Carbs are carbs...or are they?
Replies
-
WombatHat42 wrote: »... Plus you will theoretically get hungrier faster because of this...
I feel like this is the only part that is relevant.
If person A and B are in a lab or otherwise have no other access to food rice vs Dr Pepper is not really relevant to weight loss. (I will acknowledge the insignificant differences people noted above.)
I personally find rice filling and soda not at all so would find having a calorie deficit impossible with the Dr Pepper option.0 -
i found a study that said a carb is not nec just a carb "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308431/"
1 -
i found a study that said a carb is not nec just a carb "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308431/"
A carb IS still a carb that study doesn’t argue that. It argues the difference between low and high GI foods. High GI foods break down faster (and cause faster insulin spikes) while low GI take longer to break down. A food that takes longer to break down will keep you feeling full longer, hence low GI better for weight loss not because they are a “special” carb but because you don’t get hungry as fast.
All that said, a carb IS just a carb. Just like with any other macro, certain food choices will help you feel more satiated.8 -
i found a study that said a carb is not nec just a carb "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308431/"
You can find information/studies on the internet that, will back up any belief. Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily fact, or fallacy.4 -
Until people accept that it is an excess of calories that makes one overweight they will continue to struggle. Debating this nonsense is majoring in the minors.
It makes for interesting conversation (sometimes) but that is about it...11 -
i found a study that said a carb is not nec just a carb "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308431/"
I agree with what the 3 posts after yours say, but given this is discussing GI (high GI loses less in the study than low GI), it is worth noting that GI of a diet is different than GI of a specific food, especially if that food is eaten in combination with other foods. I also suspect the results are more about appetite control/compliance, which is different from what OP seemed to be saying (that the results would be different despite cals being equal).
That said, GI is not always what people expect. Re the foods discussed by OP:
white rice: GI=73
brown rice: GI=68
soda: GI=59
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods6 -
missysippy930 wrote: »i found a study that said a carb is not nec just a carb "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308431/"
You can find information/studies on the internet that, will back up any belief. Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily fact, or fallacy.
Well that is true - but pubmed is generally good source.
Seems there is nothing wrong with the study - but it doesnt say what OP said.
4 -
First- I'm not posting for debate. I just felt compelled to share my experience. After reading much and watching documentaries over the years I would tend to agree with you- quality of carbs matters in weight loss for a few obvious reasons.
If your body is getting nutrient dense calories- in the right ratios- then your body will run more efficiently. It will run more clean. Your cells will give up the excess unnecessary fat the healthier it runs. If your cells are registering a nutrient deficit, it will send more craving and unsatisfied signals to the brain.
I can't stress enough that from my own experience over decades of various methods- from Weight Watchers to juicing greens to low carb to Trim Healthy Momma- when I have included better quality carbs (and other foods) weight came off much easier and food decisions were easier- temptations practically nill. This is just my experience- but 2000 empty calories and 2000 quality calories will definitely come out differently on the scale.
It's been studied already and you can go find the research. It's old "science" to say it's all number of calories. Metabolism is affected by many factors, and food quality is likely one of them. So a 100 cal sugar drink compared to a 100 cal quality whole grain carb is going to process differently chemically and possibly emotionally.1 -
But nobody is arguing that different carb foods would have different impact on temptation or " food decisions" or that different carb foods have different nutritional value.
That wasn't the question at all.10 -
classicalcorrados5 wrote: »First- I'm not posting for debate. I just felt compelled to share my experience. After reading much and watching documentaries over the years I would tend to agree with you- quality of carbs matters in weight loss for a few obvious reasons.
If your body is getting nutrient dense calories- in the right ratios- then your body will run more efficiently. It will run more clean. Your cells will give up the excess unnecessary fat the healthier it runs. If your cells are registering a nutrient deficit, it will send more craving and unsatisfied signals to the brain.
I can't stress enough that from my own experience over decades of various methods- from Weight Watchers to juicing greens to low carb to Trim Healthy Momma- when I have included better quality carbs (and other foods) weight came off much easier and food decisions were easier- temptations practically nill. This is just my experience- but 2000 empty calories and 2000 quality calories will definitely come out differently on the scale.
It's been studied already and you can go find the research. It's old "science" to say it's all number of calories. Metabolism is affected by many factors, and food quality is likely one of them. So a 100 cal sugar drink compared to a 100 cal quality whole grain carb is going to process differently chemically and possibly emotionally.
In my opinion, no calorie is empty.
And I lost 125ish pounds eating a whole lot of those "empty" calories.
That's what eating in a deficit gets ya.
