Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What a lot of us here already know: "Fast" carbs don't make you fat!
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Most likely because their diet is becoming more similar to that in the US in many ways, not the fact that the traditional diet contains lots of carbs.
Are you saying that whole foods are less likely to cause obesity than refined, or is it that people like the taste better and they're eating more? BTW I agree with your assessment.
I think people tend to naturally eat less, on average, when eating/cooking with whole foods. Probably a combination of the foods being on average more satiating (there's a study that backed that up that has been discussed here), it requiring more work to actually access them (if you have to cook what you eat other than, say, raw fruit and veg, it's harder to snack a bunch at unplanned times or just for pleasure, not hunger), and for many people certain types of what are often called "ultra palatable foods" may override hunger/satiety cues even if they don't actually taste better to many of us.
At one level, this is silly (what I'm about to type), and slightly digressive, but I suspect there's maybe a tiny bit of something in it.
In a cognitive space where people chase at best tiny caloric advantages via things like ice water, hot peppers, ACV, TEF, maybe even modest ones like EPOC differences between exercise modes, I think the actual act of cooking is underappreciated.
IIRC, it takes something like 200 excess calories per person per day (on average across the population) to explain the "obesity crisis", which is a slow upward creep in average weight over many years.
Cooking dinner takes maybe 20 minutes to half an hour? (Can be less, but that 20-30 isn't extreme, I think.) The Compendium of Physical Activities** says "cooking or food preparation, moderate effort" is a 3.5 MET activity (based on published research). Other things that are 3.5 METS, or close: Light calisthenics, slow ballroom dancing, some types of yoga, etc. Waiting in the car at a drive through is maybe 1.3-1.8 METS (sitting in car, with or without fidgeting), actively driving more like 2.5.
For a mid-small older person like me, net of BMR, cooking one meal would be around 25-50 calories burned, in 20-30 minutes. Tiny, but 10-25% chunk of that theoretical 200 calories.
Yeah, this is a digression from fast carbs, but we were heading down that road of "why do people seem to gain more weight eating modern-style refined/processed foods vs. whole foods". The effort differential is maybe in there even beyond its effect on motivations. Also, there are tiny hints that TEF of whole foods may be a little higher, and I don't think that's calculated into calorie label values.
Little stuff adds up. 😉
**https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/
Yes, I have too much time on my hands right now.7 -
That's really interesting, @AnnPT77 ! I am on my feet in the kitchen a lot, and I figured it used some energy but hadn't really bothered to think about just how much. Chopping veggies, stirring, moving pots and pans (plus dishes afterwards), grabbing things out of cupboards and putting them back. None of it is a lot of effort by itself but it does add up!
(I already knew kneading bread by hand was a major workout.
) 4 -
penguinmama87 wrote: »That's really interesting, @AnnPT77 ! I am on my feet in the kitchen a lot, and I figured it used some energy but hadn't really bothered to think about just how much. Chopping veggies, stirring, moving pots and pans (plus dishes afterwards), grabbing things out of cupboards and putting them back. None of it is a lot of effort by itself but it does add up!
(I already knew kneading bread by hand was a major workout. )
"Cooking, kneading dough" = 3.41 METS (Torun, McGuire et al. 1982)
Guatemalan women, though.
😉
3 -
Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.4
-
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
19 -
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?2 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Most likely because their diet is becoming more similar to that in the US in many ways, not the fact that the traditional diet contains lots of carbs.
Are you saying that whole foods are less likely to cause obesity than refined, or is it that people like the taste better and they're eating more? BTW I agree with your assessment.
I think people tend to naturally eat less, on average, when eating/cooking with whole foods. Probably a combination of the foods being on average more satiating (there's a study that backed that up that has been discussed here), it requiring more work to actually access them (if you have to cook what you eat other than, say, raw fruit and veg, it's harder to snack a bunch at unplanned times or just for pleasure, not hunger), and for many people certain types of what are often called "ultra palatable foods" may override hunger/satiety cues even if they don't actually taste better to many of us.
Without stereotyping you may be right.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
Into your daily pool where you can spend them for a lot longer than half an hour, because food still in your gut does not magically poof into fat at the thirty minute mark.11 -
neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Then it is likely due to eating more junk food and less of their traditional diet.
BTW, I find compliance with WFPB diet way easier than with low carb. Any diet that limits fruits, legumes, and grains does not make me feel good. When I was younger I tried Atkins and South Beach and felt gross on them.neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Then it is likely due to eating more junk food and less of their traditional diet.
BTW, I find compliance with WFPB diet way easier than with low carb. Any diet that limits fruits, legumes, and grains does not make me feel good. When I was younger I tried Atkins and South Beach and felt gross on them.
That's your person journey and your also a vegetarian/vegan so your biased. We all are BTW. Personally I'm lower to low carb and have been for quite a few years and I still eat fruit, legumes and grains periodically. I eat a mountain of vegetables and greens regularly with seafood the dominant protein.2 -
wunderkindking wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
Into your daily pool where you can spend them for a lot longer than half an hour, because food still in your gut does not magically poof into fat at the thirty minute mark.
At the same time, IMU we can potentially be storing fat, or burning stored fat, throughout the day, depending on a variety of factors.
If we have weight management goals, what matters is the fat "bank balance", not the individual transactions. Net calorie deficit, net fat depletion over time, IMO that's what matters, if the goal is loss.
IMO, endurance athletes maybe need to worry about fueling details, perhaps some with serious health conditions. Us regular folks? Nah, not so much.4 -
wunderkindking wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
Into your daily pool where you can spend them for a lot longer than half an hour, because food still in your gut does not magically poof into fat at the thirty minute mark.
simple carbs hit your blood stream in and around 30 minutes after consumption where digestion starts in your mouth. Anyway, that wasn't the point. AnnPT77 basically explained it.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Then it is likely due to eating more junk food and less of their traditional diet.
BTW, I find compliance with WFPB diet way easier than with low carb. Any diet that limits fruits, legumes, and grains does not make me feel good. When I was younger I tried Atkins and South Beach and felt gross on them.neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Then it is likely due to eating more junk food and less of their traditional diet.
BTW, I find compliance with WFPB diet way easier than with low carb. Any diet that limits fruits, legumes, and grains does not make me feel good. When I was younger I tried Atkins and South Beach and felt gross on them.
That's your person journey and your also a vegetarian/vegan so your biased. We all are BTW. Personally I'm lower to low carb and have been for quite a few years and I still eat fruit, legumes and grains periodically. I eat a mountain of vegetables and greens regularly with seafood the dominant protein.
I’m not biased as I grew up eating plenty of meat. I am currently pescatarian. I have tried both ways and found this way is better for me.7 -
neanderthin wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
Into your daily pool where you can spend them for a lot longer than half an hour, because food still in your gut does not magically poof into fat at the thirty minute mark.
simple carbs hit your blood stream in and around 30 minutes after consumption where digestion starts in your mouth. Anyway, that wasn't the point. AnnPT77 basically explained it.
I don't think you and Ann are agreeing. You didn't seem to have a problem with"any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat."
And by this, it appears that Ann does:wunderkindking wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
Into your daily pool where you can spend them for a lot longer than half an hour, because food still in your gut does not magically poof into fat at the thirty minute mark.
At the same time, IMU we can potentially be storing fat, or burning stored fat, throughout the day, depending on a variety of factors.
If we have weight management goals, what matters is the fat "bank balance", not the individual transactions. Net calorie deficit, net fat depletion over time, IMO that's what matters, if the goal is loss.
IMO, endurance athletes maybe need to worry about fueling details, perhaps some with serious health conditions. Us regular folks? Nah, not so much.6 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Then it is likely due to eating more junk food and less of their traditional diet.
BTW, I find compliance with WFPB diet way easier than with low carb. Any diet that limits fruits, legumes, and grains does not make me feel good. When I was younger I tried Atkins and South Beach and felt gross on them.neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Then it is likely due to eating more junk food and less of their traditional diet.
BTW, I find compliance with WFPB diet way easier than with low carb. Any diet that limits fruits, legumes, and grains does not make me feel good. When I was younger I tried Atkins and South Beach and felt gross on them.
That's your person journey and your also a vegetarian/vegan so your biased. We all are BTW. Personally I'm lower to low carb and have been for quite a few years and I still eat fruit, legumes and grains periodically. I eat a mountain of vegetables and greens regularly with seafood the dominant protein.
I’m not biased as I grew up eating plenty of meat. I am currently pescatarian. I have tried both ways and found this way is better for me.
Sorry my mistake. I guess I assumed you were based on your overall opinion of low carb and meat, cholesterol etc.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Then it is likely due to eating more junk food and less of their traditional diet.
BTW, I find compliance with WFPB diet way easier than with low carb. Any diet that limits fruits, legumes, and grains does not make me feel good. When I was younger I tried Atkins and South Beach and felt gross on them.neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Then it is likely due to eating more junk food and less of their traditional diet.
BTW, I find compliance with WFPB diet way easier than with low carb. Any diet that limits fruits, legumes, and grains does not make me feel good. When I was younger I tried Atkins and South Beach and felt gross on them.
That's your person journey and your also a vegetarian/vegan so your biased. We all are BTW. Personally I'm lower to low carb and have been for quite a few years and I still eat fruit, legumes and grains periodically. I eat a mountain of vegetables and greens regularly with seafood the dominant protein.
Of course her personal journey is her personal journey. But her point was "Then it is likely due to eating more junk food and less of their traditional diet."
Her personal experiences and preferences don't negate that statement.5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
Into your daily pool where you can spend them for a lot longer than half an hour, because food still in your gut does not magically poof into fat at the thirty minute mark.
simple carbs hit your blood stream in and around 30 minutes after consumption where digestion starts in your mouth. Anyway, that wasn't the point. AnnPT77 basically explained it.
I don't think you and Ann are agreeing. You didn't seem to have a problem with"any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat."
And by this, it appears that Ann does:wunderkindking wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
Into your daily pool where you can spend them for a lot longer than half an hour, because food still in your gut does not magically poof into fat at the thirty minute mark.
At the same time, IMU we can potentially be storing fat, or burning stored fat, throughout the day, depending on a variety of factors.
If we have weight management goals, what matters is the fat "bank balance", not the individual transactions. Net calorie deficit, net fat depletion over time, IMO that's what matters, if the goal is loss.
IMO, endurance athletes maybe need to worry about fueling details, perhaps some with serious health conditions. Us regular folks? Nah, not so much.
I'm ok with you not agreeing.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
Into your daily pool where you can spend them for a lot longer than half an hour, because food still in your gut does not magically poof into fat at the thirty minute mark.
simple carbs hit your blood stream in and around 30 minutes after consumption where digestion starts in your mouth. Anyway, that wasn't the point. AnnPT77 basically explained it.
I don't think you and Ann are agreeing. You didn't seem to have a problem with"any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat."
And by this, it appears that Ann does:wunderkindking wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
Into your daily pool where you can spend them for a lot longer than half an hour, because food still in your gut does not magically poof into fat at the thirty minute mark.
At the same time, IMU we can potentially be storing fat, or burning stored fat, throughout the day, depending on a variety of factors.
If we have weight management goals, what matters is the fat "bank balance", not the individual transactions. Net calorie deficit, net fat depletion over time, IMO that's what matters, if the goal is loss.
IMO, endurance athletes maybe need to worry about fueling details, perhaps some with serious health conditions. Us regular folks? Nah, not so much.
I don't have a big problem with"any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat."
other than that it's not a reason not to eat fruit (<= that was the original context), and it's a little too generalized (or maybe not generalized enough?).
I mean, sure, maybe recently eaten calories that aren't burned off relatively soon are going to be stored as fat, even if 30 minutes isn't the precise time horizon.
My point is: Why should I care? I *want* my body to store calories as fat, under the right circumstances, because that's part of what healthy bodies do, and I don't even have to think about it, it just happens. Healthy body knows what it's doing, I figure. It wants to store some calories I ate recently as fat, cool.
Fruit calories, candy calories, peanut butter calories, avocado calories, cheese calories, any calories: Slightly different time horizons and tradeoffs, but they can be stored as fat at the proper time horizon, if not used before. (Betting the fruit ones aren't the ones preferred to store as fat, if there are a full set of other options.)
Thing is, when I calorie count, I want to manage the net over time, let my body deal with "in the moment".
If intake nets out below expenditure, I lose weight. Right now, I'm maintaining, so working to balance the in & out, as my net fat "bank balance". I don't care what my healthy, capable body does to juggle energy stores in the moment, unless I have some endurance fueling issue or something like that, then I might pick a snack in light of what I know about fuel substrate processing/timing (not much).
I can eat fruit pretty much any dang time I please, in that context. It's fine.
I still think it was good that @friedpet dropped that trainer, because the trainer seems to have thought it mattered what happened to the specific fruit calories in the moment. That's silly, IMO, and a trainer should know better. 🤷♀️10 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
If you are in a deficit your glycogen is unlikely to be maxed out.
As Ann said, net is what matters, and IF we were regularly storing carbs as fat and then unstoring it throughout the day, our calorie burn would likely be higher, as the transaction burns some cals. It's cheaper, calorie-wise to store fat as fat, which is why we are likely to burn more of the carbs and store more of the fat when in a surplus.
The main reason what the trainer said is wrong is because it's irrelevant and he was saying it's a reason to avoid fruit.6 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
If you are in a deficit your glycogen is unlikely to be maxed out.
As Ann said, net is what matters, and IF we were regularly storing carbs as fat and then unstoring it throughout the day, our calorie burn would likely be higher, as the transaction burns some cals. It's cheaper, calorie-wise to store fat as fat, which is why we are likely to burn more of the carbs and store more of the fat when in a surplus.
The main reason what the trainer said is wrong is because it's irrelevant and he was saying it's a reason to avoid fruit.
Precisely.
Also, if the context is an exercise session (it was IMU), as soon as the person starts moving very energetically at all, their glycogen isn't maxed out anymore, whether they're in a deficit or not.
But that's another thing my healthy body takes care of without my worrying about it, topping up those glycogen stores when it needs to, and can.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I realized in 2004 that I preferred white rice and felt guilty about abandoning brown rice for a long time, but no more!
I believe I first saw this graphic here on MFP:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/
I can easily make up that 1 g of protein and fiber elsewhere. Actually, as I type this I am eating cottage cheese and blueberries, so check
FWIW as a type 2 diabetic who tests blood glucose after eating, there’s not a measurable difference in blood glucose rise between white and brown rice either. As you can see, they are nearly identical in net carbs and the added fiber isn’t enough to slow uptake of glucose.
I do see a slight difference between white and sprouted purple rice, but it’s very slight.
However - as a diabetic I find that ALL rice spikes my glucose so much that I choose not to eat any of it. Quick carbs may not cause obesity but they are still not a great idea for people with insulin resistance.8 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Most likely because their diet is becoming more similar to that in the US in many ways, not the fact that the traditional diet contains lots of carbs.
Are you saying that whole foods are less likely to cause obesity than refined, or is it that people like the taste better and they're eating more? BTW I agree with your assessment.
I think people tend to naturally eat less, on average, when eating/cooking with whole foods. Probably a combination of the foods being on average more satiating (there's a study that backed that up that has been discussed here), it requiring more work to actually access them (if you have to cook what you eat other than, say, raw fruit and veg, it's harder to snack a bunch at unplanned times or just for pleasure, not hunger), and for many people certain types of what are often called "ultra palatable foods" may override hunger/satiety cues even if they don't actually taste better to many of us.
At one level, this is silly (what I'm about to type), and slightly digressive, but I suspect there's maybe a tiny bit of something in it.
In a cognitive space where people chase at best tiny caloric advantages via things like ice water, hot peppers, ACV, TEF, maybe even modest ones like EPOC differences between exercise modes, I think the actual act of cooking is underappreciated.
IIRC, it takes something like 200 excess calories per person per day (on average across the population) to explain the "obesity crisis", which is a slow upward creep in average weight over many years.
Cooking dinner takes maybe 20 minutes to half an hour? (Can be less, but that 20-30 isn't extreme, I think.) The Compendium of Physical Activities** says "cooking or food preparation, moderate effort" is a 3.5 MET activity (based on published research). Other things that are 3.5 METS, or close: Light calisthenics, slow ballroom dancing, some types of yoga, etc. Waiting in the car at a drive through is maybe 1.3-1.8 METS (sitting in car, with or without fidgeting), actively driving more like 2.5.
For a mid-small older person like me, net of BMR, cooking one meal would be around 25-50 calories burned, in 20-30 minutes. Tiny, but 10-25% chunk of that theoretical 200 calories.
Yeah, this is a digression from fast carbs, but we were heading down that road of "why do people seem to gain more weight eating modern-style refined/processed foods vs. whole foods". The effort differential is maybe in there even beyond its effect on motivations. Also, there are tiny hints that TEF of whole foods may be a little higher, and I don't think that's calculated into calorie label values.
Little stuff adds up. 😉
**https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/
Yes, I have too much time on my hands right now.
In addition to what you’re saying here, I find the process of food preparation of whole foods to be emotionally satisfying in a way which causes me to eat less and have fewer cravings. Touching and handling brightly colored fresh produce feels like it fulfills a deep need, which seems to be to be closely related to the need I’m trying to fill when I binge eat a bag of skittles. I don’t know if anyone else feels the same, but this is my personal experience, and it makes sense to me that humans have evolved to enjoy preparing and choosing nutritious foods.10 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
If you are in a deficit your glycogen is unlikely to be maxed out.
As Ann said, net is what matters, and IF we were regularly storing carbs as fat and then unstoring it throughout the day, our calorie burn would likely be higher, as the transaction burns some cals. It's cheaper, calorie-wise to store fat as fat, which is why we are likely to burn more of the carbs and store more of the fat when in a surplus.
The main reason what the trainer said is wrong is because it's irrelevant and he was saying it's a reason to avoid fruit.
I agree 100% and why I sited Ann. Glycogen doesn't even have to be maxed out it was just an easy question to ask. I'll give you my thoughts on this. When we eat protein it's broken down in AA's fat into fatty acids and carbs into glucose which then end up in our blood stream. Insulin is activated after a meal to help shuttle these nutrients into our cells. Insulin receptors unlocks our cells and these nutrients get absorbed into our cells for function and when they're absorbed insulin comes back to base line. Happens every time we eat as I'm sure most know. Here's the confusion. When insulin is elevated it inhibits the breakdown of fat cells and promotes fatty acids and glucose to be stored into fat cells. This is the bases of the argument that carbs make you fat and if insulin is low like in low carb then your not storing fat and staying thin. Of course this is totally false. What makes us fat or slim is our overall energy balance. We burn glycogen and store fat all day long and like I said over time it's energy balance that dictates where more of one will go.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Most likely because their diet is becoming more similar to that in the US in many ways, not the fact that the traditional diet contains lots of carbs.
Are you saying that whole foods are less likely to cause obesity than refined, or is it that people like the taste better and they're eating more? BTW I agree with your assessment.
I think people tend to naturally eat less, on average, when eating/cooking with whole foods. Probably a combination of the foods being on average more satiating (there's a study that backed that up that has been discussed here), it requiring more work to actually access them (if you have to cook what you eat other than, say, raw fruit and veg, it's harder to snack a bunch at unplanned times or just for pleasure, not hunger), and for many people certain types of what are often called "ultra palatable foods" may override hunger/satiety cues even if they don't actually taste better to many of us.
At one level, this is silly (what I'm about to type), and slightly digressive, but I suspect there's maybe a tiny bit of something in it.
In a cognitive space where people chase at best tiny caloric advantages via things like ice water, hot peppers, ACV, TEF, maybe even modest ones like EPOC differences between exercise modes, I think the actual act of cooking is underappreciated.
IIRC, it takes something like 200 excess calories per person per day (on average across the population) to explain the "obesity crisis", which is a slow upward creep in average weight over many years.
Cooking dinner takes maybe 20 minutes to half an hour? (Can be less, but that 20-30 isn't extreme, I think.) The Compendium of Physical Activities** says "cooking or food preparation, moderate effort" is a 3.5 MET activity (based on published research). Other things that are 3.5 METS, or close: Light calisthenics, slow ballroom dancing, some types of yoga, etc. Waiting in the car at a drive through is maybe 1.3-1.8 METS (sitting in car, with or without fidgeting), actively driving more like 2.5.
For a mid-small older person like me, net of BMR, cooking one meal would be around 25-50 calories burned, in 20-30 minutes. Tiny, but 10-25% chunk of that theoretical 200 calories.
Yeah, this is a digression from fast carbs, but we were heading down that road of "why do people seem to gain more weight eating modern-style refined/processed foods vs. whole foods". The effort differential is maybe in there even beyond its effect on motivations. Also, there are tiny hints that TEF of whole foods may be a little higher, and I don't think that's calculated into calorie label values.
Little stuff adds up. 😉
**https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/
Yes, I have too much time on my hands right now.
In addition to what you’re saying here, I find the process of food preparation of whole foods to be emotionally satisfying in a way which causes me to eat less and have fewer cravings. Touching and handling brightly colored fresh produce feels like it fulfills a deep need, which seems to be to be closely related to the need I’m trying to fill when I binge eat a bag of skittles. I don’t know if anyone else feels the same, but this is my personal experience, and it makes sense to me that humans have evolved to enjoy preparing and choosing nutritious foods.
I'm the same. To a large extent planning how to make a tasty dish and the process of cooking for me is relaxing and fulfilling and a good way to channel thoughts about food too.5 -
Let's clear up some NONSENSE.
1. "Fast carbs" should ALWAYS be avoided. Just like "fast cocaine". Both are harmful.
2. You can simultaneosly be FIT as heaven and SICK as hell. Fitness does NOT mean health. Many of my patients fit into this category.
3. Fast carbs mean SUGAR. Sugar = 1 molecule of FRUCTOSE + 1 glucose. FRUCTOSE is a LIVER poision. Just like eythyl alcohol and acetominofen.
If the amount of FRUCTOSE / eythyl alcohol / tylenol is small the liver can handle it. If larger it JUST can't.
Just stop the nonsense already...15 -
I get Ann's point ( I hope I have understood it correctly)
Summary - the amount of calories burned preparing/cooking one's own meal is underestimated as an advantage of eating whole foods
My personal observation - of snacking on non-wholefoods -ie packet of crisps, cookies etc - in my laziness, at night or couch potato weekend - I would do that.
However something else I really enjoy eating, say, a vegetable fritter, cooked myself after grating the carrot, zucchini, pumpkin and then mixing the ingredients - too lazy to bother doing for a TV snack
so if I am not really hungry I don't bother having a snack it it is too much effort ( meaning any much effort)
so if I only had whole foods in the house, I would probably forgo having a snack I don't really need - or perhaps have a relatively low calorie one ( compared to a packet of crisps) like a banana
Not sure if that makes sense or is relevant
3 -
Here is my take on it: Fast carbs are the same as slow carbs from a standpoint of weight loss - CICO. However they are NOT the same from the standpoint of health. Fast carbs have almost no nutrition, no fiber, and a much higher glycemic index than slow carbs. For those who point out that many Asian cultures seem to do well with white rice: Yes, but they also have very little obesity, and much less sugar than American diets. Westerners and/or overweight people are much more likely to have to worry about diabetes that traditional Asian cultures. Also, if you are limiting calories and still trying to get good nutrition, the empty calories of fast carbs really are not your friend.1
-
paperpudding wrote: »I get Ann's point ( I hope I have understood it correctly)
Summary - the amount of calories burned preparing/cooking one's own meal is underestimated as an advantage of eating whole foods
My personal observation - of snacking on non-wholefoods -ie packet of crisps, cookies etc - in my laziness, at night or couch potato weekend - I would do that.
However something else I really enjoy eating, say, a vegetable fritter, cooked myself after grating the carrot, zucchini, pumpkin and then mixing the ingredients - too lazy to bother doing for a TV snack
so if I am not really hungry I don't bother having a snack it it is too much effort ( meaning any much effort)
so if I only had whole foods in the house, I would probably forgo having a snack I don't really need - or perhaps have a relatively low calorie one ( compared to a packet of crisps) like a banana
Not sure if that makes sense or is relevant
I think it's totally relevant. Here is my argument from upthread:
"I think people tend to naturally eat less, on average, when eating/cooking with whole foods. Probably a combination of the foods being on average more satiating (there's a study that backed that up that has been discussed here), it requiring more work to actually access them (if you have to cook what you eat other than, say, raw fruit and veg, it's harder to snack a bunch at unplanned times or just for pleasure, not hunger), and for many people certain types of what are often called "ultra palatable foods" may override hunger/satiety cues even if they don't actually taste better to many of us."
The bolded part is what is most significant for me.1 -
Here is my take on it: Fast carbs are the same as slow carbs from a standpoint of weight loss - CICO. However they are NOT the same from the standpoint of health. Fast carbs have almost no nutrition, no fiber, and a much higher glycemic index than slow carbs. For those who point out that many Asian cultures seem to do well with white rice: Yes, but they also have very little obesity, and much less sugar than American diets. Westerners and/or overweight people are much more likely to have to worry about diabetes that traditional Asian cultures. Also, if you are limiting calories and still trying to get good nutrition, the empty calories of fast carbs really are not your friend.
Not all fast carbs, if we mean high GI foods, are void of nutrition: Watermelon, baked potato, parsnips, dates?
Further, even endurance athletes calorie count and try to lose weight, get good nutrition - but there are times when fast carbs, even pure sugar, are very much their friend.13 -
Here is my take on it: Fast carbs are the same as slow carbs from a standpoint of weight loss - CICO. However they are NOT the same from the standpoint of health. Fast carbs have almost no nutrition, no fiber, and a much higher glycemic index than slow carbs. For those who point out that many Asian cultures seem to do well with white rice: Yes, but they also have very little obesity, and much less sugar than American diets. Westerners and/or overweight people are much more likely to have to worry about diabetes that traditional Asian cultures. Also, if you are limiting calories and still trying to get good nutrition, the empty calories of fast carbs really are not your friend.
Fruits have lots of nutrition and are considered by many to be fast carbs. In fact, they are some of the healthiest foods on the planet.10 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions