What's the deal with low carb diets?
e93marie
Posts: 12 Member
I don't understand why carbs would be "bad". Anything in excess is bad but I know some people that swear by carb cutting and low carb diets. A certain someone close to me keeps inquiring as to why I'm not cutting carbs instead of calories.
⚫ Is it healthier?
⚫ Is weight loss faster?
⚫ Does the body burn more calories when carbs are subtracted?
⚫ How is it better than regular calorie counting?
⚫ What do carbs have to do with fat?
Personally I feel I -need- carbs. A lot of the time when I'm low on energy or my body just wants something extra I turn to carbs. I feel like carbs react quickly, are more filling, and the energy lasts longer. Honestly before I started caring I relied on sugar very much and I feel like carbs replace that instant energy for me. I'm no expert though so, will someone please explain?
⚫ Is it healthier?
⚫ Is weight loss faster?
⚫ Does the body burn more calories when carbs are subtracted?
⚫ How is it better than regular calorie counting?
⚫ What do carbs have to do with fat?
Personally I feel I -need- carbs. A lot of the time when I'm low on energy or my body just wants something extra I turn to carbs. I feel like carbs react quickly, are more filling, and the energy lasts longer. Honestly before I started caring I relied on sugar very much and I feel like carbs replace that instant energy for me. I'm no expert though so, will someone please explain?
2
Replies
-
The way I look at it is that by giving myself a set amount of calories, I naturally end up low carb. Carbs like bread are high in calories and low in protein. When I am counting calories, I want to eat filling things that are low in calories and higher in protein to keep me full. I eat chicken and vegetables and little starches. I would guess that low carb just ends up being low calorie. Just my thought.5
-
Low carb isn't better or magic or whatever some people say. But low carb, for some people (not all) makes them feel fuller for the same amount of calories. So it makes it easier for them to stick to their calorie goal.
Also, low carb makes you lose water weight (you need water to process carbs) which gives the impression of faster weight loss, especially in the beginning, but you don't lose bodyfat any faster.
Calories are what matter for weight loss, but how you eat within your calorie goal really is up to you. I can only encourage you to experiment and see what way of eating you enjoy, satiates you AND you can keep up long-term (the goal is to lose weight and keep it off long-term).
Edited to add: I lost 70+lbs eating high carb (on average 40 to 50% carbs) including bread and had zero issues losing weight8 -
Carbs are not bad, it drives me up the blinkin wall.
It is the quantity that can be the issue, and part of that for me is what 'type' of carb your talking about. I prefer porridge for breakfast or wholemeal toast. Both of those things are carbs, both will fill me with a reasonable portion size. I could however happily eat about 28 danish pastries
It wasn't baked potatoes or wholemeal bread that got me into a pickle. It was whole packets of chocolate biscuits and cakes. (I do understand that other people may not have quite an issue, so for them it wouldn't matter)
I really am not on board with anyone who starts to try to tell me that a bowl of porridge and an apple is somehow a 'bad' way to start my day. It might not work for them, but they can bog off lecturing me about it. You might choose to be less grumpy explaining that to your certain someone
16 -
LOL littlegreenparrot. Spot on.
And yeah to the other posters too. If I am set to a lowered amount of calories to lose weight I naturally have to drop sugary things and cut back on wheat products in order to get sufficient protein, fat, and fiber. There are plenty of carbs in fruit, vegetables, dairy, legumes, and I keep those. It does become moderate to "low" carb by default. Processed carbs like added sugar, sweetened processed cereals, crackers, chips, dessert items etc. are the least nutritious and easiest to drop.
When I was losing weight I usually hit 40-45% fat and around 100-125g carbs on 1500-1800 calories which for me was the only way to get sufficient nutrition.2 -
What's the deal with low carb diets?
If you don't convince people about all the benefits of a low-carb diet, you'll never be able to sell them low-carb cookies and low-carb breakfast cereal and all those low-carb diet cookbooks...22 -
Nothing wrong with carbs. But a lot of carbs in your typical grocery store that are easily accessible tend to be processed, and some people do not seem to understand how to discern between wholesome unprocessed carbs (steel cut oats, vegetables, etc) vs your typical white bread or cookies.2
-
I wonder if selling diets such as Atkins started this whole 'carbs are poison' spiral?
I worry more about the calories that's in everything, than carbs. Most days I end up with my MFP pie chart at 50% carbs. Even an onion has carbs. You have a couple pieces of fruit, some oatmeal, and your morning coffee with a tsp. of sugar and well..........4 -
Carbs whether processed or not are absorbed by the body the same way. While nutritional value can differ, carb counts for processed foods aren't different because they are processed versus say steel cut oats. That's just misinformation that the "natural" crowd creates to get people thinking that they are eating "healthier".Nothing wrong with carbs. But a lot of carbs in your typical grocery store that are easily accessible tend to be processed, and some people do not seem to understand how to discern between wholesome unprocessed carbs (steel cut oats, vegetables, etc) vs your typical white bread or cookies.
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 -
Nothing wrong with carbs. But a lot of carbs in your typical grocery store that are easily accessible tend to be processed, and some people do not seem to understand how to discern between wholesome unprocessed carbs (steel cut oats, vegetables, etc) vs your typical white bread or cookies.
You keep on talking about 'processed' as if it's something bad. Have you ever looked up the list of ingredients from an 'honest' wholegrain bread sold at a bakery? It's full of additives. And btw, what's wrong with white bread? Heck, look up the list of ingredients of a typical while Arabic flatbread! You can't go a lot more 'unprocessed' than that where bread is concerned. Whole parts of southern Europe eat white bread, and many people are a heck more healthy than elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with processed, there's nothing wrong with carbs. Eat what you like, but try to get a half good mix of nutrition.10 -
I don't understand why carbs would be "bad". Anything in excess is bad but I know some people that swear by carb cutting and low carb diets. A certain someone close to me keeps inquiring as to why I'm not cutting carbs instead of calories.
⚫ Is it healthier?
⚫ Is weight loss faster?
⚫ Does the body burn more calories when carbs are subtracted?
⚫ How is it better than regular calorie counting?
⚫ What do carbs have to do with fat?
Everyone is different in terms of how their body reacts to the way they eat. I've always done better on a LCHF (low carbohydrate high fat) WOE (way of eating) and my doctor recommended that WOE based on my bloodwork as well.
Is it healthier? This is always up for debate but in terms of cutting out sugar, grains, and other processed foods it helps me. Although you can just cut out the junk food and high sugar foods without going LCHF by eating a whole food approach. Cutting out the junk is always a step in the right direction. I have specific issues in regards to certain foods so LCHF is a better healthier option for me but that may not be the case for others.
Is weight loss faster? If you go really low carb/keto you will lose water weight in the first couple weeks. After that it will slow and you will retain more water if you go back to eating high carb. Overtime I've lost more weight on LCHF because it satiates my appetite and I like the foods. It may not be as easy for someone who doesn't like what they are eating or they feel deprived in some way. It all depends on the individual and weight loss takes time if you want to do it in a healthy way. Some people get discouraged in the long term because weight loss isn't linear but that can happen whether you are LCHF or not.
Does the body burn more calories when carbs are subtracted? I'm not an expert but I would say no. In my opinion calorie burn is more about TDEE. If you are strict keto you can get your body to a state where it burns more fat but it is still dependent on activity and the amount of calories you consume. Overtime there could be some physiological changes that occur if you reverse metabolic syndrome to where your body processes carbs more efficiently without storing them as fat but I'm not sure if this equates to burning more without a change in activity. I would do some specific internet searches on this question and compile information from multiple sources.
How is it better than regular calorie counting? I don't know if it's better. I still track my foods on MFP. It depends on how you want to approach your WOE. Fat, protein, and carbs from leafy greens are more satiating for me so I rarely exceed my calorie limits. I eat when I am hungry and don't over eat which is a big problem for me otherwise.
What do carbs have to do with fat? The Carb Addiction Doc on YouTube has some good videos that explain this better than I can. He trends to full carnivore which I don't do but he's given me some good insight on my eating behaviors in the past and reasons why I am in the state I am in today. He also talks about the physiological processes in terms of carbs and fat.
When people talk about cutting carbs it usually means cutting out all the carb heavy junk foods and replacing them with healthier options.
You have to do what works for you though. Mentally and physically my wife doesn't thrive on LCHF and I do. So there really is no "one size fits all" approach to changing the way you eat. A person just needs to evaluate for themselves what is sustainable based on what their body and mind needs. As always consult a doctor or nutritionist so you have a good base line on what will work for you based on your current state of health and medications.
5 -
The questions about highly processed carbs are relevant when discussing glycemic index numbers or excess consumption of hyper palatable foods.4
-
I wonder if selling diets such as Atkins started this whole 'carbs are poison' spiral?
I worry more about the calories that's in everything, than carbs. Most days I end up with my MFP pie chart at 50% carbs. Even an onion has carbs. You have a couple pieces of fruit, some oatmeal, and your morning coffee with a tsp. of sugar and well..........
Atkins started the low carb trend back in the 80s or 90s (there were low carb trends before), but it wasn't especially a "sold" diet, although one could get the book -- but that didn't make it especially different than various other diets, including your "heart healthy" diet based on US gov advice.
I think the "carbs are poison" thing is, of course, idiotic, but I also think low carb is based in the fact that for a number of people -- not all -- cutting way down on all carbs but non-starchy veg often results in a more sating diet and in some cases a more sustainable or palatable diet since recall at the time it was probably a reaction to the super low fat diets. I eat plenty of carbs, but I tend to do better cutting cals when I keep my protein up, don't go low fat (since I miss the taste small amounts of fat add to lots of nutrient dense meals), and reduce portions of carbs (and if one eats lots of sweets or junk food -- both of which tend to be both carbs and fats, of course cutting back on those too).
I enjoy starchy carbs, but for me those alone tend not to be especially sating, and I never feel a lack if I cut back on portions or avoid eating multiple portions in one meal (bread with pasta or what not) or skip the starchy side in a meal or two, so that ends up resulting in me being somewhat low carb when cutting cals. I don't see any reason why anyone should have to eat that way, though, if they instead feel more deprived or hungrier doing the same thing.0 -
The questions about highly processed carbs are relevant when discussing glycemic index numbers or excess consumption of hyper palatable foods.
Except typically it's odd these are called "carbs" when many or most have as many cals from fat.
OP seems to be referring specifically to starchy carbs.2 -
⚫ Is it healthier?
You can have a healthy overall diet low in carbs or high in carbs. Tell your certain someone to look into the diets from the Blue Zones where people are typically healthy and long lived and eat very high carb.
⚫ Is weight loss faster?
Not when calories and protein are equal.
People like your certain someone may get confused by an initial drop in water weight when carbs are suddenly dropped. But that's not extra fat loss.
⚫ Does the body burn more calories when carbs are subtracted?
It doesn't. If it negatively affects your energy levels you may burn less in daily activity and exercise.
⚫ How is it better than regular calorie counting?
It isn't - it's missing the point if someone is looking to diet for weight loss because it's calories that determine which way your weight goes. It may be better for some people that don't tolerate carbs well or who simply find it easier to cut calories by cutting carbs. Like all diets really - suits some people, doesn't suit others, has pros but has cons.
⚫ What do carbs have to do with fat?
Assuming you mean body fat very little really. It's someone's total calories that determine if they have extra energy to be stored as body fat or a deficit of energy that means they will have a net loss of body fat over time. Fun fact is that carbs are very, very rarely converted to fat as that conversion process is inefficient - not that it actually matters where your energy surplus comes from.
BTW - carbs are far more than just starchy carbs like bread and potatoes. Fruits, veggies, grains as well as simple sugars, it's a huge and varied food group.5 -
The questions about highly processed carbs are relevant when discussing glycemic index numbers or excess consumption of hyper palatable foods.
I think only if one stands back pretty far, and squints.
Most GI numbers are for single foods, when most of us eat combinations of foods in a snack/meal, so the net GI will differ.
Personally, I find many foods that folks often call "hyper palatable" to be unpleasant and undesirable, haven't eaten very much of them for decades, but got overweight then obese anyway, because so-called whole foods are tasty and desirable to me. They're maybe more filling for people who are making a dietary shift from potentially less sating highly processed foods . . . but trust me, a person can adapt herself to eating too many calories of them, given enough time.
Carbs whether processed or not are absorbed by the body the same way. While nutritional value can differ, carb counts for processed foods aren't different because they are processed versus say steel cut oats. That's just misinformation that the "natural" crowd creates to get people thinking that they are eating "healthier".Nothing wrong with carbs. But a lot of carbs in your typical grocery store that are easily accessible tend to be processed, and some people do not seem to understand how to discern between wholesome unprocessed carbs (steel cut oats, vegetables, etc) vs your typical white bread or cookies.
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
Yeah, once you're down to talking about just the macronutrient, maybe. While I haven't seen studies big enough or strict enough to be totally convincing, there are some hints from a tiny preliminary that "whole foods" (so called) may have a notably higher TEF than highly-processed ones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/
And no, that wouldn't ncessarily be reflected in the foods raw calorie counts, as calculated via normal methods for labels.
Personally, I think satiation and appetite are a bigger deal, in practice, though. Those tend to be individual, seems like.2 -
I’m a high carb girl 😀 I enjoy a wide range of foods and eat a lot of fruit and veggies (all carbs), and I eat sugar. I enjoy sweets, biscuits, cakes and I adore chocolate. But I also eat fairly high protein and have to ensure I get enough fat as I’d go overboard on carbs and eat low fat if I could. I exercise hard so even have a sports drink most weeks. Without carbs I definitely couldn’t undertake the volume of training I do.
But some people find protein and fat more filling and are perfectly happy to train fasted. So - hit your protein and minimum fat levels, get your vitamins and minerals from a range of foods then eat whatever else you enjoy which keeps you within your calorie limits 😀 which for me is cake. Or chocolate. Or pastry. Or - actually - carrots.4 -
OP, I had a friend like that.
We got in an argument one night. She insisted that one could not lose weight without going low carb (maybe especially for women over 50, which we both were, but I believe she thought it was a universal truth). What was her reasoning for this? Literally, "over the Winter, she had read all the books, and they all said that".
She was indignant that I would disagree.
How had I spent the same Winter? Losing over 50 pounds, eating plenty of carbs, at appropriate calories. And she knew I was that much thinner! It didn't matter what I said, or what I'd done, she was sure that eating low carb was the One True Way. SMH!
As far as I know, she's still overweight - haven't seen her in a while. It's more than 5 years on from that conversation, and I'm still . . . a healthy weight, similar to when we had that argument, and I eat 225g or more of carbs every day.
If what you're doing is meeting your weight goals, is sustainable and enjoyable for you, gives you overall adequate nutrition, gives you good health markers at the doctor's office . . . ignore your friend.
Based on my experience, even proving via demonstration that they're incorrect (about low carb being universally necessary) has no effect on that kind of thinking. 😆
P.S. To the general reader: If you're eating low carb, meeting your weight goals, finding it's sustainable and enjoyable for you, gives you overall adequate nutrition, gives you good health markers at the doctor's office . . . that's great, too. Personalization of tactics is a good thing.7 -
I think only if one stands back pretty far, and squints.
Most GI numbers are for single foods, when most of us eat combinations of foods in a snack/meal, so the net GI will differ.
Personally, I find many foods that folks often call "hyper palatable" to be unpleasant and undesirable, haven't eaten very much of them for decades...
Your point is taken, Ann. Still, there's an entire part of our world that "Runs on Dunkin'"... frozen coffee drink (desserts) and Rockstar Energy and feeding their kids sugared up cereal bars in the morning and nothing but nuggets and fries for dinner. For everyone like you, that is put off by the thought of eating that way, there are two that exist on the junk. It's cheap and fast and profitable. It's not going anywhere, they're just going to make it "keto approved".
4 -
I think only if one stands back pretty far, and squints.
Most GI numbers are for single foods, when most of us eat combinations of foods in a snack/meal, so the net GI will differ.
Personally, I find many foods that folks often call "hyper palatable" to be unpleasant and undesirable, haven't eaten very much of them for decades...
Your point is taken, Ann. Still, there's an entire part of our world that "Runs on Dunkin'"... frozen coffee drink (desserts) and Rockstar Energy and feeding their kids sugared up cereal bars in the morning and nothing but nuggets and fries for dinner. For everyone like you, that is put off by the thought of eating that way, there are two that exist on the junk. It's cheap and fast and profitable. It's not going anywhere, they're just going to make it "keto approved".
But many of those foods aren't really "highly processed CARBS" so much as highly processed combinations of carbs and fat and sometimes protein. Nuggets and fries and donuts and typically high cal coffees tend to get a large percentage of their cals from fat. I realize this may seem nitpicky, but it drives me crazy that they are called "carbs" as if that's all (or even primarily) what they are, and as if the carbs are the issue with them and they somehow are relevant to a claim about the merits of carbs broadly.
(I also agree with Ann that the GI numbers aren't actually the problem with the diet you just described. It's the lack of complete nutrition and likely the lack of satiety, as well as the lack of fiber and the amount of sat fat, among other things.)7 -
I think only if one stands back pretty far, and squints.
Most GI numbers are for single foods, when most of us eat combinations of foods in a snack/meal, so the net GI will differ.
Personally, I find many foods that folks often call "hyper palatable" to be unpleasant and undesirable, haven't eaten very much of them for decades...
Your point is taken, Ann. Still, there's an entire part of our world that "Runs on Dunkin'"... frozen coffee drink (desserts) and Rockstar Energy and feeding their kids sugared up cereal bars in the morning and nothing but nuggets and fries for dinner. For everyone like you, that is put off by the thought of eating that way, there are two that exist on the junk. It's cheap and fast and profitable. It's not going anywhere, they're just going to make it "keto approved".
I get that. I do.
I get frustrated here, though, by conversations that stay way up in the clouds of abstraction, using terms like "hyper palatable", "highly processed", "junk food", "eating clean", "whole foods", "carbs" (as a shorthand for things that - as Lemur says - are not just carbs, sometimes not even mostly carbs), and more.
Whenever we dig into those terms, it usually ends up that people aren't all referring to the same foods when they use the terms, or the terms themselves don't hold up as accurate. It's a conversation with people talking past each other, but often not realizing it. It aggravates the popularized "diet industry" mythologies that lead people to post here asking things like whether it will "ruin their weight loss" if they have one donut on Sunday, eat a fast-food meal, or drink a soda every day (maybe even a zero-calorie one).
In my opinion, what matters most is that people get reasonable overall nutrition at appropriate calories, when averaging the nutrition/calories over a day or few. It matters much less what each individual-food source of that nutrition and those calorie are (especially if the individual finds their personal combination of foods tasty and sating, so they're able to stick with it long enough to reach a healthy weight and good health markers).
IMO, often these abstract terms, like "junk food" or "eating clean" are a distraction from the idea that what matters most is overall nutrition and overall calories. They can also distract from sensible thinking about the individuality of satiation and happiness with one's eating, and how those things relate to long term compliance with calorie and nutrition goals. They lead people off in the "will donuts ruin me" direction.
A fast food burger has protein, fat, some micronutrients. So does a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. Neither are the most nutrient dense foods in the world, and they may be high calorie (depends on serving size), but eating one of those can still contribute some nutrition to the day. It matters (lots) what the rest of the day looks like: The totality of the eating matters, not the fact that a person ate "junk food" or "highly processed carbs" at some point during the day.
Protein powder - at least some types - is arguably a "highly processed food". Protein powder can be as highly processed - maybe more highly processed - than potato chips/crisps. Is it therefore bad? I don't think there's anything wrong with using protein powder, and it's much more nutrient-dense than typical chips/crisps, but the abstractions about foods can be out of whack, a distraction from the main point, nutrition, calories, sustainability for the individual.
The thing you previously wrote (and didn't requote when you replied to me) wasThe questions about highly processed carbs are relevant when discussing glycemic index numbers or excess consumption of hyper palatable foods.
That's very, very abstract. I understand what you're saying, but . . . does it shed light on how people should eat for weight management and health, or just add fuel to the "demon foods" fires? I think you're a knowledgeable person, and have a lot of knowledge to offer here. I also think it's more helpful to keep things out of the clouds of abstraction, because clouds obscure things. 🤷♀️
5 -
Carbs are bad if they make you insulin resistant. Insulin resistance is very bad.
If your relationship with insulin is working, you have no reason to avoid carbs. Talk to your doctor if you would like more information.4 -
People use the terms like "eating clean" and "no processed foods" to give their excess consumption virtue. Their overall health is unaffected by the choices and only the radical endpoints of food choices have any actual impact beyond excess body weight.1
-
I don't understand why carbs would be "bad". Anything in excess is bad but I know some people that swear by carb cutting and low carb diets. A certain someone close to me keeps inquiring as to why I'm not cutting carbs instead of calories.
⚫ Is it healthier?
⚫ Is weight loss faster?
⚫ Does the body burn more calories when carbs are subtracted?
⚫ How is it better than regular calorie counting?
⚫ What do carbs have to do with fat?
Personally I feel I -need- carbs. A lot of the time when I'm low on energy or my body just wants something extra I turn to carbs. I feel like carbs react quickly, are more filling, and the energy lasts longer. Honestly before I started caring I relied on sugar very much and I feel like carbs replace that instant energy for me. I'm no expert though so, will someone please explain?
- Is it healthier? You can have a healthy or unhealthy diet on either low carb or high carb or moderate carb. There are many sources of carbohydrates that are nutritional powerhouses and others with not much nutrition at all. Things like potatoes and other root vegetables, oats and other whole grains, legumes, lentils, vegetables, fruit, other grains and seeds, etc pack a lot of nutrition...a Jolly Rancher, not so much.
- Is weight loss faster? Only in the sense that when you drop carbs, you drop a lot of water weight early on as each gram of carbohydrate carries roughly 4 grams of water...but that has jack crap to do with fat, and in reality, carbohydrates are rarely converted to fat by the body as it is an inefficient and difficult process.
- Does the body burn more calories when carbs are subtracted? Of course not...carbs have nothing to do with your metabolism and how many calories you expend doing stuff.
- How is it better than regular calorie counting? It's not...cutting carbs is for many an easy way to cut calories out of the diet. When I diet I tend to reduce carbohydrates because they are the easiest calories to cut...ie instead of my steak with roasted broccoli and roasted potatoes, I'd just have my steak with extra roasted broccoli...by cutting out the roasted potatoes I've cut out a significant number of calories from that particular meal. Nothing more magical than that.
- What do carbs have to do with fat? Nothing. As I mentioned earlier, carbohydrates are rarely converted to body fat. Carbohydrates are ready to burn energy. There is a reason endurance athletes carry around gu and dried fruits and hard candies when they're training and racing. Carbohydrates are the only source of dietary fiber (cuz fiber is a carbohydrate) and provides the overwhelming majority of vitamins and minerals and antioxidants that the human body needs to be healthy.
2 -
Carbs are bad if they make you insulin resistant. Insulin resistance is very bad.
If your relationship with insulin is working, you have no reason to avoid carbs. Talk to your doctor if you would like more information.
But EXCESS carbs are not the biggest contributors to insulin resistance - the two biggest contributors to insulin resistance are:
"Acquired causes of insulin resistance
Acquired causes, meaning you’re not born with the cause, of insulin resistance include:
Excess body fat: Scientists believe obesity, especially excess fat in your belly and around your organs (visceral fat), is a primary cause of insulin resistance. A waist measurement of 40 inches or more for men and people assigned male at birth and 35 inches or more for women and people assigned female at birth is linked to insulin resistance. Studies have shown that belly fat makes hormones and other substances that can contribute to long-term inflammation in your body. This inflammation may play a role in insulin resistance
Physical inactivity: Physical activity makes your body more sensitive to insulin and builds muscle that can absorb blood glucose. A lack of physical activity can have opposite effects and cause insulin resistance. In addition, a lack of physical activity and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with weight gain, which can also contribute to insulin resistance."
from the following article:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22206-insulin-resistance
Eating carbs in a reasonable diet DOES NOT cause insulin resistance.10 -
My opinion: the low-carb thing has been waaaayyy oversold. Obviously, you should avoid sugar, sweets, white flour and other white carbs with basically no nutrition (rice, potatoes pasta). Not only do these things give you a bunch of calories with minimal nutrition, they also get digested quickly, giving you a sugar spike and then a low and leave you feeling hungry. Also, simple carbs are not good from a diabetes perspective. They tend to promote insulin spikes, insulin resistance, and more likelyhood of diabetes in the long-run. Though unless you are already diabetic or pre-diabetic, that is more of a concern with the standard American diet than with your weight loss diet. Any diet that is semi-healthy and helping you to loose weight is also likely to lower your diabetes risk. But all that mostly pertains to the simple carbs. When carbs are complex, and combined with fiber, protein, and vitamins, they can be a very healthy part of a good diet; especially if you want to lean toward plant-based, whole-food, and/or Mediterranean. Beans, whole grains, legumes, pseudo-grains (quinoa, amaranth), nuts, all have carbs and can be a very healthy part of a weight loss diet. Minimally processed whole grains, legumes, etc have a fairly low glycemic index (i.e. don't produce sugar or insulin spikes), and should not be a problem unless you are seriously diabetic). If you are doing significant athletic activity, carbs are the most natural energy source for you muscles. Ultra low-carb (i.e. keto) can detract from your athletic performance or progress.
1 -
Potatoes aren't "basically no nutrition," and they are pretty low cal per volume compared to plenty of other starchy carbs (and of course fat): 70 cal for 100 g of red potatoes, flesh and skin.
Rice and pasta (like potatoes) are also not normally eaten on their own, but as a vehicle to add to the overall satiating effect/satisfying effect (for many of us) of a total meal that typically (for me, anyway) includes plenty of protein, lots of veg, and some fat. So -- as Ann pointed out a ways back -- this idea of spikes/fast digestion (or GI in particular) is basically mooted as they are eaten with other foods that slow them down.
As for hunger, as always that is personal, but I don't feel hungrier sooner after a meal including rice, potatoes, or pasta, assuming the meal as a whole is not unbalanced (I think there's a lot more to hunger anyway).
On diabetes, the post above yours is a good one. No, including potatoes in your diet doesn't cause diabetes.
I agree that a semi-healthy diet that promotes weight loss is generally going to reduce diabetes risk.
As for "all that mostly pertains to the simple carbs" -- you do realized that the foods you were discussing, potatoes, pasta, and rice, are all complex carbs? Not that there's anything inherently wrong with simple carbs -- I quite like fruit and consider it a good part of a healthy diet.
You don't have to "lean toward plant-based" to enjoy starchy carbs (which are "complex" by definition).Beans, whole grains, legumes, pseudo-grains (quinoa, amaranth), nuts, all have carbs and can be a very healthy part of a weight loss diet.
Something I agree with!Minimally processed whole grains, legumes, etc have a fairly low glycemic index (i.e. don't produce sugar or insulin spikes), and should not be a problem unless you are seriously diabetic).
See above re GI.6 -
Today for me. I'm off to bed in a moment.
3 -
I apologize. I just don't imagine that people are eating as healthy as many of you suppose and so my baseline understanding of average American diet is probably off.
1 -
-
I apologize. I just don't imagine that people are eating as healthy as many of you suppose and so my baseline understanding of average American diet is probably off.
I don't think you need to apologize, personally - obviously, I don't speak for the crowd.
I don't necessarily think your baseline understanding of the average American diet is off, either - honestly, I have no idea. I see statistics about things like obesity or sugar consumption, but I don't really know how to translate that into a picture of what an average individual life looks like, vs. the outer ends of the bell curve. My view is biased, I'm sure, by tending to have friends who tend to be more like me, less like . . . something else. (I suspect most people are similarly biased by their personal social context.)
My marketing classes back in the day told me that it tends to be that 20% of the people are going to use 80% of your company's product category, and (while no one believes those are the exact percents), I think that's generally true.
Consequently, I assume there are a minority of people who eat almost entirely whatever we mean by the "bad" kinds of "highly processed" "junk" "fast food". I also assume there are a minority who eat relatively little of that stuff (I think I'm one, and was one when obese). Finally, I think there's probably a larger middle group who eat some of it sometimes, maybe multiple times a week, even some daily, but also eat a reasonable fraction of meat and fish and vegetables and grains and such during a typical week.
People who eat almost entirely low nutrient-dense and high calorie-dense foods, few or no veggies and fruits (and those they do eat heavily sugared) . . . that's not a good thing: They'd likely be better off health-wise eating differently.
The group in the middle, though - majority? good-sized minority? I don't know - can potentially be getting semi-adequate nutrition, maybe too many calories; or good nutrition and way too many calories; or some variation . . . or even be doing OK on both nutrition and calories, though the obesity rates suggest that's rare. (On the nutritional front, it seems like serious under-nutrition or deficiencies are mostly reasonably rare in the US, too - sub-optimality probably more common.)
That middle group, which is a good sized group, I suspect, doesn't necessarily need to take every morsel of "bad" "highly processed" "junk" "fast food" out of their eating entirely. If they really enjoy those "hyperpalatable" things, they may find it easier to stick with reasonable calories and decent-ish nutrition long enough to manage their weight, if they don't try to give all those foods up entirely forever. Just a guess, though.
It's not uncommon here to see people start with calorie counting thinking they can keep eating exactly the same foods as before, including in some cases a lot of less nutrient-dense, high calorie, non-sating foods, just less of them, and lose weight. Which they can, technically.
Pretty quickly, the smart ones tend to discover that they're less hungry if they start to mix in some more nutrient-dense, filling foods. Their eating evolves. Not everyone sticks with it that long, of course. But I think those who do are increasing their long-term success odds, figuring out what mix of things they personally need to feel full, get enough treats not to feel deprived or feel socially isolated in their social context, keep their energy level up, improve health markers, etc. That's a good thing.
By contrast, another common scenario here is the "revolutionize my whole way of eating and never eat the 'bad' foods I like ever again" route. That often doesn't end well, and may end quickly: If weight loss happens, do they make it all the way to a healthy weight? If they make it to a healthy weight, do they stay there? How often? Or does life get complicated, and they "go back to normal"? Decide that since they ate that "bad" food or meal or few, they've blown it, might as well give up?
Here, on MFP, we have an opportunity to be clear and specific about what it might mean to have a "healthy diet" (with "diet" as a noun, there). People arrive here with incorrect ideas from popular culture (like that "potatoes are a simple carb with no nutritional value" thing) and a tendency to think in abstractions or generalities (like "junk food" vs. "superfood"). I'm going to keep advocating hitting one's calorie goal, tweaking details to feel full, then to get better nutrition, and so forth . . . while eating foods that that specific person enjoys eating (or at least tolerates well), that are practical and affordable for them. In that context, it doesn't matter if they have fries for lunch three times a week, have a donut on Sunday, etc., if the overall way of eating is reasonable.
Going back to the OP: If low carb gets a person to reasonable calories, feeling full, eating in a practical and enjoyable way, getting adequate nutrition, reaching and staying at a heathy weight and good health markers, I'm all for it . . . for them. Ditto for IF, paleo, Bright Line Eating, Whole 30 forever not just 30 days, whole foods plant based, or any other modality that can accommodate good health, including eating some junk food sometimes in a context of overall reasonable calories and nutrition.
/End rant.
5
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
- 423 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