12 -
A carb is a carb is a carb. You can eat as many “empty” (no such thing) carbs as you please and STILL lose weight as long as you do so in a deficit.
Frankly, the so called empty carbs are my favorite ones to eat. Down over 30 lbs so far incorporating them into my daily diet. Eating the foods I enjoy is what helps me stay on track. Restricting the foods I eat would make me give up pretty quickly7 -
paperpudding wrote: »But nobody is arguing that different carb foods would have different impact on temptation or " food decisions" or that different carb foods have different nutritional value.
That wasn't the question at all.
Exactly this. Also, no one was comparing eating an overall healthful diet vs not.7 -
classicalcorrados5 wrote: »First- I'm not posting for debate. I just felt compelled to share my experience. After reading much and watching documentaries over the years I would tend to agree with you- quality of carbs matters in weight loss for a few obvious reasons.
If your body is getting nutrient dense calories- in the right ratios- then your body will run more efficiently. It will run more clean. Your cells will give up the excess unnecessary fat the healthier it runs. If your cells are registering a nutrient deficit, it will send more craving and unsatisfied signals to the brain.
I can't stress enough that from my own experience over decades of various methods- from Weight Watchers to juicing greens to low carb to Trim Healthy Momma- when I have included better quality carbs (and other foods) weight came off much easier and food decisions were easier- temptations practically nill. This is just my experience- but 2000 empty calories and 2000 quality calories will definitely come out differently on the scale.
It's been studied already and you can go find the research. It's old "science" to say it's all number of calories. Metabolism is affected by many factors, and food quality is likely one of them. So a 100 cal sugar drink compared to a 100 cal quality whole grain carb is going to process differently chemically and possibly emotionally.
There are not "types of calories", any more than there are types of inches. Calories are just a measurement unit for energy content.
Similarly, there are not "types of carbs" in the way you're using the term. (There are types of carbs in the sense of sugars and starches, and various subdivisions of those, of course.)
Foods have various qualities, such as energy content and nutritional values. For health, energy, satiation, and more, overall dietary composition (totality of food choices over time) matters. No one is saying otherwise.
Am I being pedantic? Yes.
But unclear use of figurative language can obscure the essential point, rather than illuminate it.
11 -
Complex carbs get broken down into simple ones for the body to process. They truly end up being the same thing.
6 -
The controversy around this originates in the pointless dogma spoon fed to us by advocates, antagonists, lobbyists, sellers and bureaucrats. Many people seize upon the differences in food complexity and nutrition to justify or rationalize their own weird eating habits. From a distance, it is sad to see so many people with extreme food preferences anecdotally driven by things they think they perceive about their health, happiness or fitness. The truth is that almost any balanced diet with any components will give the same results in health, happiness and fitness. Just how much of it will determine how much excess weight a person will end up with.2
-
Calories in vs calories out is what matters for weight loss.
Have you heard about the Twinkie diet? Yup a man ate only 1800 calories of Twinkies for several weeks and lost weight.
He wasn’t feeding his body the nutrition that it needed. But he lost weight.
Macros and micros are for ensuring a well balanced diet that includes all the nutrients, vitamins and minerals your body needs to function properly.
1 -
tgillies003 wrote: »Calories in vs calories out is what matters for weight loss.
Have you heard about the Twinkie diet? Yup a man ate only 1800 calories of Twinkies for several weeks and lost weight.
He wasn’t feeding his body the nutrition that it needed. But he lost weight.
Macros and micros are for ensuring a well balanced diet that includes all the nutrients, vitamins and minerals your body needs to function properly.
Totally this!!!
Total calories = body mass
Type of calories = body function3 -
PaintedPlay wrote: »tgillies003 wrote: »Calories in vs calories out is what matters for weight loss.
Have you heard about the Twinkie diet? Yup a man ate only 1800 calories of Twinkies for several weeks and lost weight.
He wasn’t feeding his body the nutrition that it needed. But he lost weight.
Macros and micros are for ensuring a well balanced diet that includes all the nutrients, vitamins and minerals your body needs to function properly.
Totally this!!!
Total calories = body mass
Type of calories = body function
The point really is that no matter what you eat, if you eat too much you will gain weight...1 -
tgillies003 wrote: »Calories in vs calories out is what matters for weight loss.
Have you heard about the Twinkie diet? Yup a man ate only 1800 calories of Twinkies for several weeks and lost weight.
He wasn’t feeding his body the nutrition that it needed. But he lost weight.
Macros and micros are for ensuring a well balanced diet that includes all the nutrients, vitamins and minerals your body needs to function properly.
Jared and his Subway diet too.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions