Are carbs really the enemy?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think carb rich foods are perfectly fine and delicious to eat but they're filler - extra calories. If you're over fat carbs are where you cut back.
This is what I was taught at home about health and nutrition growing up (before seemingly everyone was fat and sick) and I've found it all to be true:
Whole foods are healthful.
Meat/animal products and vegetables are the nutritious parts of the meal.
Bread, grains and starches are filler foods - if calories need to be reduced this is where you cut down.
Sugar should be limited - if calories need to be reduced this is what you cut out.
Don't snack.
Be active.
Go outside. Fresh air and sunshine are necessary for good health.
Go to bed.
It's hard for me to consider filling (for me) and nutrient-rich foods like black beans, butternut squash, peas, and blueberries to be "filler." They're all rich in carbohydrates.
Can you eat too much of them? Absolutely. But you can also eat too much of foods that are rich in fat or protein.
Whole foods are healthful so I'm sure other cultures and communities have different patterns of eating that keep them nourished and healthy. I grew up with a meat based diet and that's what I'm familiar with.
I also grew up with a diet where every meal was centered on meat (or other animal proteins such as eggs). Even in cultures that enjoy meat and eat it frequently, there are often carbohydrate-rich foods that are recognized as having more to offer than "filler" and extra calories.
Of course they do - it's food after all - but there's a clear hierarchy that determined what we ate and how much. Meat first, vegetables second and everything else last.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think carb rich foods are perfectly fine and delicious to eat but they're filler - extra calories. If you're over fat carbs are where you cut back.
This is what I was taught at home about health and nutrition growing up (before seemingly everyone was fat and sick) and I've found it all to be true:
Whole foods are healthful.
Meat/animal products and vegetables are the nutritious parts of the meal.
Bread, grains and starches are filler foods - if calories need to be reduced this is where you cut down.
Sugar should be limited - if calories need to be reduced this is what you cut out.
Don't snack.
Be active.
Go outside. Fresh air and sunshine are necessary for good health.
Go to bed.
It's hard for me to consider filling (for me) and nutrient-rich foods like black beans, butternut squash, peas, and blueberries to be "filler." They're all rich in carbohydrates.
Can you eat too much of them? Absolutely. But you can also eat too much of foods that are rich in fat or protein.
Whole foods are healthful so I'm sure other cultures and communities have different patterns of eating that keep them nourished and healthy. I grew up with a meat based diet and that's what I'm familiar with.
I also grew up with a diet where every meal was centered on meat (or other animal proteins such as eggs). Even in cultures that enjoy meat and eat it frequently, there are often carbohydrate-rich foods that are recognized as having more to offer than "filler" and extra calories.
Of course they do - it's food after all - but there's a clear hierarchy that determined what we ate and how much. Meat first, vegetables second and everything else last.
I'm having trouble reconciling you saying "of course" some carbohydrate-rich foods have more to offer than filler and extra calories and your initial statement about carbohydrate-rich foods: "but they're filler - extra calories."
I think I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what it is.
Are you saying that you were brought up to believe that all carbohydrate-rich foods were just filler and extra calories, but you realize now this isn't true for all of them?3 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »So I just wanted to hear how other people view carbs. I know that they are in pretty much every single food like your fruit and veg and in dairy etc, which is why keto diets exist to find the foods that have the lowest carb contents. However, I do also think they are useful for giving you energy and keeping you full. Are they really the enemy and should we really be avoiding them? Keen to hear other people’s thoughts
I don't like to think of any foods as "the enemy" since those kinds of labels almost always come paired with disordered eating habits for me personally. I know some people are fine with that kind of division, but for me food is just choices. Sometimes I choose to eat more carbs, sometimes fewer. But the important thing, again for me personally, is that I'm in control of what I eat and treat food as a partner or a tool in all of this instead of looking at it as some kind of adversary that needs to be overcome. Carbs cannot actively fight me. I get to choose what I do with them.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think carb rich foods are perfectly fine and delicious to eat but they're filler - extra calories. If you're over fat carbs are where you cut back.
This is what I was taught at home about health and nutrition growing up (before seemingly everyone was fat and sick) and I've found it all to be true:
Whole foods are healthful.
Meat/animal products and vegetables are the nutritious parts of the meal.
Bread, grains and starches are filler foods - if calories need to be reduced this is where you cut down.
Sugar should be limited - if calories need to be reduced this is what you cut out.
Don't snack.
Be active.
Go outside. Fresh air and sunshine are necessary for good health.
Go to bed.
It's hard for me to consider filling (for me) and nutrient-rich foods like black beans, butternut squash, peas, and blueberries to be "filler." They're all rich in carbohydrates.
Can you eat too much of them? Absolutely. But you can also eat too much of foods that are rich in fat or protein.
Whole foods are healthful so I'm sure other cultures and communities have different patterns of eating that keep them nourished and healthy. I grew up with a meat based diet and that's what I'm familiar with.
I also grew up with a diet where every meal was centered on meat (or other animal proteins such as eggs). Even in cultures that enjoy meat and eat it frequently, there are often carbohydrate-rich foods that are recognized as having more to offer than "filler" and extra calories.
Of course they do - it's food after all - but there's a clear hierarchy that determined what we ate and how much. Meat first, vegetables second and everything else last.
I'm having trouble reconciling you saying "of course" some carbohydrate-rich foods have more to offer than filler and extra calories and your initial statement about carbohydrate-rich foods: "but they're filler - extra calories."
I think I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what it is.
Are you saying that you were brought up to believe that all carbohydrate-rich foods were just filler and extra calories, but you realize now this isn't true for all of them?
I don't know how to make it any clearer. It's food, not cardboard so of course there's more than just calories but their place in our diet is filler. A bread basket wasn't put on the table because bread is necessary for a healthful diet. Potatoes, corn, rice, beans and pasta weren't served because they were nutritious - the purpose was cheap calories and everyone knew that and acted accordingly. You weren't allowed to "fill up" on these foods at the expense of the nutritious part of the meal (the meat and vegetables).
Example: If you weren't hungry you had to at least eat your meat and a bite of your vegetables before leaving the table. (Remember there was no snacking so if you didn't eat your meal you'd be hungry later.) If you were still hungry after eating your meat and vegetables you "filled up" on the fillers. And if you were putting on weight those fillers are where you cut back on or in the case of sweets cut out.15 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think carb rich foods are perfectly fine and delicious to eat but they're filler - extra calories. If you're over fat carbs are where you cut back.
This is what I was taught at home about health and nutrition growing up (before seemingly everyone was fat and sick) and I've found it all to be true:
Whole foods are healthful.
Meat/animal products and vegetables are the nutritious parts of the meal.
Bread, grains and starches are filler foods - if calories need to be reduced this is where you cut down.
Sugar should be limited - if calories need to be reduced this is what you cut out.
Don't snack.
Be active.
Go outside. Fresh air and sunshine are necessary for good health.
Go to bed.
It's hard for me to consider filling (for me) and nutrient-rich foods like black beans, butternut squash, peas, and blueberries to be "filler." They're all rich in carbohydrates.
Can you eat too much of them? Absolutely. But you can also eat too much of foods that are rich in fat or protein.
Whole foods are healthful so I'm sure other cultures and communities have different patterns of eating that keep them nourished and healthy. I grew up with a meat based diet and that's what I'm familiar with.
I also grew up with a diet where every meal was centered on meat (or other animal proteins such as eggs). Even in cultures that enjoy meat and eat it frequently, there are often carbohydrate-rich foods that are recognized as having more to offer than "filler" and extra calories.
Of course they do - it's food after all - but there's a clear hierarchy that determined what we ate and how much. Meat first, vegetables second and everything else last.
I'm having trouble reconciling you saying "of course" some carbohydrate-rich foods have more to offer than filler and extra calories and your initial statement about carbohydrate-rich foods: "but they're filler - extra calories."
I think I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what it is.
Are you saying that you were brought up to believe that all carbohydrate-rich foods were just filler and extra calories, but you realize now this isn't true for all of them?
I don't know how to make it any clearer. It's food, not cardboard so of course there's more than just calories but their place in our diet is filler. A bread basket wasn't put on the table because bread is necessary for a healthful diet. Potatoes, corn, rice, beans and pasta weren't served because they were nutritious - the purpose was cheap calories and everyone knew that and acted accordingly. You weren't allowed to "fill up" on these foods at the expense of the nutritious part of the meal (the meat and vegetables).
Example: If you weren't hungry you had to at least eat your meat and a bite of your vegetables before leaving the table. (Remember there was no snacking so if you didn't eat your meal you'd be hungry later.) If you were still hungry after eating your meat and vegetables you "filled up" on the fillers. And if you were putting on weight those fillers are where you cut back on or in the case of sweets cut out.
Potatoes, rice, corn, beans and pasta are not nutritious?
11 -
Sandwich Corp is the enemy. They are conspiring against everyone.3
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think carb rich foods are perfectly fine and delicious to eat but they're filler - extra calories. If you're over fat carbs are where you cut back.
This is what I was taught at home about health and nutrition growing up (before seemingly everyone was fat and sick) and I've found it all to be true:
Whole foods are healthful.
Meat/animal products and vegetables are the nutritious parts of the meal.
Bread, grains and starches are filler foods - if calories need to be reduced this is where you cut down.
Sugar should be limited - if calories need to be reduced this is what you cut out.
Don't snack.
Be active.
Go outside. Fresh air and sunshine are necessary for good health.
Go to bed.
It's hard for me to consider filling (for me) and nutrient-rich foods like black beans, butternut squash, peas, and blueberries to be "filler." They're all rich in carbohydrates.
Can you eat too much of them? Absolutely. But you can also eat too much of foods that are rich in fat or protein.
Whole foods are healthful so I'm sure other cultures and communities have different patterns of eating that keep them nourished and healthy. I grew up with a meat based diet and that's what I'm familiar with.
I also grew up with a diet where every meal was centered on meat (or other animal proteins such as eggs). Even in cultures that enjoy meat and eat it frequently, there are often carbohydrate-rich foods that are recognized as having more to offer than "filler" and extra calories.
Of course they do - it's food after all - but there's a clear hierarchy that determined what we ate and how much. Meat first, vegetables second and everything else last.
I'm having trouble reconciling you saying "of course" some carbohydrate-rich foods have more to offer than filler and extra calories and your initial statement about carbohydrate-rich foods: "but they're filler - extra calories."
I think I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what it is.
Are you saying that you were brought up to believe that all carbohydrate-rich foods were just filler and extra calories, but you realize now this isn't true for all of them?
I don't know how to make it any clearer. It's food, not cardboard so of course there's more than just calories but their place in our diet is filler. A bread basket wasn't put on the table because bread is necessary for a healthful diet. Potatoes, corn, rice, beans and pasta weren't served because they were nutritious - the purpose was cheap calories and everyone knew that and acted accordingly. You weren't allowed to "fill up" on these foods at the expense of the nutritious part of the meal (the meat and vegetables).
Example: If you weren't hungry you had to at least eat your meat and a bite of your vegetables before leaving the table. (Remember there was no snacking so if you didn't eat your meal you'd be hungry later.) If you were still hungry after eating your meat and vegetables you "filled up" on the fillers. And if you were putting on weight those fillers are where you cut back on or in the case of sweets cut out.
So when you said carbs are filler, you just meant in your household?
Carbs weren't filler in my household. Most of our meals were differentiated and communicated by what carbs we were having - pasta, rice, potatoes, beans - they were the meal. What meat was coming along with them was immaterial.
I did cut back on carbs when I needed to lose weight, but that was because I was already eating a fairly low protein and fat diet. There was no wiggle room to cut the other two back!
OP, I'm confused. I feel like you've been around here for a while and have been involved in other carb threads, but maybe I'm confusing you with someone else. Carbs can be junk or they can be nutritious. Many people can enjoy plenty of carbs on a healthy, calorie-appropriate diet. Others do better increasing the fat in their diet so they can feel full easier. <shrug>9 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think carb rich foods are perfectly fine and delicious to eat but they're filler - extra calories. If you're over fat carbs are where you cut back.
This is what I was taught at home about health and nutrition growing up (before seemingly everyone was fat and sick) and I've found it all to be true:
Whole foods are healthful.
Meat/animal products and vegetables are the nutritious parts of the meal.
Bread, grains and starches are filler foods - if calories need to be reduced this is where you cut down.
Sugar should be limited - if calories need to be reduced this is what you cut out.
Don't snack.
Be active.
Go outside. Fresh air and sunshine are necessary for good health.
Go to bed.
It's hard for me to consider filling (for me) and nutrient-rich foods like black beans, butternut squash, peas, and blueberries to be "filler." They're all rich in carbohydrates.
Can you eat too much of them? Absolutely. But you can also eat too much of foods that are rich in fat or protein.
Whole foods are healthful so I'm sure other cultures and communities have different patterns of eating that keep them nourished and healthy. I grew up with a meat based diet and that's what I'm familiar with.
I also grew up with a diet where every meal was centered on meat (or other animal proteins such as eggs). Even in cultures that enjoy meat and eat it frequently, there are often carbohydrate-rich foods that are recognized as having more to offer than "filler" and extra calories.
Of course they do - it's food after all - but there's a clear hierarchy that determined what we ate and how much. Meat first, vegetables second and everything else last.
I'm having trouble reconciling you saying "of course" some carbohydrate-rich foods have more to offer than filler and extra calories and your initial statement about carbohydrate-rich foods: "but they're filler - extra calories."
I think I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what it is.
Are you saying that you were brought up to believe that all carbohydrate-rich foods were just filler and extra calories, but you realize now this isn't true for all of them?
I don't know how to make it any clearer. It's food, not cardboard so of course there's more than just calories but their place in our diet is filler. A bread basket wasn't put on the table because bread is necessary for a healthful diet. Potatoes, corn, rice, beans and pasta weren't served because they were nutritious - the purpose was cheap calories and everyone knew that and acted accordingly. You weren't allowed to "fill up" on these foods at the expense of the nutritious part of the meal (the meat and vegetables).
Example: If you weren't hungry you had to at least eat your meat and a bite of your vegetables before leaving the table. (Remember there was no snacking so if you didn't eat your meal you'd be hungry later.) If you were still hungry after eating your meat and vegetables you "filled up" on the fillers. And if you were putting on weight those fillers are where you cut back on or in the case of sweets cut out.
If a food provides nutrients for us, I don't see how its place in our diet can be summed up as "filler."
No one food is necessary for a healthful diet, so I don't understand why you would discount it simply because it doesn't have the same nutrients as meat. Foods like potatoes, beans, and bread can certainly play a role in helping someone meet their nutritional needs. I don't know why anyone would teach a child they were nutrient-free. Of course you'll also want to have protein- and fat-rich foods as well, but to teach a child that beans don't have nutrients? I don't get that.
I think this must be a cultural miscommunication of some sort. Beans and rice are actually sustaining foods in some cultures, as are things like bread, pasta, and potatoes.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think carb rich foods are perfectly fine and delicious to eat but they're filler - extra calories. If you're over fat carbs are where you cut back.
This is what I was taught at home about health and nutrition growing up (before seemingly everyone was fat and sick) and I've found it all to be true:
Whole foods are healthful.
Meat/animal products and vegetables are the nutritious parts of the meal.
Bread, grains and starches are filler foods - if calories need to be reduced this is where you cut down.
Sugar should be limited - if calories need to be reduced this is what you cut out.
Don't snack.
Be active.
Go outside. Fresh air and sunshine are necessary for good health.
Go to bed.
It's hard for me to consider filling (for me) and nutrient-rich foods like black beans, butternut squash, peas, and blueberries to be "filler." They're all rich in carbohydrates.
Can you eat too much of them? Absolutely. But you can also eat too much of foods that are rich in fat or protein.
Whole foods are healthful so I'm sure other cultures and communities have different patterns of eating that keep them nourished and healthy. I grew up with a meat based diet and that's what I'm familiar with.
I also grew up with a diet where every meal was centered on meat (or other animal proteins such as eggs). Even in cultures that enjoy meat and eat it frequently, there are often carbohydrate-rich foods that are recognized as having more to offer than "filler" and extra calories.
Of course they do - it's food after all - but there's a clear hierarchy that determined what we ate and how much. Meat first, vegetables second and everything else last.
I'm having trouble reconciling you saying "of course" some carbohydrate-rich foods have more to offer than filler and extra calories and your initial statement about carbohydrate-rich foods: "but they're filler - extra calories."
I think I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what it is.
Are you saying that you were brought up to believe that all carbohydrate-rich foods were just filler and extra calories, but you realize now this isn't true for all of them?
I don't know how to make it any clearer. It's food, not cardboard so of course there's more than just calories but their place in our diet is filler. A bread basket wasn't put on the table because bread is necessary for a healthful diet. Potatoes, corn, rice, beans and pasta weren't served because they were nutritious - the purpose was cheap calories and everyone knew that and acted accordingly. You weren't allowed to "fill up" on these foods at the expense of the nutritious part of the meal (the meat and vegetables).
Example: If you weren't hungry you had to at least eat your meat and a bite of your vegetables before leaving the table. (Remember there was no snacking so if you didn't eat your meal you'd be hungry later.) If you were still hungry after eating your meat and vegetables you "filled up" on the fillers. And if you were putting on weight those fillers are where you cut back on or in the case of sweets cut out.
Potatoes, rice, corn, beans and pasta are not nutritious?
I don't get this at all. When I was growing up, of course I wasn't allowed to fill up on potatoes or pasta, but nobody pretended that they were nutrient-free. I just learned that I needed a variety of things to stay healthy. I wasn't allowed to fill up on pork chops either, for what it is worth.5 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think carb rich foods are perfectly fine and delicious to eat but they're filler - extra calories. If you're over fat carbs are where you cut back.
This is what I was taught at home about health and nutrition growing up (before seemingly everyone was fat and sick) and I've found it all to be true:
Whole foods are healthful.
Meat/animal products and vegetables are the nutritious parts of the meal.
Bread, grains and starches are filler foods - if calories need to be reduced this is where you cut down.
Sugar should be limited - if calories need to be reduced this is what you cut out.
Don't snack.
Be active.
Go outside. Fresh air and sunshine are necessary for good health.
Go to bed.
It's hard for me to consider filling (for me) and nutrient-rich foods like black beans, butternut squash, peas, and blueberries to be "filler." They're all rich in carbohydrates.
Can you eat too much of them? Absolutely. But you can also eat too much of foods that are rich in fat or protein.
Whole foods are healthful so I'm sure other cultures and communities have different patterns of eating that keep them nourished and healthy. I grew up with a meat based diet and that's what I'm familiar with.
I also grew up with a diet where every meal was centered on meat (or other animal proteins such as eggs). Even in cultures that enjoy meat and eat it frequently, there are often carbohydrate-rich foods that are recognized as having more to offer than "filler" and extra calories.
Of course they do - it's food after all - but there's a clear hierarchy that determined what we ate and how much. Meat first, vegetables second and everything else last.
I'm having trouble reconciling you saying "of course" some carbohydrate-rich foods have more to offer than filler and extra calories and your initial statement about carbohydrate-rich foods: "but they're filler - extra calories."
I think I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what it is.
Are you saying that you were brought up to believe that all carbohydrate-rich foods were just filler and extra calories, but you realize now this isn't true for all of them?
I don't know how to make it any clearer. It's food, not cardboard so of course there's more than just calories but their place in our diet is filler. A bread basket wasn't put on the table because bread is necessary for a healthful diet. Potatoes, corn, rice, beans and pasta weren't served because they were nutritious - the purpose was cheap calories and everyone knew that and acted accordingly. You weren't allowed to "fill up" on these foods at the expense of the nutritious part of the meal (the meat and vegetables).
Example: If you weren't hungry you had to at least eat your meat and a bite of your vegetables before leaving the table. (Remember there was no snacking so if you didn't eat your meal you'd be hungry later.) If you were still hungry after eating your meat and vegetables you "filled up" on the fillers. And if you were putting on weight those fillers are where you cut back on or in the case of sweets cut out.
Have you ever actually looked up the nutrient profiles of the "empty" carbs you listed?
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2770/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-products/4284/2
11 -
The article quoted above is interesting. insufficient amylase causing reduced carb digestion therefore being over weight, thought provoking. Thank you.
eta, its not uncommon for the body to work less well as we age. Getting older could be the enemy.
If you follow the breadcrumbs I think it links to BBC iPlayer. If you can access it the program was very interesting.
1 -
elsie6hickman wrote: »My husband was recently diagnosed with diabetes, and in support of that, we both took a nutrition course with a dietician. I've also done a lot of other research. Carbs are not the enemy, but all the carbs you take in change to sugar in your body. Now that sugar is what gives you energy, and is necessary. But some carbs are better than others, will spike your blood sugar (even if you don't have diabetes) which is not a good thing. But if you eat too few, your liver will kick in and release a bunch glucose into your system, and that isn't good. You want to avoid starchy carbs like pasta and white bread, and potatoes and replace those with healthy carbs like salads and broccoli, cauliflower and tomatoes. There are carbs that are OK in moderation like whole wheat pasta, and bread, brown rice, corn, peas, etc. So to cut carbs out of your diet is just not a good idea.
But I think another important part is portion control. When you buy something to eat, look at what constitutes a portion size. It's a lot smaller than you think! A serving of meat is between 2 and 4 oz. A serving size of vegetables can be 1/3 of a cup to a full cup. This is why you need to pay attention and read labels. A serving size of salad dressing is one or two tablespoons. A serving size of peanut butter is 1 TBSP.
And sugars - have you ever looked at the sugars in a box of cereal? You think you are eating healthy and you aren't. Milk is high in sugars. And Starbucks drinks like frappachinos? Don't even think about it.
So no, I don't think carbs are the enemy, but I think you need to pay attention to them. For a woman 30-45 per meal.
Do some research.
I'm not sure this conclusion makes sense, Elsie. Sugar is not the only source of energy, for one - fat is also an efficient energy source. That's why the keto diet works at all. But your conclusion that cutting out carbs "is just not a good idea" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Justifying why some carbs are good in moderation doesn't support the conclusion that cutting down on them overall is bad.1 -
elsie6hickman wrote: »My husband was recently diagnosed with diabetes, and in support of that, we both took a nutrition course with a dietician. I've also done a lot of other research. Carbs are not the enemy, but all the carbs you take in change to sugar in your body. Now that sugar is what gives you energy, and is necessary. But some carbs are better than others, will spike your blood sugar (even if you don't have diabetes) which is not a good thing. But if you eat too few, your liver will kick in and release a bunch glucose into your system, and that isn't good. You want to avoid starchy carbs like pasta and white bread, and potatoes and replace those with healthy carbs like salads and broccoli, cauliflower and tomatoes. There are carbs that are OK in moderation like whole wheat pasta, and bread, brown rice, corn, peas, etc. So to cut carbs out of your diet is just not a good idea.
But I think another important part is portion control. When you buy something to eat, look at what constitutes a portion size. It's a lot smaller than you think! A serving of meat is between 2 and 4 oz. A serving size of vegetables can be 1/3 of a cup to a full cup. This is why you need to pay attention and read labels. A serving size of salad dressing is one or two tablespoons. A serving size of peanut butter is 1 TBSP.
And sugars - have you ever looked at the sugars in a box of cereal? You think you are eating healthy and you aren't. Milk is high in sugars. And Starbucks drinks like frappachinos? Don't even think about it.
So no, I don't think carbs are the enemy, but I think you need to pay attention to them. For a woman 30-45 per meal.
Do some research.
I'm not sure this conclusion makes sense, Elsie. Sugar is not the only source of energy, for one - fat is also an efficient energy source. That's why the keto diet works at all. But your conclusion that cutting out carbs "is just not a good idea" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Justifying why some carbs are good in moderation doesn't support the conclusion that cutting down on them overall is bad.
There is a difference between cutting something out completely (what she's referencing) and cutting down (AKA, reducing).
Cutting out =! Cutting down2 -
We on this side of the pond are fortunate to have some very up to the minute medical programs. Dr. Van Tulken (sp) always produces good information along with the others.5
-
Unless someone has an allergy to something, food isn't good or bad. Overindulgence is bad, for any food. Personally, I love carbs: everything from cookies to broccoli!2
-
3 -
-
How could raspberries be the enemy? Is this like 1984 where "ignorance is strength?"8
-
And then there's this:
"Blue zones", i.e. areas with longer life spans, tend to eat very carb heavy diets, as suggested by Drs. Pritikin, Ornish, and Longo.5 -
geneticsteacher wrote: »And then there's this:
"Blue zones", i.e. areas with longer life spans, tend to eat very carb heavy diets, as suggested by Drs. Pritikin, Ornish, and Longo.
Look at all that filler . . .7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions