorry that was a run-on sentence. I've been up all night. I was testing how long you could hold your breath.TheDevastator wrote: »I'd say there are bad foods because it's almost impossible just getting all the micro-nutrients with the top foods and supplements in each micro-nutrient category let alone nutrient poor foods or foods high in omega 6s that will throw your omega 6s to omega 3s ratio out of balance.
Can anyone parse this sentence?
Or tell me what a ‘top food’ is?
Or how the human race has survived if micro-nutrients are so darn impossible to get?
Top foods as in each micro-nutrient.
The human race can survive without 100% of their daily amounts of micro-nutrients. They just don't have optimal health or can get diseases if going without a certain one for too long. I also didn't say they were impossible to get. Getting all of them in a day is impossible without supplementation or even a week can be hard.
Not on topic for this thread, really, but: It's worse than that. I'd lay money that there are beneficial (perhaps even essential) nutrients that science hasn't discovered yet. (It's discovered bunches of them during my 62-year lifespan.) You can't track them, you can't knowingly supplement them, but you'll be healthier if you eat them. They've been in food all along.
That's what makes it worse. I'd go with foods humans have been eating for millennia, myself, as being evolution-tested, but who knows. Very unlikely to be in supplements, though, since those are typically processed to minimize optional ingredients. 0 -
When do I know that my nutritional needs are met, is it when following my government's guidelines? Isn't the nutritional needs more on a individual basis where certain people need more of a single nutrient than others?These ridiculous arguments always begin with the false premise that you can only eat 100% "clean", or exist entirely upon calorically-dense, low-nutrition foods. Completely ignoring any possibility that there could be a middle ground where one applies a little common sense and eats a reasonably balanced, nutritious diet with room for treats.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
To quote Eric Helms, "Once our nutritional needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
1 -
We visited good friends today who served salad, jacket potatoes with bacon bits, garlic bread (my weakness), and steak.
For dessert there was a wide variety of fruit and little inch wide cubes of cheesecake.
It was all good. From a diabetic point of view, combined it was even better.
Context.9 -
TheDevastator wrote: »
When do I know that my nutritional needs are met, is it when following my government's guidelines? Isn't the nutritional needs more on a individual basis where certain people need more of a single nutrient than others?These ridiculous arguments always begin with the false premise that you can only eat 100% "clean", or exist entirely upon calorically-dense, low-nutrition foods. Completely ignoring any possibility that there could be a middle ground where one applies a little common sense and eats a reasonably balanced, nutritious diet with room for treats.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
To quote Eric Helms, "Once our nutritional needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
For most people, if you eat a reasonable balanced diet, your nutritional needs will be met.
No need to over analyse it.
If you have any medical issues these will be picked up in relevant blood tests - eg iron deficiency.
If you have a specific need for a specific micro nutrient and it is really important and you may not get enough in food, take a supplement - eg folic acid in pregnancy.
What has this to do with topic though?? - nobody is suggesting anyone doesn't eat a reasonable balanced diet or doesn't take supplements if they have a specific requirement.
They can do that and also eat some cake - the 2 things are not mutually exclusive..
12 -
paperpudding wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »
When do I know that my nutritional needs are met, is it when following my government's guidelines? Isn't the nutritional needs more on a individual basis where certain people need more of a single nutrient than others?These ridiculous arguments always begin with the false premise that you can only eat 100% "clean", or exist entirely upon calorically-dense, low-nutrition foods. Completely ignoring any possibility that there could be a middle ground where one applies a little common sense and eats a reasonably balanced, nutritious diet with room for treats.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
To quote Eric Helms, "Once our nutritional needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
For most people, if you eat a reasonable balanced diet, your nutritional needs will be met.
No need to over analyse it.
If you have any medical issues these will be picked up in relevant blood tests - eg iron deficiency.
If you have a specific need for a specific micro nutrient and it is really important and you may not get enough in food, take a supplement - eg folic acid in pregnancy.
What has this to do with topic though?? - nobody is suggesting anyone doesn't eat a reasonable balanced diet or doesn't take supplements if they have a specific requirement.
They can do that and also eat some cake - the 2 things are not mutually exclusive..
You know what would solve these problems? Liver cake.
2 -
OP why would you think saying that establishing a calorie deficit is all that is required for weightloss is somehow akin to saying one should eat cookies instead of vegetables? You can't blame someone else for posting something they didn't post but you merely injected by assumption into their meaning.
Calorie deficit is all that is required for weightloss but there are some foods that will make establishment of that deficit easier and some will make it harder. That doesn't make these food universally "bad" or "good" as it is subjective and dependent on your personal goals. Plus looking at foods as being "good" or "bad" rather than just different types of fuel for different purposes can lead to some pretty disordered eating habits. Therefore the only thing that is universally true is the need to establish a caloric deficit.
For example if someone is active enough to lose weight on 3000 calories a day then telling them that it is important to avoid cookies because they are "bad" would be poor advice. Telling someone a caloric deficit is required for weight loss is never poor advice.
No one is saying eat cookies all day, please do not strawman what people are actually saying.10 -
TheDevastator wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »
When do I know that my nutritional needs are met, is it when following my government's guidelines? Isn't the nutritional needs more on a individual basis where certain people need more of a single nutrient than others?These ridiculous arguments always begin with the false premise that you can only eat 100% "clean", or exist entirely upon calorically-dense, low-nutrition foods. Completely ignoring any possibility that there could be a middle ground where one applies a little common sense and eats a reasonably balanced, nutritious diet with room for treats.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
To quote Eric Helms, "Once our nutritional needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
For most people, if you eat a reasonable balanced diet, your nutritional needs will be met.
No need to over analyse it.
If you have any medical issues these will be picked up in relevant blood tests - eg iron deficiency.
If you have a specific need for a specific micro nutrient and it is really important and you may not get enough in food, take a supplement - eg folic acid in pregnancy.
What has this to do with topic though?? - nobody is suggesting anyone doesn't eat a reasonable balanced diet or doesn't take supplements if they have a specific requirement.
They can do that and also eat some cake - the 2 things are not mutually exclusive..
You know what would solve these problems? Liver cake.
What????
I said for most people there are no problems - but if you have a specific requirement address that.
And also eat cake, if you want to.
3 -
JanetBiard wrote: »I did not say anyone has advocated a diet of cake and cookies. What I am saying is that is the logical ridiculous end point of the claims that there are no bad carbs. If there were no bad carbs then the cake and cookie diet would be fine but as you say it is clearly ridiculous.
And of course I agree that there is nothing wrong with a treat now and then. But advocating a just eat what you want as long as you stay in your calories is not going to help people stay on track.
I have deliberately made a ridiculous suggestion about just eating cakes and cookies to highlight why “there are no bad carbs “ is a ridiculous position to take and unhelpful to the people who ask about this.
Making suggestions to reduce refined highly processed carbs would be helpful to people. But time after time I see people who ask about carbs getting the answer “there are no bad carbs” and anyone who suggests otherwise gets a load of woos added as a response. It is not supportive of the people who are asking for help or the people who are trying to make helpful suggestions.
It is ridiculous.
It is NOT logical.6 -
Throwing up a straw man then beating it to death is ridiculous. I stick to logic over rhetoric as a beautifully composed and witty sentence can still be dead wrong.
This is how science progresses by the way. Beautifully composed theories (the universe is full of ether) are debunked and others are confirmed (space-time bends around heavy objects).
A person trying to gain first of needs calories, lots of them. The first choice will be rich calorie dense foods like ice cream. Will they fail if they also eat kale?
A person trying to lose first of all needs to cut calories. The first thing to do is watch portion sizes. Will a spoonful of peanut butter undo all their hard work? It depends. How big was the spoon?3 -
Putting up a person who doesn't exist, a person saying "eat cookies all day", to argue against is silly. You no know one is saying that so who are you even arguing against.
Here is what they are actually saying. They are saying that it is not a good idea to classify certain foods as being either "good" or "bad" because it is subjective and dependant on an individuals needs, wants and saeity what foods would be beneficial or detrimental to their goals.
Sure eating nothing but cookies all day would be a terrible diet for anyone, I'd say that is universally true (assuming we mean like a sugar cookie or something). However it would also be universally true that eating nothing but broccolli all day would be a terrible diet. That doesn't make cookies or broccoli themselves "bad" that makes that particular diet bad. Do you not get that difference?
One can have a good diet that includes cookies because cookies aren't inherently "bad" but of course a diet of entirely cookies would be a bad diet....and no one is saying otherwise. So who are you even talking to with this? One can be held accountable for one what says, but one cannot be held accountable for others incredible leaps of logic to the point of ridiculousness.11 -
JanetBiard wrote: »I know that I am going to be shot down in flames for saying this but I have become increasingly fed up by the people posting on MFP that there are no such things as bad carbs. This is really poor advice. The theory that as long as you maintain a calorie deficit you will lose weight may be true but it is appalling advice. On this basis you are suggesting that a diet of only cake and cookies is as valid as one full of vegetables, and as likely to lead to weight loss. That is simply wrong. On the cake diet I would feel dreadful, and I am setting myself up for failure as I am unlikely to feel satisfied with the portions of cake I can eat to stay in deficit.
Learning how to eat a nutritionally sound diet which is satisfying, energising and likely to stop me getting diabetes is part of the journey that people need to be on if they want to lose weight permanently. You can all call this woo and tell me the problem with cake is not the carbs it is the fat but really? Eating highly processed carbs with no fibre, lots of added sugars and god knows what chemicals are simply not a help if you are trying to lose weight.
I posted this hypothetical question in another thread and none of the "clean eaters" seemed to want to take it on. I'll repost it here:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
I suspect that the Broccoli and carrots person would go first of malnutrition, and then the Big Mac guy would be murdered by Peas and Beans(which are relatively nutritionally complete if a tiny bit low fat)3 -
Calliope610 wrote: »JanetBiard wrote: »And of course I agree that there is nothing wrong with a treat now and then. But advocating a just eat what you want as long as you stay in your calories is not going to help people stay on track.
Au contrair. That is EXACTLY what helps me stay on track!!
Me, three!2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions