Why Carbs Make Us Fat...
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
Rice for me...3 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
Rice for me...
I posted in another thread that of all the things I miss the most from my dietary changes, it's white rice that I miss the most. Plain with a bit if salt or soy sauce.
2 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
Rice for me...
Me too. I've never been that much of a cheese guy. But I do love me some starchy carbs.1 -
SarahAnne3958 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
Rice for me...
I posted in another thread that of all the things I miss the most from my dietary changes, it's white rice that I miss the most. Plain with a bit if salt or soy sauce.
Why not have some occasionally? There are 2 rice dishes that are my favorites. One is kind of carribean thing with cilantro, sesame oil, red onion and lime juice. The other is spanish saffron rice. Both very yummy and not too calorically dense in a reasonable portion.
I read a little of your back story so I understand your current approach but would flexibility lead to a problem occasionally?3 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
I'll be honest I would totally put cheese on my rice and it would probably be delicious.
My diet features both pretty heavily. I've had rice for lunch every day this week because it is a mainstay of Latin American food but when I make things for myself I will pretty much put cheese on any and everything.1 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
I'll be honest I would totally put cheese on my rice and it would probably be delicious.
My diet features both pretty heavily. I've had rice for lunch every day this week because it is a mainstay of Latin American food but when I make things for myself I will pretty much put cheese on any and everything.
Cheesy rice is really freaking delicious.3 -
SarahAnne3958 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
Rice for me...
I posted in another thread that of all the things I miss the most from my dietary changes, it's white rice that I miss the most. Plain with a bit if salt or soy sauce.
Interesting how different people are. I like rice fine, with veg and protein (which generally includes a little fat too), but I'd never think to eat it plain. Give me unlimited plain white rice (even with soy sauce, which adds salt), and I'd never overeat.
That's pretty much the case for me and anything that's just plain carbs.3 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
Heck so foods taste good in combinations of macros.
Um, obviously.
Cant say I really agree with thrust of the article - and I probably eat more carbs than many people and I certainly make no attempt to limit them
so, yes, I have read the article and I disagree.
Seems just another demonising carbs and pushing low carbs as the best way to lose weight under guise of being balanced about it
5 -
SarahAnne3958 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
Rice for me...
I posted in another thread that of all the things I miss the most from my dietary changes, it's white rice that I miss the most. Plain with a bit if salt or soy sauce.
Why not have some occasionally? There are 2 rice dishes that are my favorites. One is kind of carribean thing with cilantro, sesame oil, red onion and lime juice. The other is spanish saffron rice. Both very yummy and not too calorically dense in a reasonable portion.
I read a little of your back story so I understand your current approach but would flexibility lead to a problem occasionally?
At this point I don't have any interest in veering off of my current woe. I'm in such a good place right now that I just don't feel like making any changes. I may adjust things down the road but right now I'm good
4 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
I'll be honest I would totally put cheese on my rice and it would probably be delicious.
My diet features both pretty heavily. I've had rice for lunch every day this week because it is a mainstay of Latin American food but when I make things for myself I will pretty much put cheese on any and everything.
Risotto!2 -
paperpudding wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
Heck so foods taste good in combinations of macros.
Um, obviously.
Cant say I really agree with thrust of the article - and I probably eat more carbs than many people and I certainly make no attempt to limit them
so, yes, I have read the article and I disagree.
Seems just another demonising carbs and pushing low carbs as the best way to lose weight under guise of being balanced about it
"Make no mistake, I want you to eat carbs, and I want you to enjoy your carbs, I just don’t want you to overeat carbs, because I don’t want you to overeat, period..."
I doubt it from that quote...
3 -
Executive summary....
- Eating too much makes you fat.
- Eating tasty foods makes it harder to moderate your intake.
- What people find tasty is very varied.
Don't suppose that would generate many website hits?
TBH I find the whole this macro or that macro makes it harder to stay at a good weight vastly overblown - often just another diversion from the biggest issue (over-consumption). When you look at lists of highly satiating foods you find foods that are (predominantly) carbs, protein and fat all represented - plus of course various and varied combinations.
Personally I could very easily overeat on meat/fish (protein), pasta (starchy carbs) or nuts (fat). That's being driven by my personal taste preferences and not the predominant macro composition of those foods.
Some of those would be regarded as highly satiating to others.
13 -
paperpudding wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
Heck so foods taste good in combinations of macros.
Um, obviously.
Cant say I really agree with thrust of the article - and I probably eat more carbs than many people and I certainly make no attempt to limit them
so, yes, I have read the article and I disagree.
Seems just another demonising carbs and pushing low carbs as the best way to lose weight under guise of being balanced about it
"Make no mistake, I want you to eat carbs, and I want you to enjoy your carbs, I just don’t want you to overeat carbs, because I don’t want you to overeat, period..."
I doubt it from that quote...
That is one sentence.
What I said was about the overall thrust of the article, not the one or two sentences giving the guise of being a balanced view.
1 -
paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
Heck so foods taste good in combinations of macros.
Um, obviously.
Cant say I really agree with thrust of the article - and I probably eat more carbs than many people and I certainly make no attempt to limit them
so, yes, I have read the article and I disagree.
Seems just another demonising carbs and pushing low carbs as the best way to lose weight under guise of being balanced about it
"Make no mistake, I want you to eat carbs, and I want you to enjoy your carbs, I just don’t want you to overeat carbs, because I don’t want you to overeat, period..."
I doubt it from that quote...
That is one sentence.
What I said was about the overall thrust of the article, not the one or two sentences giving the guise of being a balanced view.
That one sentence summarizes his viewpoint...
3 -
Well it isn't the way he presented the main body of his article.
So, like I said, I disagree with the overall thrust of his article.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »Well it isn't the way he presented the main body of his article.
So, like I said, I disagree with the overall thrust of his article.
Ok...0 -
What happened to a WELL BALANCED DIET being the right thing? All these fad diets are a joke for long term success FOR MOST PEOPLE.7
-
nighthawk584 wrote: »What happened to a WELL BALANCED DIET being the right thing? All these fad diets are a joke for long term success FOR MOST PEOPLE.
I've been on and off of MFP for a long time now and it doesn't seem to matter if people are following 'balanced' diets or 'fad' diets, most people fail at long term weight management, period.
There's been threads where people have chimed in with how many times they've regained the weight they lost, or 'fallen off the wagon' and there are a LOT of people who have gotten stuck in the lose/regain cycle, regardless of what their macros splits were, what foods they ate/didn't eat etc. There's a lot of factors that go into successful long term weight loss management both physically and psychologically, plus all the stuff that gets thrown at us because of life's unexpectedness.
It would be an interesting topic for a thread to see what the strategies of long-time maintainers are, (those who've maintained significant weight loss for more than 10 years).4 -
SarahAnne3958 wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
Rice for me...
I posted in another thread that of all the things I miss the most from my dietary changes, it's white rice that I miss the most. Plain with a bit if salt or soy sauce.
Why not have some occasionally? There are 2 rice dishes that are my favorites. One is kind of carribean thing with cilantro, sesame oil, red onion and lime juice. The other is spanish saffron rice. Both very yummy and not too calorically dense in a reasonable portion.
I read a little of your back story so I understand your current approach but would flexibility lead to a problem occasionally?
At this point I don't have any interest in veering off of my current woe. I'm in such a good place right now that I just don't feel like making any changes. I may adjust things down the road but right now I'm good
@SarahAnne3958 sounds like for right now you need to be an abstainer. I'm not going to try to convert you
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-happiness-project/201210/are-you-abstainer-or-moderator
When dealing with temptation, I often see the advice, “Be moderate. Don’t have ice cream every night, but if you try to deny yourself altogether, you’ll fall off the wagon. Allow yourself to have the occasional treat, it will help you stick to your plan.”
I’ve come to believe that this is good advice for some people: the “moderators.” They do better when they avoid absolutes and strict rules.
For a long time, I kept trying this strategy of moderation–and failing. Then I read a line from Samuel Johnson, who said, when someone offered him wine: “Abstinence is as easy to me as temperance would be difficult.”
Ah ha! Like Dr. Johnson, I’m an “abstainer.”
I find it far easier to give something up altogether than to indulge moderately. When I admitted to myself that I was eating my favorite frozen yogurt treat very often–two and even three times a day–I gave it up cold turkey. That was far easier for me to do than to eat it twice a week. If I try to be moderate, I exhaust myself debating, “Today, tomorrow?” “Does this time ‘count’?” “Don’t I deserve this?” etc. If I never do something, it requires no self-control for me; if I do something sometimes, it requires enormous self-control.
There’s no right way or wrong way–it’s just a matter of knowing which strategy works better for you. If moderators try to abstain, they feel trapped and rebellious. If abstainers try to be moderate, they spend a lot of precious energy justifying why they should go ahead and indulge.
In my experience, both moderators and abstainers try hard to convert the other team. A nutritionist once told me, “I tell my clients to follow the 80/20 rule. Be healthy 80% of the time, indulge within reason, 20% of the time.” She wouldn’t consider my point of view–that a 100% rule might be easier for someone like me to follow.11 -
kshama2001 wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
Rice for me...
I posted in another thread that of all the things I miss the most from my dietary changes, it's white rice that I miss the most. Plain with a bit if salt or soy sauce.
Why not have some occasionally? There are 2 rice dishes that are my favorites. One is kind of carribean thing with cilantro, sesame oil, red onion and lime juice. The other is spanish saffron rice. Both very yummy and not too calorically dense in a reasonable portion.
I read a little of your back story so I understand your current approach but would flexibility lead to a problem occasionally?
At this point I don't have any interest in veering off of my current woe. I'm in such a good place right now that I just don't feel like making any changes. I may adjust things down the road but right now I'm good
@SarahAnne3958 sounds like for right now you need to be an abstainer. I'm not going to try to convert you
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-happiness-project/201210/are-you-abstainer-or-moderator
When dealing with temptation, I often see the advice, “Be moderate. Don’t have ice cream every night, but if you try to deny yourself altogether, you’ll fall off the wagon. Allow yourself to have the occasional treat, it will help you stick to your plan.”
I’ve come to believe that this is good advice for some people: the “moderators.” They do better when they avoid absolutes and strict rules.
For a long time, I kept trying this strategy of moderation–and failing. Then I read a line from Samuel Johnson, who said, when someone offered him wine: “Abstinence is as easy to me as temperance would be difficult.”
Ah ha! Like Dr. Johnson, I’m an “abstainer.”
I find it far easier to give something up altogether than to indulge moderately. When I admitted to myself that I was eating my favorite frozen yogurt treat very often–two and even three times a day–I gave it up cold turkey. That was far easier for me to do than to eat it twice a week. If I try to be moderate, I exhaust myself debating, “Today, tomorrow?” “Does this time ‘count’?” “Don’t I deserve this?” etc. If I never do something, it requires no self-control for me; if I do something sometimes, it requires enormous self-control.
There’s no right way or wrong way–it’s just a matter of knowing which strategy works better for you. If moderators try to abstain, they feel trapped and rebellious. If abstainers try to be moderate, they spend a lot of precious energy justifying why they should go ahead and indulge.
In my experience, both moderators and abstainers try hard to convert the other team. A nutritionist once told me, “I tell my clients to follow the 80/20 rule. Be healthy 80% of the time, indulge within reason, 20% of the time.” She wouldn’t consider my point of view–that a 100% rule might be easier for someone like me to follow.
