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
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
And it's not just random people who diss fruits - published authors like Gary Taubes do as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28zuger.html
"...In the opposite corner we have Gary Taubes, the science journalist who has thrown in his lot with the high-fat, high-protein crowd, arguing in his new book that the overweight should just put down their apples and walk away: “If we’re predisposed to put on fat, it’s a good bet that most fruit will make the problem worse, not better.”"
Dr Jason Fung is somewhat more balanced, but is certainly not recommending fruit.4 -
It’s all context. As a type 2, there’s no real difference between dates and candy in how they affect my glucose, but when running a half marathon I eat candy and I need to!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.
Incidentally, I can eat potatoes until they come out my ears without a spike, and some diabetics have a real problem with them. Since each diabetic has a unique response, unless you test your blood you are just guessing. Weirdly I have a problem with onions spiking me, but the parsnips you mentioned wouldn’t. On paper they look pretty similar in terms of carbs and fiber, but they aren’t in my body.
2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
It’s all context. As a type 2, there’s no real difference between dates and candy in how they affect my glucose, but when running a half marathon I eat candy and I need to!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.
Incidentally, I can eat potatoes until they come out my ears without a spike, and some diabetics have a real problem with them. Since each diabetic has a unique response, unless you test your blood you are just guessing. Weirdly I have a problem with onions spiking me, but the parsnips you mentioned wouldn’t. On paper they look pretty similar in terms of carbs and fiber, but they aren’t in my body.
My husband either reacts typically to potatoes (as in we dose his insulin based on the carbs in the meal and everything goes along as normal) or gets a low after eating them. It’s very weird and we haven’t figured it out yet.
We have, however, stopped eating potatoes as often.
Rice doesn’t spike him, either.
It spikes me something awful.
We both tolerate a moderate serving of fruit very well. No spikes.
2 -
Are you Asian? I am and can tell you my relatives eat sugar like I do and are slim. They eat treats whenever they can get them. They just DON'T OVERCONSUME. That's the issue with American culture. A serving of just about anything you get in a restaurant is usually double of what most people eat OUTSIDE of the US. It's not rocket science. Just basic math that keeps them from getting obese.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.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
Lol, VSHRED disseminates fruits and vegetables claims it as the reason why many Americans are fat.kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
And it's not just random people who diss fruits - published authors like Gary Taubes do as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28zuger.html
"...In the opposite corner we have Gary Taubes, the science journalist who has thrown in his lot with the high-fat, high-protein crowd, arguing in his new book that the overweight should just put down their apples and walk away: “If we’re predisposed to put on fat, it’s a good bet that most fruit will make the problem worse, not better.”"
Dr Jason Fung is somewhat more balanced, but is certainly not recommending fruit.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Are you Asian? I am and can tell you my relatives eat sugar like I do and are slim. They eat treats whenever they can get them. They just DON'T OVERCONSUME. That's the issue with American culture. A serving of just about anything you get in a restaurant is usually double of what most people eat OUTSIDE of the US. It's not rocket science. Just basic math that keeps them from getting obese.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.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes, in my Thai cookbook written by a native Thai woman the entrée portions are small and the dessert section large.
The last two times I got takeout was from a Mexican and an Italian restaurant and I got 3-4 servings out of what is supposed to be a single meal.2 -
Are you Asian? I am and can tell you my relatives eat sugar like I do and are slim. They eat treats whenever they can get them. They just DON'T OVERCONSUME. That's the issue with American culture. A serving of just about anything you get in a restaurant is usually double of what most people eat OUTSIDE of the US. It's not rocket science. Just basic math that keeps them from getting obese.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is it in a nutshell for me. Overconsumption is the issue.
During training and competing in endurance sports, I consume a LOT of carbs, mostly liquid fuels, gels, waffles and the like. Fueling with carbs allows me to continue performing in multiple hour events. It is not unusual for me to consume 1200-1800 calories in carbs during a long session.
With that said, I've also worked with a registered dietician and learned how much overconsumption I'm prone to doing if I don't follow a fairly regimented approach to eating. Outside of my training sessions, I must monitor carefully or I'll consume too much food, especially carbs.3 -
Here's the problem with quickly digested carbs. They spike your blood sugar, and cause a huge Insulin release.. and the glucose created gets stored as glycogen.. not a problem yet, because then you burn that glycogen. In a healthy person, this is how it is supposed to work.
The problem is not the science. It is that in REAL life, what happens is, the Insulin stores the glucose, blood sugar drops, and with lower blood sugar, your body says.. eat more. As a kid, we used to burn so much, it didn't affect us until we were older, but now, kids don't do much exercise, so we see kids who are obese, and some are even diabetic.
Of course, this is because they ate improperly.. IF they ate the right amount, they wouldn't have the health issue. That is awesome, if you monitor people, and only count the people who eat what they are supposed to.. say in a study. They don't show you the results of the people who went on binges, and ate a bunch of carbs, because they were starving while eating carbs.. 2-3 hours after a meal.. as exhibited by the idea.. 4th MEAL. It happens SO much, it is part of our society.. late night cravings, caused by the foods which they say are not unhealthy.. but to the average person who ate what they were told was HEALTHY, but find themselves ravenous at 10 p.m., and in a fast food drive-thru.. it's deadly.
That is how, technically, fast acting carbs can be said to not cause obesity, and the ensuing diseases, in a study, while in real life, the results are that 42% of people are obese. About 70% of adults are overweight. That's not a study.. those are the ACTUAL results of people following the SAD. The scientists who back this way of eating.. increased carbs, lower fat, point to people not following the diet, but never take into account that the food ON the diet, causes people to eat more, and become overweight. We get cravings, and we cave.. the MAJORITY.
This matters. People have to be able to eat the food, and not be hungry between scheduled meals, or the reality is, the diet doesn't work. The result is people overeat. Studies tend to remove those results, because the subjects didn't follow the diet.. but neither do people who actually eat the diet, because it is not possible for the majority.
I would love to see the results of studies which follow people on the SAD.. with NO ONE removed.. all the data, even the people who have cravings, and binge, and GAIN weight. That would show REAL results. Instead they cherry pick the good results, and tell us it's healthy.
Now, they aren't unique in fudging the data to fit their way of thinking, and getting the results they want. Which is why studies are basically useless. The person paying is the people who benefit. No one pays that much money to prove another diet doesn't work, or would publish their study, if it contradicted what they paid to hear.
So that leaves us with reality.. if you can eat lots of carbs, fast carbs.. whatever, and maintain a healthy weight.. then great.. eat them, and enjoy.. but don't tell the 70% who are overweight eating that diet, that they simply need more willpower, and to follow the diet correctly.. a good diet shouldn't be that hard to follow.
A lot of people are starting to think that since they are always wanting to eat, maybe that isn't normal.. and finding that with high protein, or high fat diets, that they don't have those cravings. If the diet causes cravings, beyond what you SHOULD consume... that makes it unhealthy. That makes fast carbs unhealthy for a lot of people, based on the results.
Different diets work for different people.. there are good and bad foods for different people. Any diet can be made to look good in a study, but instead of us saying one is best, or attacking others.. let people try different diets, and see what WORKS for them.. saying that one diet is healthy, and maligning others, makes people hesitant to try diets, which they might stick to, and maintain a healthy weight on.
There is no one size fits all. Most diets work for some people, and those people should stay on whatever works. Whatever they can do properly.
I disagree that pasta is the same as green beans.. I am sure that if you eat them in a controlled setting, and mandate serving size, and make sure no extra calories are eaten.. they can be healthy.. but we also need to note that for 70% of us, that isn't what actually happens.. we end up eating 4th meal, because pasta causes cravings.. and we SHOULD take that into account, if that is one of US.. I have yet to hear of green beans causing cravings in people, or experienced it myself.
If you CAN eat pasta, without cravings.. good for you! Enjoy. I am jealous... but that isn't most of us. Most of us can't stay on plan, like people in a study. That is why studies are useless. They don't measure REAL results. They confirm math problems, by forcing people to stick to the numbers, and of course, that gets them the desired results. Brilliant propaganda, but not helpful to regular people.4 -
If you CAN eat pasta, without cravings.. good for you! Enjoy. I am jealous... but that isn't most of us.
Where do you get this statement from??
I would say most people CAN eat pasta without cravings.
Obviously if individual people have cravings from any particular food, adjust your lifestyle accordingly.
But I don't think this issue and pasta is most of us.8 -
Agreed. Also, I don't understand talking about pasta as if it were eaten alone. Typically it's eaten with some kind of protein and a sauce that includes fat and vegetables. If the argument is that a meal pattern including meat/other protein, veg, and starchy carbs, with perhaps some added fat for cooking or in vinaigrette or some other source of fat like olives or nuts = unhealthy or causes cravings, I would strongly disagree that that is a problem for most people. I think pasta is more likely to result in overeating bc people have portion distortion or use high cal (high fat) sauces without realizing how many cals they are consuming without thinking, and that can be fixed by learning more about what fills you up and how many calories are in different ingredients and what a sensible portion size is.
I also didn't personally gain weight due to cravings or being hungry all the time, but because I wasn't mindful about my choices and would eat food just bc it was around. Once I started eating only at planned meals, that made a huge difference. Also, not sure why being hungry in the evening results in going to get fast food vs having some cottage cheese or fruit or whatever you happen to find filling and satisfying (I picked what I would probably go for).4 -
I am one of those people who, before coming here, had a problem with being on a perpetual carb cycle. I ate it because I wasn't sleeping enough and it was fast energy. The thing is, I didn't cut out those 'fast carbs' and they weren't the things that made me fat. 1000 calories a day of high fat condiments, those are why I was obese.
I eat pasta probably 3 times a week, bread of some variety and some kind cookie/cake/candy every day. No issue with cravings. I also regularly eat in evenings. Always have. My BMI is now 22.
The problem being talked about in that long winded, speculative, and largely incorrect post is not the carbs themselves. It's what the carbs REPLACE -- or calories. Like, yeah, if all you're eating are simple carbs you are going to have some issues because you're missing some nutrition. If you're getting the rest of the nutrition and still eating a ton of simple carbs (or anything else) then you're eating too many calories.
This ain't rocket science.5 -
Agreed. Also, I don't understand talking about pasta as if it were eaten alone. Typically it's eaten with some kind of protein and a sauce that includes fat and vegetables. If the argument is that a meal pattern including meat/other protein, veg, and starchy carbs, with perhaps some added fat for cooking or in vinaigrette or some other source of fat like olives or nuts = unhealthy or causes cravings, I would strongly disagree that that is a problem for most people. I think pasta is more likely to result in overeating bc people have portion distortion or use high cal (high fat) sauces without realizing how many cals they are consuming without thinking, and that can be fixed by learning more about what fills you up and how many calories are in different ingredients and what a sensible portion size is.
I also didn't personally gain weight due to cravings or being hungry all the time, but because I wasn't mindful about my choices and would eat food just bc it was around. Once I started eating only at planned meals, that made a huge difference. Also, not sure why being hungry in the evening results in going to get fast food vs having some cottage cheese or fruit or whatever you happen to find filling and satisfying (I picked what I would probably go for).
I like pasta with just butter, salt and pepper. But I would overconsume this. When I have it with @ 3 ounces of a protein and vegetable, I can be satisfied with @ 100-112 g pasta and much less fat.3 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: »Here's the problem with quickly digested carbs. They spike your blood sugar, and cause a huge Insulin release.. and the glucose created gets stored as glycogen.. not a problem yet, because then you burn that glycogen. In a healthy person, this is how it is supposed to work.
The problem is not the science. It is that in REAL life, what happens is, the Insulin stores the glucose, blood sugar drops, and with lower blood sugar, your body says.. eat more. As a kid, we used to burn so much, it didn't affect us until we were older, but now, kids don't do much exercise, so we see kids who are obese, and some are even diabetic.
Of course, this is because they ate improperly.. IF they ate the right amount, they wouldn't have the health issue. That is awesome, if you monitor people, and only count the people who eat what they are supposed to.. say in a study. They don't show you the results of the people who went on binges, and ate a bunch of carbs, because they were starving while eating carbs.. 2-3 hours after a meal.. as exhibited by the idea.. 4th MEAL. It happens SO much, it is part of our society.. late night cravings, caused by the foods which they say are not unhealthy.. but to the average person who ate what they were told was HEALTHY, but find themselves ravenous at 10 p.m., and in a fast food drive-thru.. it's deadly.
That is how, technically, fast acting carbs can be said to not cause obesity, and the ensuing diseases, in a study, while in real life, the results are that 42% of people are obese. About 70% of adults are overweight. That's not a study.. those are the ACTUAL results of people following the SAD. The scientists who back this way of eating.. increased carbs, lower fat, point to people not following the diet, but never take into account that the food ON the diet, causes people to eat more, and become overweight. We get cravings, and we cave.. the MAJORITY.
This matters. People have to be able to eat the food, and not be hungry between scheduled meals, or the reality is, the diet doesn't work. The result is people overeat. Studies tend to remove those results, because the subjects didn't follow the diet.. but neither do people who actually eat the diet, because it is not possible for the majority.
I would love to see the results of studies which follow people on the SAD.. with NO ONE removed.. all the data, even the people who have cravings, and binge, and GAIN weight. That would show REAL results. Instead they cherry pick the good results, and tell us it's healthy.
Now, they aren't unique in fudging the data to fit their way of thinking, and getting the results they want. Which is why studies are basically useless. The person paying is the people who benefit. No one pays that much money to prove another diet doesn't work, or would publish their study, if it contradicted what they paid to hear.
So that leaves us with reality.. if you can eat lots of carbs, fast carbs.. whatever, and maintain a healthy weight.. then great.. eat them, and enjoy.. but don't tell the 70% who are overweight eating that diet, that they simply need more willpower, and to follow the diet correctly.. a good diet shouldn't be that hard to follow.
A lot of people are starting to think that since they are always wanting to eat, maybe that isn't normal.. and finding that with high protein, or high fat diets, that they don't have those cravings. If the diet causes cravings, beyond what you SHOULD consume... that makes it unhealthy. That makes fast carbs unhealthy for a lot of people, based on the results.
Different diets work for different people.. there are good and bad foods for different people. Any diet can be made to look good in a study, but instead of us saying one is best, or attacking others.. let people try different diets, and see what WORKS for them.. saying that one diet is healthy, and maligning others, makes people hesitant to try diets, which they might stick to, and maintain a healthy weight on.
There is no one size fits all. Most diets work for some people, and those people should stay on whatever works. Whatever they can do properly.
I disagree that pasta is the same as green beans.. I am sure that if you eat them in a controlled setting, and mandate serving size, and make sure no extra calories are eaten.. they can be healthy.. but we also need to note that for 70% of us, that isn't what actually happens.. we end up eating 4th meal, because pasta causes cravings.. and we SHOULD take that into account, if that is one of US.. I have yet to hear of green beans causing cravings in people, or experienced it myself.
If you CAN eat pasta, without cravings.. good for you! Enjoy. I am jealous... but that isn't most of us. Most of us can't stay on plan, like people in a study. That is why studies are useless. They don't measure REAL results. They confirm math problems, by forcing people to stick to the numbers, and of course, that gets them the desired results. Brilliant propaganda, but not helpful to regular people.
I think you're assuming that many more people are very much like you, than actually are that much like you. (I'm like lemur, more or less: I got fat because food was there, and tasty, not because I was hungry all the time. I eat the same foods now as I did then, pretty much, just in different portions, proportions and frequencies to better manage the calories. I won't say that's "most people" either. People overeat for myriad reasons.)
I believe you when you say eating carbs causes cravings for you. Some people do report experiencing that; those people probably would benefit from limiting carbs. Some people don't find that true at all. In fact, in a research study about individual foods people find filling, regular white potatoes came out on top.
Also, I hate to break it to you, but people ate plenty of carbs before the obesity crisis ever got rolling: Bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, all that stuff . . . sweets and soda/pop, even. (I was already an adult pre-obesity-crisis, if we assume it took hold in the 1980s as seems to be the common assumption, so I was there to see it . . . even participate.)
BTW, most eating-related research involves free-living people. Studies where all eating is strictly monitored are relatively rare (and short), because they're very expensive. That gives rise to a key flaw in most eating-related studies: They rely on people's self-reports of what they ate, or on large-scale statistics that can only capture correlation, not causality.7 -
For me, pasta has always been just a vehicle (same with bread, which is why I rarely eat it and don't miss it). So I actually always have eaten pasta with meat (often seafood) and veg. But I was really bad about eyeballing portion, never measured, and then would not want leftovers or not have enough for an entire other meal or it would just taste good, so I'd finish everything and then feel overstuffed, but didn't learn. Measuring out a reasonable portion (and eating proportionally more meat and veg to pasta and watching how much cheese I used, etc.) made all the difference. At first the amount of pasta seemed small, especially before it was cooked, but I found I was full with the smaller, much lower cal meals. (Of course, in general portion of the whole meal doesn't look smaller, since I do add extra veg and so on.)1
-
There are certain "fast carb" foods that I have a tendency to overeat, but it's not the carbs themselves it's the combination of flavors and textures of those particular snack foods. For example, I can overeat plain Triscuit thin crisps that contain only whole wheat, canola oil and sea salt. However, I don't have a tendency to overeat whole wheat bread.2
-
It's because food companies have fashion designers and they fashioned the food you like to eat, and it's not a fluke. Next item for fashionable acceptance is in the nest isle. lol1
-
neanderthin wrote: »It's because food companies have fashion designers and they fashioned the food you like to eat, and it's not a fluke. Next item for fashionable acceptance is in the nest isle. lol
What is because that??
Of course foods go in fashions or trends just like everything else
And???
1 -
Yeah, not that kinda fashion, but your close.0
-
no idea what point you are making.
6 -
I’m low carb not no carb that folks seem to demonise these days
I went this route because I’m T2D not for weight loss but good control of my blood sugars because I was on the road to being put on insulin and that’s only going to rot me from the inside out being type 2 with some insulin left. Not like a T1 that has no insulin.
As for the carbs argument for T2 it’s dietary for us, well some of us , if we cut our carb intake to under 130g we have in theory good control and lose weight into the bargain some have to go lower than this but for many it isn’t 20g, as that is keto snd isn’t for everyone.
One diet works for some as some fair better on another. Studies are always slanted in favour of the person doing the study we’ve and know this look at the Eat well guide. US equivalent to SAD who runs it and who does the studies on it food companies and it was slanted back in the 80s by them. They still do it and have slated fat and go low fat with sweeteners which a fair few can’t have either.
Boredom is our problem and all the fast food places all open late at night so we don’t cook we do the quick fix and the portions are huge always huge and we eat to the point of bloating so not to waste it in our minds.
Also eat pasta or rice and you do crave more 2-3 hours later even with a sauce on it. Only some can ignore those cues but many can’t and succumb to the biscuit box of something else to eat. Or as someone said above your at the drive thru late at night.
Studies are always in favour of who started them to show what they want and it’s been like that for millennium
2 -
Yeah, I disagree. You can go around the world where pasta, white rice, etc. are eaten DAILY by people in other countries and yet, they don't have the the obesity issues of say the US or UK. It's LACK OF DISCIPLINE for the most part. When you're young in most cases, you DON'T care how much you eat. Since habitual behavior is repetitive, carry that same behavior into adulthood usually results in getting overweight.russellholtslander1 wrote: »Here's the problem with quickly digested carbs. They spike your blood sugar, and cause a huge Insulin release.. and the glucose created gets stored as glycogen.. not a problem yet, because then you burn that glycogen. In a healthy person, this is how it is supposed to work.
The problem is not the science. It is that in REAL life, what happens is, the Insulin stores the glucose, blood sugar drops, and with lower blood sugar, your body says.. eat more. As a kid, we used to burn so much, it didn't affect us until we were older, but now, kids don't do much exercise, so we see kids who are obese, and some are even diabetic.
Of course, this is because they ate improperly.. IF they ate the right amount, they wouldn't have the health issue. That is awesome, if you monitor people, and only count the people who eat what they are supposed to.. say in a study. They don't show you the results of the people who went on binges, and ate a bunch of carbs, because they were starving while eating carbs.. 2-3 hours after a meal.. as exhibited by the idea.. 4th MEAL. It happens SO much, it is part of our society.. late night cravings, caused by the foods which they say are not unhealthy.. but to the average person who ate what they were told was HEALTHY, but find themselves ravenous at 10 p.m., and in a fast food drive-thru.. it's deadly.
That is how, technically, fast acting carbs can be said to not cause obesity, and the ensuing diseases, in a study, while in real life, the results are that 42% of people are obese. About 70% of adults are overweight. That's not a study.. those are the ACTUAL results of people following the SAD. The scientists who back this way of eating.. increased carbs, lower fat, point to people not following the diet, but never take into account that the food ON the diet, causes people to eat more, and become overweight. We get cravings, and we cave.. the MAJORITY.
This matters. People have to be able to eat the food, and not be hungry between scheduled meals, or the reality is, the diet doesn't work. The result is people overeat. Studies tend to remove those results, because the subjects didn't follow the diet.. but neither do people who actually eat the diet, because it is not possible for the majority.
I would love to see the results of studies which follow people on the SAD.. with NO ONE removed.. all the data, even the people who have cravings, and binge, and GAIN weight. That would show REAL results. Instead they cherry pick the good results, and tell us it's healthy.
Now, they aren't unique in fudging the data to fit their way of thinking, and getting the results they want. Which is why studies are basically useless. The person paying is the people who benefit. No one pays that much money to prove another diet doesn't work, or would publish their study, if it contradicted what they paid to hear.
So that leaves us with reality.. if you can eat lots of carbs, fast carbs.. whatever, and maintain a healthy weight.. then great.. eat them, and enjoy.. but don't tell the 70% who are overweight eating that diet, that they simply need more willpower, and to follow the diet correctly.. a good diet shouldn't be that hard to follow.
A lot of people are starting to think that since they are always wanting to eat, maybe that isn't normal.. and finding that with high protein, or high fat diets, that they don't have those cravings. If the diet causes cravings, beyond what you SHOULD consume... that makes it unhealthy. That makes fast carbs unhealthy for a lot of people, based on the results.
Different diets work for different people.. there are good and bad foods for different people. Any diet can be made to look good in a study, but instead of us saying one is best, or attacking others.. let people try different diets, and see what WORKS for them.. saying that one diet is healthy, and maligning others, makes people hesitant to try diets, which they might stick to, and maintain a healthy weight on.
There is no one size fits all. Most diets work for some people, and those people should stay on whatever works. Whatever they can do properly.
I disagree that pasta is the same as green beans.. I am sure that if you eat them in a controlled setting, and mandate serving size, and make sure no extra calories are eaten.. they can be healthy.. but we also need to note that for 70% of us, that isn't what actually happens.. we end up eating 4th meal, because pasta causes cravings.. and we SHOULD take that into account, if that is one of US.. I have yet to hear of green beans causing cravings in people, or experienced it myself.
If you CAN eat pasta, without cravings.. good for you! Enjoy. I am jealous... but that isn't most of us. Most of us can't stay on plan, like people in a study. That is why studies are useless. They don't measure REAL results. They confirm math problems, by forcing people to stick to the numbers, and of course, that gets them the desired results. Brilliant propaganda, but not helpful to regular people.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
Also eat pasta or rice and you do crave more 2-3 hours later even with a sauce on it. Only some can ignore those cues but many can’t and succumb to the biscuit box of something else to eat. Or as someone said above your at the drive thru late at night.
YOU individually might crave more 2-3 hours after eating such things.
Do you have any evidence that it applies to many people??
Me personally - I find pasta and rice quite filling, regardless of what else ( sauces, veggies,meat etc ) I have with them and certainly don't feel any craving after eating them.
I think this craving thing only applies to a very small minority of people
Admittedly I haven't tried eating just pasta or rice with nothing else - I think only a minority of people do that too.
And of course if YOU individually find cravings after eating any particular foods - avoid that food.
But nothing to suggest it is a universal or even a 'many people' thing.9 -
Dollypollylolly wrote: »I went this route because I’m T2D not for weight loss but good control of my blood sugars because I was on the road to being put on insulin and that’s only going to rot me from the inside out being type 2 with some insulin left. Not like a T1 that has no insulin.
I am going to be as gentle as possible but…
No.
No no no no no
Insulin does not rot people from the inside.
That’s a really erroneous concept that keeps some diabetics from getting help they need as soon as they need it.
The reason it is a good idea to try diet and exercise first, and then maybe metformin or other pills, is because insulin makes diabetes both more expensive and trickier to manage. But if you need extra insulin to control your blood glucose? Please please please use insulin.
With continuous glucose monitors, better formulations, and methods of delivery like an insulin pump? It’s nowhere near as tricky to manage as it was even just a few years ago.
Editing to add. There is a T2D group here that you may wish to join. It’s moderately active. It’s a good place to discuss individual issues with diabetes.
Come join us! Please.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/1772-type-2-diabetes-support-group7 -
Dollypollylolly wrote: »...Also eat pasta or rice and you do crave more 2-3 hours later even with a sauce on it. Only some can ignore those cues but many can’t and succumb to the biscuit box of something else to eat. Or as someone said above your at the drive thru late at night.
I had my typical pasta meal tonight - 100g pasta, 3 turkey meatballs, 1/3 chicken sausage link, 75g green beans, a tiny bit of sauce, and EVOO. That was over two hours ago and the cravings haven't kicked in yet.
However, if I had just had pasta and butter, yes, I would probably have overeaten at dinner and be wanting more soon.4 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I never weighed my Before-sized portions of pasta, but they were probably as big as what my partner, who is a foot taller than me, eats. Now I limit pasta to 3.5 - 4 oz and make sure I have plenty of veggies and protein with it. That's about 500 calories. I'm sure I could easily eat 1,000 calories of just pasta and butter and feel less satisfied.
I live in Italy and my husband's favorite meal is white durum grain pasta, butter, and Parmigiano Reggiano. He's very thin and in fantastic form for his age. His portion would be 100g of pasta, 20g butter, and 20g Parmigiano Reggiano. That's 590 calories.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. He may be an "outlier", but I don't think so.8 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: »Here's the problem with quickly digested carbs. They spike your blood sugar, and cause a huge Insulin release.. and the glucose created gets stored as glycogen.. not a problem yet, because then you burn that glycogen. In a healthy person, this is how it is supposed to work.
The problem is not the science. It is that in REAL life, what happens is, the Insulin stores the glucose, blood sugar drops, and with lower blood sugar, your body says.. eat more. As a kid, we used to burn so much, it didn't affect us until we were older, but now, kids don't do much exercise, so we see kids who are obese, and some are even diabetic.
Of course, this is because they ate improperly.. IF they ate the right amount, they wouldn't have the health issue. That is awesome, if you monitor people, and only count the people who eat what they are supposed to.. say in a study. They don't show you the results of the people who went on binges, and ate a bunch of carbs, because they were starving while eating carbs.. 2-3 hours after a meal.. as exhibited by the idea.. 4th MEAL. It happens SO much, it is part of our society.. late night cravings, caused by the foods which they say are not unhealthy.. but to the average person who ate what they were told was HEALTHY, but find themselves ravenous at 10 p.m., and in a fast food drive-thru.. it's deadly.
That is how, technically, fast acting carbs can be said to not cause obesity, and the ensuing diseases, in a study, while in real life, the results are that 42% of people are obese. About 70% of adults are overweight. That's not a study.. those are the ACTUAL results of people following the SAD. The scientists who back this way of eating.. increased carbs, lower fat, point to people not following the diet, but never take into account that the food ON the diet, causes people to eat more, and become overweight. We get cravings, and we cave.. the MAJORITY.
This matters. People have to be able to eat the food, and not be hungry between scheduled meals, or the reality is, the diet doesn't work. The result is people overeat. Studies tend to remove those results, because the subjects didn't follow the diet.. but neither do people who actually eat the diet, because it is not possible for the majority.
I would love to see the results of studies which follow people on the SAD.. with NO ONE removed.. all the data, even the people who have cravings, and binge, and GAIN weight. That would show REAL results. Instead they cherry pick the good results, and tell us it's healthy.
Now, they aren't unique in fudging the data to fit their way of thinking, and getting the results they want. Which is why studies are basically useless. The person paying is the people who benefit. No one pays that much money to prove another diet doesn't work, or would publish their study, if it contradicted what they paid to hear.
So that leaves us with reality.. if you can eat lots of carbs, fast carbs.. whatever, and maintain a healthy weight.. then great.. eat them, and enjoy.. but don't tell the 70% who are overweight eating that diet, that they simply need more willpower, and to follow the diet correctly.. a good diet shouldn't be that hard to follow.
A lot of people are starting to think that since they are always wanting to eat, maybe that isn't normal.. and finding that with high protein, or high fat diets, that they don't have those cravings. If the diet causes cravings, beyond what you SHOULD consume... that makes it unhealthy. That makes fast carbs unhealthy for a lot of people, based on the results.
Different diets work for different people.. there are good and bad foods for different people. Any diet can be made to look good in a study, but instead of us saying one is best, or attacking others.. let people try different diets, and see what WORKS for them.. saying that one diet is healthy, and maligning others, makes people hesitant to try diets, which they might stick to, and maintain a healthy weight on.
There is no one size fits all. Most diets work for some people, and those people should stay on whatever works. Whatever they can do properly.
I disagree that pasta is the same as green beans.. I am sure that if you eat them in a controlled setting, and mandate serving size, and make sure no extra calories are eaten.. they can be healthy.. but we also need to note that for 70% of us, that isn't what actually happens.. we end up eating 4th meal, because pasta causes cravings.. and we SHOULD take that into account, if that is one of US.. I have yet to hear of green beans causing cravings in people, or experienced it myself.
If you CAN eat pasta, without cravings.. good for you! Enjoy. I am jealous... but that isn't most of us. Most of us can't stay on plan, like people in a study. That is why studies are useless. They don't measure REAL results. They confirm math problems, by forcing people to stick to the numbers, and of course, that gets them the desired results. Brilliant propaganda, but not helpful to regular people.
I live in Italy and make pasta for my family almost everyday. I have been doing this for 35 years. Everyone is at a healthy weight--as are most Italians, who also love pizza and sweets. My husband (thin and in excellent form--pescatarian) loves chocolate and has it after almost every meal.
How do you explain this? Very curious.7 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: »Here's the problem with quickly digested carbs. They spike your blood sugar, and cause a huge Insulin release.. and the glucose created gets stored as glycogen.. not a problem yet, because then you burn that glycogen. In a healthy person, this is how it is supposed to work.
The problem is not the science. It is that in REAL life, what happens is, the Insulin stores the glucose, blood sugar drops, and with lower blood sugar, your body says.. eat more. As a kid, we used to burn so much, it didn't affect us until we were older, but now, kids don't do much exercise, so we see kids who are obese, and some are even diabetic.
Of course, this is because they ate improperly.. IF they ate the right amount, they wouldn't have the health issue. That is awesome, if you monitor people, and only count the people who eat what they are supposed to.. say in a study. They don't show you the results of the people who went on binges, and ate a bunch of carbs, because they were starving while eating carbs.. 2-3 hours after a meal.. as exhibited by the idea.. 4th MEAL. It happens SO much, it is part of our society.. late night cravings, caused by the foods which they say are not unhealthy.. but to the average person who ate what they were told was HEALTHY, but find themselves ravenous at 10 p.m., and in a fast food drive-thru.. it's deadly.
That is how, technically, fast acting carbs can be said to not cause obesity, and the ensuing diseases, in a study, while in real life, the results are that 42% of people are obese. About 70% of adults are overweight. That's not a study.. those are the ACTUAL results of people following the SAD. The scientists who back this way of eating.. increased carbs, lower fat, point to people not following the diet, but never take into account that the food ON the diet, causes people to eat more, and become overweight. We get cravings, and we cave.. the MAJORITY.
This matters. People have to be able to eat the food, and not be hungry between scheduled meals, or the reality is, the diet doesn't work. The result is people overeat. Studies tend to remove those results, because the subjects didn't follow the diet.. but neither do people who actually eat the diet, because it is not possible for the majority.
I would love to see the results of studies which follow people on the SAD.. with NO ONE removed.. all the data, even the people who have cravings, and binge, and GAIN weight. That would show REAL results. Instead they cherry pick the good results, and tell us it's healthy.
Now, they aren't unique in fudging the data to fit their way of thinking, and getting the results they want. Which is why studies are basically useless. The person paying is the people who benefit. No one pays that much money to prove another diet doesn't work, or would publish their study, if it contradicted what they paid to hear.
So that leaves us with reality.. if you can eat lots of carbs, fast carbs.. whatever, and maintain a healthy weight.. then great.. eat them, and enjoy.. but don't tell the 70% who are overweight eating that diet, that they simply need more willpower, and to follow the diet correctly.. a good diet shouldn't be that hard to follow.
A lot of people are starting to think that since they are always wanting to eat, maybe that isn't normal.. and finding that with high protein, or high fat diets, that they don't have those cravings. If the diet causes cravings, beyond what you SHOULD consume... that makes it unhealthy. That makes fast carbs unhealthy for a lot of people, based on the results.
Different diets work for different people.. there are good and bad foods for different people. Any diet can be made to look good in a study, but instead of us saying one is best, or attacking others.. let people try different diets, and see what WORKS for them.. saying that one diet is healthy, and maligning others, makes people hesitant to try diets, which they might stick to, and maintain a healthy weight on.
There is no one size fits all. Most diets work for some people, and those people should stay on whatever works. Whatever they can do properly.
I disagree that pasta is the same as green beans.. I am sure that if you eat them in a controlled setting, and mandate serving size, and make sure no extra calories are eaten.. they can be healthy.. but we also need to note that for 70% of us, that isn't what actually happens.. we end up eating 4th meal, because pasta causes cravings.. and we SHOULD take that into account, if that is one of US.. I have yet to hear of green beans causing cravings in people, or experienced it myself.
If you CAN eat pasta, without cravings.. good for you! Enjoy. I am jealous... but that isn't most of us. Most of us can't stay on plan, like people in a study. That is why studies are useless. They don't measure REAL results. They confirm math problems, by forcing people to stick to the numbers, and of course, that gets them the desired results. Brilliant propaganda, but not helpful to regular people.
I’m another who can’t eat fast carbs in any quantity without triggering cravings.
2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I never weighed my Before-sized portions of pasta, but they were probably as big as what my partner, who is a foot taller than me, eats. Now I limit pasta to 3.5 - 4 oz and make sure I have plenty of veggies and protein with it. That's about 500 calories. I'm sure I could easily eat 1,000 calories of just pasta and butter and feel less satisfied.
I live in Italy and my husband's favorite meal is white durum grain pasta, butter, and Parmigiano Reggiano. He's very thin and in fantastic form for his age. His portion would be 100g of pasta, 20g butter, and 20g Parmigiano Reggiano. That's 590 calories.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. He may be an "outlier", but I don't think so.
Thanks for this perspective. I'm guessing my American partner eats 300 g of pasta per meal and will weigh it next time.
He's overweight.
I guess this proves pasta is bad...in excess
5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I never weighed my Before-sized portions of pasta, but they were probably as big as what my partner, who is a foot taller than me, eats. Now I limit pasta to 3.5 - 4 oz and make sure I have plenty of veggies and protein with it. That's about 500 calories. I'm sure I could easily eat 1,000 calories of just pasta and butter and feel less satisfied.
I live in Italy and my husband's favorite meal is white durum grain pasta, butter, and Parmigiano Reggiano. He's very thin and in fantastic form for his age. His portion would be 100g of pasta, 20g butter, and 20g Parmigiano Reggiano. That's 590 calories.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. He may be an "outlier", but I don't think so.
Thanks for this perspective. I'm guessing my American partner eats 300 g of pasta per meal and will weigh it next time.
He's overweight.
I guess this proves pasta is bad...in excess
I make 350 or 400g of pasta for 3 men. I find it hard to believe he eats 300g. Once you add in vegetables or seafood, etc (nobody eats pasta without something on it) the bowl you'd need to put it in would be huge. Weigh it out and see. If it's really 300g take a pic. I'd love to see it.1 -
Question in my mind, for those talking about pasta servings: Are we talking dry weight, or cooked weight? Wondering if we're apples to apples in this discussion.
Back on topic: For myself, I don't find pasta or rice to increase my cravings for pasta or rice. I'm sure that applies for some people, but it seems like a weird over-generalization. It seems to me as if satiation or cravings/appetite triggers are quite variable among individuals; seems inaccurate to me when people speak as if the way various foods affect their personal satiation or cravings are universal.
Admittedly, as a vegetarian, I don't find wheat pasta or rice super-helpful foods because they have relatively many calories for the nutrition and general happiness they bring me, so I don't eat them often. (I do eat legume pastas quite frequently, similar calories, some carbs, but more protein than the wheat pastas.) I usually use the basic 56g = one serving amount that's on packages here in the US, and it makes quite a big volume of food once plenty of veggies and sauce are mixed in.
I do find things like mainstream cookies, cakes, etc., not very filling, so easy to overeat in that sense. Fortunately (?), I'm not a big craver of sweets - most of those dessert-y things are too sweet, not very delicious to me. Things like cheese, nuts, salty treats (carb-y or not) are more likely to be things that I can easily over-eat.4
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