Thanks for this, I think you're exactly right At this time in my life I'm finding that I just can't moderate, because I'm so burned out right now. So for me it's easier to just practice abstaining because I need to take a step back and do a mental reset (to rest and regroup).
5 -
I'm also on Team kshama2001.
But. It's specific foods in specific situations, not just carbs in general.
Ice cream? No. Potatoes, baked or roasted, yes. French bread, no. Corn bread or rice? Yes. No to cookies and candy. Well, if there is only one available, then yes. If there is a bag of them available to me? No.3 -
nighthawk584 wrote: »What happened to a WELL BALANCED DIET being the right thing? All these fad diets are a joke for long term success FOR MOST PEOPLE.
Agree, but I don't think the linked article is actually supporting the fad diet approach.2 -
"Make no mistake, I want you to eat carbs, and I want you to enjoy your carbs, I just don’t want you to overeat carbs, because I don’t want you to overeat, period..."
–Brad Pilon3 -
SarahAnne3958 wrote: »nighthawk584 wrote: »What happened to a WELL BALANCED DIET being the right thing? All these fad diets are a joke for long term success FOR MOST PEOPLE.
I've been on and off of MFP for a long time now and it doesn't seem to matter if people are following 'balanced' diets or 'fad' diets, most people fail at long term weight management, period.
There's been threads where people have chimed in with how many times they've regained the weight they lost, or 'fallen off the wagon' and there are a LOT of people who have gotten stuck in the lose/regain cycle, regardless of what their macros splits were, what foods they ate/didn't eat etc. There's a lot of factors that go into successful long term weight loss management both physically and psychologically, plus all the stuff that gets thrown at us because of life's unexpectedness.
It would be an interesting topic for a thread to see what the strategies of long-time maintainers are, (those who've maintained significant weight loss for more than 10 years).
I'd wager that if people kept following a balanced diet into maintenance along with a regular exercise schedule people would maintain just fine. People fail to maintain because they see what they're doing for weight loss as temporary...when they get to where they want to be, they just go back to old eating habits, stop exercising, etc.
I've maintained for about 6.5 years...my diet when losing weight consisted of mostly whole foods and minimally processed foods. Plenty of whole grains, legumes, lentils, veg, fruit, lean proteins and healthy fats...along with pizza night most Friday nights. I eat the same in maintenance...just more calories, and I've maintained a regular exercise schedule.
5 -
cmriverside wrote: »I'm also on Team kshama2001.
But. It's specific foods in specific situations, not just carbs in general.
Ice cream? No. Potatoes, baked or roasted, yes. French bread, no. Corn bread or rice? Yes. No to cookies and candy. Well, if there is only one available, then yes. If there is a bag of them available to me? No.
When I am in a frame of mind when abstaining is easier (and there are definitely times I am, which is one reason I hate the idea that people are either "abstainers about everything" or "moderators about everything" -- for me, depends on the food, depends on what else is going on in my life, depends on the specific circumstances surrounding consumption). However, like you, applying it to all carbs (or all fats or whatever) makes no sense to me. Vegetables are a carb, and I don't have trouble "moderating" them (in fact, I intentionally eat 10+ servings, and although not moderate compared to the average consumption in the US, that's not a calorie problem at all and helps me not fill up my plate with higher cal things sometimes, as well as making me feel good IMO).
Ice cream I'm not eating lately (I have 0 sweet tooth other than for fruit lately), but I moderate it fine. Pie or certain other sweet baked goods? No, but if I have a piece at a holiday dinner and then don't keep more on hand, I'm not going to be unable to keep myself from baking or go to a bakery and buy some afterwards. Potatoes, I moderate fine and eat frequently. Fries? I have them rarely and if I have good ones I tend to eat what's on my plate, so save them for times when that's workable (so rarely). But again I don't eat fries and then go buy fries the next several nights. Rice, nothing could be easier for me to moderate, it's a food I like fine with other foods but don't find exciting. Same with plain pasta and I can moderate pasta with protein and veg easily. Plain bread I mostly don't eat since it's not that interesting for me, but homemade fresh out of the oven bread, no, I can't moderate, so I rarely bake it. Cornbread (if good, warm), yeah, I can't moderate it easily so it's a rare treat, etc.
Fruit, I love, but moderate fine, in part because it takes a lot to overdo it and in part because I don't snack very often so it's usually eaten as part of or right after a meal.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »nighthawk584 wrote: »What happened to a WELL BALANCED DIET being the right thing? All these fad diets are a joke for long term success FOR MOST PEOPLE.
I've been on and off of MFP for a long time now and it doesn't seem to matter if people are following 'balanced' diets or 'fad' diets, most people fail at long term weight management, period.
There's been threads where people have chimed in with how many times they've regained the weight they lost, or 'fallen off the wagon' and there are a LOT of people who have gotten stuck in the lose/regain cycle, regardless of what their macros splits were, what foods they ate/didn't eat etc. There's a lot of factors that go into successful long term weight loss management both physically and psychologically, plus all the stuff that gets thrown at us because of life's unexpectedness.
It would be an interesting topic for a thread to see what the strategies of long-time maintainers are, (those who've maintained significant weight loss for more than 10 years).
I'd wager that if people kept following a balanced diet into maintenance along with a regular exercise schedule people would maintain just fine. People fail to maintain because they see what they're doing for weight loss as temporary...when they get to where they want to be, they just go back to old eating habits, stop exercising, etc.
I've maintained for about 6.5 years...my diet when losing weight consisted of mostly whole foods and minimally processed foods. Plenty of whole grains, legumes, lentils, veg, fruit, lean proteins and healthy fats...along with pizza night most Friday nights. I eat the same in maintenance...just more calories, and I've maintained a regular exercise schedule.
Amen to this. That is what I am doing or at least trying to do.... I'm still in the deficit stage but I'm tweaking my diet to a variety of foods that I can eat for long term success instead of just the quick fix. I admit I started very low carb during my first 50 lbs of weight loss. I am currently down 70 on my way to 100 goal with a balanced approach. Way more satisfied now.
1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
Rice for me...
I posted in another thread that of all the things I miss the most from my dietary changes, it's white rice that I miss the most. Plain with a bit if salt or soy sauce.
Why not have some occasionally? There are 2 rice dishes that are my favorites. One is kind of carribean thing with cilantro, sesame oil, red onion and lime juice. The other is spanish saffron rice. Both very yummy and not too calorically dense in a reasonable portion.
I read a little of your back story so I understand your current approach but would flexibility lead to a problem occasionally?
At this point I don't have any interest in veering off of my current woe. I'm in such a good place right now that I just don't feel like making any changes. I may adjust things down the road but right now I'm good
@SarahAnne3958 sounds like for right now you need to be an abstainer. I'm not going to try to convert you
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-happiness-project/201210/are-you-abstainer-or-moderator
When dealing with temptation, I often see the advice, “Be moderate. Don’t have ice cream every night, but if you try to deny yourself altogether, you’ll fall off the wagon. Allow yourself to have the occasional treat, it will help you stick to your plan.”
I’ve come to believe that this is good advice for some people: the “moderators.” They do better when they avoid absolutes and strict rules.
For a long time, I kept trying this strategy of moderation–and failing. Then I read a line from Samuel Johnson, who said, when someone offered him wine: “Abstinence is as easy to me as temperance would be difficult.”
Ah ha! Like Dr. Johnson, I’m an “abstainer.”
I find it far easier to give something up altogether than to indulge moderately. When I admitted to myself that I was eating my favorite frozen yogurt treat very often–two and even three times a day–I gave it up cold turkey. That was far easier for me to do than to eat it twice a week. If I try to be moderate, I exhaust myself debating, “Today, tomorrow?” “Does this time ‘count’?” “Don’t I deserve this?” etc. If I never do something, it requires no self-control for me; if I do something sometimes, it requires enormous self-control.
There’s no right way or wrong way–it’s just a matter of knowing which strategy works better for you. If moderators try to abstain, they feel trapped and rebellious. If abstainers try to be moderate, they spend a lot of precious energy justifying why they should go ahead and indulge.
In my experience, both moderators and abstainers try hard to convert the other team. A nutritionist once told me, “I tell my clients to follow the 80/20 rule. Be healthy 80% of the time, indulge within reason, 20% of the time.” She wouldn’t consider my point of view–that a 100% rule might be easier for someone like me to follow.kshama2001 wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.
Rice for me...
I posted in another thread that of all the things I miss the most from my dietary changes, it's white rice that I miss the most. Plain with a bit if salt or soy sauce.
Why not have some occasionally? There are 2 rice dishes that are my favorites. One is kind of carribean thing with cilantro, sesame oil, red onion and lime juice. The other is spanish saffron rice. Both very yummy and not too calorically dense in a reasonable portion.
I read a little of your back story so I understand your current approach but would flexibility lead to a problem occasionally?
At this point I don't have any interest in veering off of my current woe. I'm in such a good place right now that I just don't feel like making any changes. I may adjust things down the road but right now I'm good
@SarahAnne3958 sounds like for right now you need to be an abstainer. I'm not going to try to convert you
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-happiness-project/201210/are-you-abstainer-or-moderator
When dealing with temptation, I often see the advice, “Be moderate. Don’t have ice cream every night, but if you try to deny yourself altogether, you’ll fall off the wagon. Allow yourself to have the occasional treat, it will help you stick to your plan.”
I’ve come to believe that this is good advice for some people: the “moderators.” They do better when they avoid absolutes and strict rules.
For a long time, I kept trying this strategy of moderation–and failing. Then I read a line from Samuel Johnson, who said, when someone offered him wine: “Abstinence is as easy to me as temperance would be difficult.”
Ah ha! Like Dr. Johnson, I’m an “abstainer.”
I find it far easier to give something up altogether than to indulge moderately. When I admitted to myself that I was eating my favorite frozen yogurt treat very often–two and even three times a day–I gave it up cold turkey. That was far easier for me to do than to eat it twice a week. If I try to be moderate, I exhaust myself debating, “Today, tomorrow?” “Does this time ‘count’?” “Don’t I deserve this?” etc. If I never do something, it requires no self-control for me; if I do something sometimes, it requires enormous self-control.
There’s no right way or wrong way–it’s just a matter of knowing which strategy works better for you. If moderators try to abstain, they feel trapped and rebellious. If abstainers try to be moderate, they spend a lot of precious energy justifying why they should go ahead and indulge.
In my experience, both moderators and abstainers try hard to convert the other team. A nutritionist once told me, “I tell my clients to follow the 80/20 rule. Be healthy 80% of the time, indulge within reason, 20% of the time.” She wouldn’t consider my point of view–that a 100% rule might be easier for someone like me to follow.
I have to be both. Technically I am an abstainer but long term it works out to be more like moderation. I usually abstain but when I want something I avoid I need to eat all of it. What this means is I buy a pint of ice cream and eat it in one sitting, then don’t buy it again for a long time. Having some in the freezer and eating a little st a time just does not work for me.4 -
"Make no mistake, I want you to eat carbs, and I want you to enjoy your carbs, I just don’t want you to overeat carbs, because I don’t want you to overeat, period..."
–Brad Pilon
But you could substitute anything in there - I want you to eat fats and i want you to enjoy fats.......
and most foods are a combination of macros anyway
no need to demonise carbs.
5 -
Thank you, loved this article. Works for me, I agree with the person who says if it quits working I will worry about it then.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions