bread/pasta carbs and fruit/veggie carbs??
Replies
-
Where the carbs come from, and what kind of carbs they are, do not matter one bit in terms of weight loss, body composition, cholesterol, blood pressure, or any measure of health.
Focus on getting enough protein and fat, and sticking to your exercise. That's 99.99% of the fight.0 -
lol..some answers are funny.... I won't even struggle to make some people understand.
Think what you want ....
Please..Everyone who wants to understand carbs..... please go ANYWHERE on the web and books and mmmm it will be pretty much what I said earlier.
But Who Am I to say those things.... You're right....So for those who want more infos...it will be easier to simply go check before *****ing on one and another.
It's always funny how nothing is always right in here.... I would say that Milk is white and someone would say I'm dumb cause it's freaking Ivory etc...
We all try to give some advices and ideas in here.... Let's respect that unless it's clearly harmful or dangerous.
Still................ Take care
No offense bud, but you cannot make people understand because you do not quite understand it yourself. That you think there are "good" carbs and "bad" carbs is telling, in and of itself.0 -
I always lose more after a high carb week than a low carb week. I dropped 1.2 pounds (I usually drop around .7-.8) this week, after a week full of bread, rice, pasta, and ice cream.
This, of course, is because on high carb days/weeks I have less fat and protein and it usually works out to less calories over all (I happen to find simple carbs very filling.) but lets ignore the calorie aspect and just go with: High carbs make me lose weight faster.0 -
there's 3 type of carbs : Simple,Complex and Fiber (part of complex but mostly separated to understand it better).
Simple is the bad one... honey, sugar, molasses or corn syrup..Some very very high level sugar fruits can be part of it too.
Complex is the so so one... corn, bread, cereal, pasta and rice...
Fiber is the best one ... our body can't completely digest fiber, so it can't be broken down into sugars... ex: Whole grains and many low sugar fruits and vegetables.
Honey is good for you though. It actually has fat fighting properties among other medicinal things.0 -
To the OP, you are going to get alot of different answers on these forums. You need to find what best works for you and just stick to it. Good luck.0
-
And can we please get off the calories in vs. calories out and that all calories/sugars/foods are the same? They're not. A large percentage of people on MFP are probably dealing with insulin resistance or metabolic disorder. It's not "the same" for most of them. Me included. If I eat simple carbs and lots of white foods, I bloat, I'm listless and I cheat up a storm. My sugar intake goes wild. Maybe I'm an addict, maybe there's some switch flipped on in my brain that says, "SUGAR! SUGAR!"
Either way, when I quit eating that way, I no longer craved it. Once in a while I still want pork fried rice, but it's nowhere near my former cravings for white pasta and rice.
^^ This
Yeah, it's calories in vs. calories out. But that's oversimplifying, nothing's true in 100% of cases.
Personally, I'm an all-in-or-nothing kind of person, I'm either eating carbs and cheating, or not eating carbs and perfectly happy to pass on a free chocolate cupcake. The psychology has to be taken into account, people aren't mathematical formulas.0 -
Call a spade a spade. People gain weight because they ate too much. If someone can't control how much they eat and need to find ways to help control that aspect of their lives, fine do that, but it's always cals in and out.And can we please get off the calories in vs. calories out and that all calories/sugars/foods are the same? They're not. A large percentage of people on MFP are probably dealing with insulin resistance or metabolic disorder. It's not "the same" for most of them. Me included. If I eat simple carbs and lots of white foods, I bloat, I'm listless and I cheat up a storm. My sugar intake goes wild. Maybe I'm an addict, maybe there's some switch flipped on in my brain that says, "SUGAR! SUGAR!"
Either way, when I quit eating that way, I no longer craved it. Once in a while I still want pork fried rice, but it's nowhere near my former cravings for white pasta and rice.
^^ This
Yeah, it's calories in vs. calories out. But that's oversimplifying, nothing's true in 100% of cases.
Personally, I'm an all-in-or-nothing kind of person, I'm either eating carbs and cheating, or not eating carbs and perfectly happy to pass on a free chocolate cupcake. The psychology has to be taken into account, people aren't mathematical formulas.0 -
Carbs are 50% my intake, and almost all my carbs are simple. Oh nooooo
It sounds like you're a simple carb addict.
I'd get help.0 -
I have next to me the Oxford Dictionary of food and nutrition, The Complete and Up-to-Date Carb Book (Karen J. Bellerson) and many more... I'll be damn cause they are all wrong too.
Take care everyone.
lol
Ps: My first language is not english...the word BAD was not said the right way.
Not processed the same way depending on the level of activity should work better.0 -
First, Congrats on your weight loss. That's awesome and keep it up.
However, you are missing the point again. Weight loss is about calories in vs out. No one here said it had to be dramatic. You answered your own question. People lose weight by increasing calories also. Did you ever hear the term "eat more to lose more"?You need fuel to burn food and energy. Your story is not unique. I increased my calories to 3100 from 2800 and I lost 2 pounds. And the increase came from mainly carbs! My body was able to function better and metabolize more energy because of more energy coming in. Seems crazy but that's how it works sometimes. You lost weight or gained weight due to calories, not the diet you follow.
when people say cals in vs out, they generally mean it as in 'you need a bigger deficiency to get better results'. I see it used most when people say 'help, why aren't I losing weight?'
if you say that my increased weightloss still comes down to cals in vs cals out, you're using the phrase in a different way. You're basically saying that because I eat food (cals in), and I use food for fuel (cals out), that makes your statement correct regardless of the level of caloric deficiency in my diet.0 -
First, Congrats on your weight loss. That's awesome and keep it up.
However, you are missing the point again. Weight loss is about calories in vs out. No one here said it had to be dramatic. You answered your own question. People lose weight by increasing calories also. Did you ever hear the term "eat more to lose more"?You need fuel to burn food and energy. Your story is not unique. I increased my calories to 3100 from 2800 and I lost 2 pounds. And the increase came from mainly carbs! My body was able to function better and metabolize more energy because of more energy coming in. Seems crazy but that's how it works sometimes. You lost weight or gained weight due to calories, not the diet you follow.
when people say cals in vs out, they generally mean it as in 'you need a bigger deficiency to get better results'. I see it used most when people say 'help, why aren't I losing weight?'
if you say that my increased weightloss still comes down to cals in vs cals out, you're using the phrase in a different way. You're basically saying that because I eat food (cals in), and I use food for fuel (cals out), that makes your statement correct regardless of the level of caloric deficiency in my diet.
Yes. I am saying that if you eat below your TDEE, you will lose weight, despite the type of food that you eat. The rate at which you lose is dependent on the deficit, though there are factors which can skew the number on the scale.0 -
I believe his point was that reducing cals also effects our NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis). We move less, have less energy and therefore we burn less fuel. Increase fuel increases neat and also increases our metabolism and we burn more from that increased energy. Much in the same way a persons NEAT slows after very intense workouts which basically nullifies the EPOC effect of that exercise.First, Congrats on your weight loss. That's awesome and keep it up.
However, you are missing the point again. Weight loss is about calories in vs out. No one here said it had to be dramatic. You answered your own question. People lose weight by increasing calories also. Did you ever hear the term "eat more to lose more"?You need fuel to burn food and energy. Your story is not unique. I increased my calories to 3100 from 2800 and I lost 2 pounds. And the increase came from mainly carbs! My body was able to function better and metabolize more energy because of more energy coming in. Seems crazy but that's how it works sometimes. You lost weight or gained weight due to calories, not the diet you follow.
when people say cals in vs out, they generally mean it as in 'you need a bigger deficiency to get better results'. I see it used most when people say 'help, why aren't I losing weight?'
if you say that my increased weightloss still comes down to cals in vs cals out, you're using the phrase in a different way. You're basically saying that because I eat food (cals in), and I use food for fuel (cals out), that makes your statement correct regardless of the level of caloric deficiency in my diet.0 -
What are carbohydrates? What Makes Them Good or Bad?
Are carbohydrates good for our body? There are good carbs if you want to know, and there are bad ones as well. Everything has a good side and a bad side and carbohydrates is not immune to that. Carbohydrates have been given a lot of bad publications and everyone seems to want to stay away from them. While Atkins and company picture carbohydrates as bad, Robert Pritikin in his Pritikin Principle suggested otherwise. According to him, whole grain unprocessed and natural carbohydrates are good for our body. So carbohydrates have redeeming values after all.
I find this article more helpful:
http://weightlosswowfactor.com/carbohydrates/0 -
Not really. Again there's no context or dosage............just the same ol same ol good and bad nonsense.What are carbohydrates? What Makes Them Good or Bad?
Are carbohydrates good for our body? There are good carbs if you want to know, and there are bad ones as well. Everything has a good side and a bad side and carbohydrates is not immune to that. Carbohydrates have been given a lot of bad publications and everyone seems to want to stay away from them. While Atkins and company picture carbohydrates as bad, Robert Pritikin in his Pritikin Principle suggested otherwise. According to him, whole grain unprocessed and natural carbohydrates are good for our body. So carbohydrates have redeeming values after all.
I find this article more helpful:
http://weightlosswowfactor.com/carbohydrates/0 -
when people say cals in vs out, they generally mean it as in 'you need a bigger deficiency to get better results'. I see it used most when people say 'help, why aren't I losing weight?'
if you say that my increased weightloss still comes down to cals in vs cals out, you're using the phrase in a different way. You're basically saying that because I eat food (cals in), and I use food for fuel (cals out), that makes your statement correct regardless of the level of caloric deficiency in my diet.
Yes. I am saying that if you eat below your TDEE, you will lose weight, despite the type of food that you eat. The rate at which you lose is dependent on the deficit, though there are factors which can skew the number on the scale.
factors such as what kinds of food you're eating......? :ohwell: Nah, I know you'll disagree because of reasons. The argument just goes in circles. I just think that its very much a close-minded approach, to use a vague term like 'cals in vs cals out' to disregard ANY other theories, personal experience-based opinions, etc.
Clearly, according to you, I'm no better off on paleo than on lite n easy. The 6kg I've shed must be water weight, or I'm eating less now than I was before, or because I'm eating more now, my resting metabolism has increased. And I'm sure my general health, energy levels & well-being, the disappearance of my reflux issues etc are also imagined responses to eating in a way I consider 'healthy'. Because all food is processed exactly the same way by everyone. :flowerforyou:0 -
For me, I just asked my doctor about it last week. ( I was always over on carbs) Almost all from fruits & Veggies.So I notice that when I watch my carbs, I tend to lose weight. I noticed though that fruit and veggies, especially carrots, have a lot of carbs.
Should I be limiting those carbs as well or just the heavy carbs like breads and pastas and potatoes?
He said not to worry as much about those, they are needed and healthy Carbs. I go with what he says. I still count them, I just don't worry about being over in my diary if I look at it and it is mostly them.
0 -
when people say cals in vs out, they generally mean it as in 'you need a bigger deficiency to get better results'. I see it used most when people say 'help, why aren't I losing weight?'
if you say that my increased weightloss still comes down to cals in vs cals out, you're using the phrase in a different way. You're basically saying that because I eat food (cals in), and I use food for fuel (cals out), that makes your statement correct regardless of the level of caloric deficiency in my diet.
Yes. I am saying that if you eat below your TDEE, you will lose weight, despite the type of food that you eat. The rate at which you lose is dependent on the deficit, though there are factors which can skew the number on the scale.
factors such as what kinds of food you're eating......? :ohwell: Nah, I know you'll disagree because of reasons. The argument just goes in circles. I just think that its very much a close-minded approach, to use a vague term like 'cals in vs cals out' to disregard ANY other theories, personal experience-based opinions, etc.
Clearly, according to you, I'm no better off on paleo than on lite n easy. The 6kg I've shed must be water weight, or I'm eating less now than I was before, or because I'm eating more now, my resting metabolism has increased. And I'm sure my general health, energy levels & well-being, the disappearance of my reflux issues etc are also imagined responses to eating in a way I consider 'healthy'. Because all food is processed exactly the same way by everyone. :flowerforyou:
How on earth is that a vague term? A calorie deficit is eating below your TDEE. There, now it is a concrete term. And where did I disregard any diet or your personal experience? I had simply said before that ALL diets, at their core, must follow a calorie deficit in order to be successful.
We were speaking in terms of weight loss, I said nothing about other health/quality of life issues. And in both diets that you followed, you lost weight, correct? Yes, unless my contacts are blurring my vision, that is what you said. One you are more happy with and have seen non-weightloss related improvements from. This is called "preference" and is why I don't go on a crusade against Intermittent Fasters, Low Carbers, Paleo/Primal dieters, etc. In fact, I have often said that Paleo is a decent diet at its core, just some people try to make it into something it is not.0 -
And can we please get off the calories in vs. calories out and that all calories/sugars/foods are the same? They're not. A large percentage of people on MFP are probably dealing with insulin resistance or metabolic disorder. It's not "the same" for most of them. Me included. If I eat simple carbs and lots of white foods, I bloat, I'm listless and I cheat up a storm. My sugar intake goes wild. Maybe I'm an addict, maybe there's some switch flipped on in my brain that says, "SUGAR! SUGAR!"
Either way, when I quit eating that way, I no longer craved it. Once in a while I still want pork fried rice, but it's nowhere near my former cravings for white pasta and rice.
^^ This
Yeah, it's calories in vs. calories out. But that's oversimplifying, nothing's true in 100% of cases.
Personally, I'm an all-in-or-nothing kind of person, I'm either eating carbs and cheating, or not eating carbs and perfectly happy to pass on a free chocolate cupcake. The psychology has to be taken into account, people aren't mathematical formulas.
Definetly beating a dead horse here, and people aren't taking the time to read previous posts. It was already mentioned that we are talking about non diabetic individuals, whom do not have a medical reason to restrict Carb consumption. Diabetes, food allergies, metabolic damage, insulin resistance is a separate issue. Psychology and relationship with food, lack of self control around sweets isn't the physical "cause" of weight gain. You don't get fat because your brain cant stop you from eating too many Twinkies. You get fat because you over consume calories. You can get fat on grilled chicken and brown rice if you consume amounts above your caloric maintenance. I will maintain my six pack eating McDonald's if i stay within my caloric, macro and micro goals. Its not over simplifying anything. Calories dictate weight gain/loss. Medical and psychological issues will complicate that. We can all agree on that.
At the end of the day, you will believe what you want to believe. I choose to believe science and strive to understand how the body works, then apply that knowledge.0 -
Ugh, ketosis is a state where the body has elevated ketones. It happens often, regardless of carb level. When you sleep, you go in and out of ketosis. Ketosis really has nothing to do with weight loss.Fat loss is calories in vs calories out. The reason you notice a decrease in weight when you go low carb is either because a) avoiding or restricting a macronutrient food group inherently lowers your calories. You are consuming less, therefore losing weight. b) carbs increase glycogen stores. the weight you notice you lost is most likely water weight from depleted stores, not actual fat loss.
c) a combination of the two.
if that's true then ketosis wouldn't exist.
Low/No-carbers are aware that the initial fast loss is water weight. But how do you explain them continuing to lose weight after they've shed the easy part? Oh right, the way you guys explain everything - it must solely be calories in/calories out. Except that isn't what ketosis is, at all.
Know why low carbers think they are burning so much more fat? BECAUSE YOU'RE EATING SO MUCH MORE FAT. The extra fat being burned is the dietary fat being consumed, not stored body fat. The amount of stored body fat being burned is solely based on the actual calorie deficit.0 -
To the OP I would ask, I don't know? Do you feel better eating this way? Are you reaching your goals? Do you feel hungry, deprived? Or are you satisfied with your intake? What happens when you eat carrots? Want to learn more about carbohydrates, you were given lots of resources. Check them out. I personally find the glycemic index, while imperfect, a good tool to use for comparison.
While a calorie is a calorie and the in verses out horse has been beat, once again, to death...maybe we can spend just a moment reflecting on what methodologies have helped people stick with a diet or managing their "calories in and calories out" successfully? Which I am pretty sure the OP alluded to in the first place. Because the fact is, to get fat, we overate. And we overate for a myriad of reasons. Taking a look at the root causes of those reasons is maybe as important as understanding the science of weight loss.
Many of us, certainly not everyone, especially the folks who responded on this thread, have found that by reducing the amount of refined food we eat, we are better able to manage our intake and hence, it makes reducing one's calories easier. There are plenty of "diets" out there based on this premise. And yes, for God's sake, it is calorie reduction. And there are lots and lots of overweight people who have metabolic resistance (diagnosed and undiagnosed) which can also result in carbohydrate sensitivity (and big props to the poster who mentioned this more than once). So yes, by all means, look at your carb intake. Check out the index. Experiment and find out what works and doesn't work for you. While none of us is special, we are all different.
The best diet is the one you can stick with!0 -
there's 3 type of carbs : Simple,Complex and Fiber (part of complex but mostly separated to understand it better).
Simple is the bad one... honey, sugar, molasses or corn syrup..Some very very high level sugar fruits can be part of it too.
Complex is the so so one... corn, bread, cereal, pasta and rice...
Fiber is the best one ... our body can't completely digest fiber, so it can't be broken down into sugars... ex: Whole grains and many low sugar fruits and vegetables.
Wrong and scary on so many levels. Our bodies need and require sugar. One word... gluconeogenisis. Bottom line is, unless there is a medical reason to restrict certain foods, carbs from one source vs another is irrelevant in fat loss.
I'm T2D and agree completely with sexxy ab guy. Fiber is another thing that we'll likely not agree on. Since I have my meter to test what happens, if I eat carbs with fiber, the only thing that happens is the spike in glucose levels come later but they still appear.
Don't know why this blanket statement has spread like wildfire, but for the insulin disordered individual, carbs are not magically erased by fiber.
Also, because it depends what is actually broken in the system, fiber + carbs may work for you as an individual, but by far, does not work for everyone :blushing:0 -
For me, I just asked my doctor about it last week. ( I was always over on carbs) Almost all from fruits & Veggies.So I notice that when I watch my carbs, I tend to lose weight. I noticed though that fruit and veggies, especially carrots, have a lot of carbs.
Should I be limiting those carbs as well or just the heavy carbs like breads and pastas and potatoes?
He said not to worry as much about those, they are needed and healthy Carbs. I go with what he says. I still count them, I just don't worry about being over in my diary if I look at it and it is mostly them.
This can be a problem.
Rather than asking your doctor, I would look into what I know about my family history BEFORE I asked if getting too much carbs from fruit & veggies would be a problem.
I wasn't over on my sugar from fruits & veggies when I was diagnosed with T2D 4 months ago. The doctors rolled their eyes at me when I explained that I only consumed 24 g of sugar per day for the 3 months prior & had the MFP diary to prove it :huh:
When I told them that 5 of my 6 aunties & uncles, both maternal & paternal pairs of grandparents had T2D, they were not the LEAST bit surprised that 17 yrs ago, when I was pregnant with my son, I had been tested for gestational diabetes but because the criteria was lower back then, was told it was nothing to worry about.
Each one of those individual reasons listed above is enough to increase one's risk & put them firmly in the group to watch out for markers as they reach into as early as their 30's, however, with my history, it was absolutely unavoidable.
My kids are 24 and 17 yrs old. Both have been speached about how to watch out for the possible breakdown so that at least THEY won't be blind sided as I was :grumble:
Shame was what kept all of my aunties & uncles from admitting and talking to each other about their diabetes. Only upon finding out about my diagnosis & questioning everyone, did they start talking about it.
Your risk should be assessed through family history as whether or not this may be a problem for you is largely genetic.0 -
there's 3 type of carbs : Simple,Complex and Fiber (part of complex but mostly separated to understand it better).
Simple is the bad one... honey, sugar, molasses or corn syrup..Some very very high level sugar fruits can be part of it too.
Complex is the so so one... corn, bread, cereal, pasta and rice...
Fiber is the best one ... our body can't completely digest fiber, so it can't be broken down into sugars... ex: Whole grains and many low sugar fruits and vegetables.
Well put!
...if you're interested in misinformation.0 -
Wow.
Stop arguing everyone!
It was just a simple question.
No need to start World War Three over it.0 -
there's 3 type of carbs : Simple,Complex and Fiber (part of complex but mostly separated to understand it better).
Simple is the bad one... honey, sugar, molasses or corn syrup..Some very very high level sugar fruits can be part of it too.
Complex is the so so one... corn, bread, cereal, pasta and rice...
Fiber is the best one ... our body can't completely digest fiber, so it can't be broken down into sugars... ex: Whole grains and many low sugar fruits and vegetables.
Wrong and scary on so many levels. Our bodies need and require sugar. One word... gluconeogenisis. Bottom line is, unless there is a medical reason to restrict certain foods, carbs from one source vs another is irrelevant in fat loss.
I'm T2D and agree completely with sexxy ab guy. Fiber is another thing that we'll likely not agree on. Since I have my meter to test what happens, if I eat carbs with fiber, the only thing that happens is the spike in glucose levels come later but they still appear.
Don't know why this blanket statement has spread like wildfire, but for the insulin disordered individual, carbs are not magically erased by fiber.
Also, because it depends what is actually broken in the system, fiber + carbs may work for you as an individual, but by far, does not work for everyone :blushing:
Actually, for you to agree with him, you'd have to measure the effect on your blood sugar of a glucose-only dose (i.e. 50g glucose) versus a glucose/fiber dose (25g + 25g). The spike on the second is likely lower than the first -- not "nothing", but not the 50g either.0 -
Fat loss is calories in vs calories out. The reason you notice a decrease in weight when you go low carb is either because a) avoiding or restricting a macronutrient food group inherently lowers your calories. You are consuming less, therefore losing weight. b) carbs increase glycogen stores. the weight you notice you lost is most likely water weight from depleted stores, not actual fat loss.
c) a combination of the two.
Unless you have a medical reason to restrict food choices, there is no need to avoid bread carbs or "heavy" carbs as you put it. Carbs are processed the same by your body. Caloric deficit reigns supreme when it comes to fat loss. Restricting or avoiding food groups provides no added benefit in promoting weight loss, again, assuming you aren't diabetic or have a valid medical reason to restrict certain foods.
Couldn't have said it better.0 -
Simple carbs, like in processed foods are different from complex carbs, like in veggies. Simple carbs release energy instantly -- that is why it is so enjoyable to eat them. The problem is, all that energy is released and in not used up fast, turns to fat. And, your body releases insulin and other hormones to bring blood sugar down. So your sugar levels will come down just as fast, you won't like that feeling, and you natural response will be that soon you will want to reach for more simple carbs again. It can be a cycle for some people.
Complex carbs release energy slower, so you don't have those crashes. Most whole foods have a combination of both carbs.
Also, body resists burning fat stores. You have to reach certain threshold before that process activates. It would rather you eat something, so you will get a hunger signal.
It will first go for easiest energy - glucose in your blood steam. So slow release is more beneficial.
Also some methods in which calories are calculated (oxygen consumed in burning for example) don't account for the fiber you can't process and will poop out. So in reality you process even less calories from veggies than listed. Not so with bread or pasta. You get all of them, and very efficiently.
So this "a calorie is a calorie" mantra is a very oversimplified statement, to the point of being misleading.
What is oversimplified is the belief that lack of control plays no part in weight gain. What happens if one doesn't "reach for more simple carbs" and remains in a caloric deficit? Will they magically gain weight because they ate a simple carb? And you are aware that ingesting protein causes insulin to be released as well?
Willpower lasts a while. You can't live on just willpower forever. That is what I see that in people's diaries. People who have cereal in the morning, pasta for lunch, and sandwich for dinner, and crackers for snacks tend not to do well long term.
And this general attitude of "screw nutrition, it is all about calories" attitude is harmful.
I enjoy simple carbs as much as anyone (especially alcohol), but I know if I have a croissant in the morning, I have to eat more nutritious foods for lunch and dinner.
Yes, everything we consume raises our blood sugar, but in very different ways. That is why diabetics are taught to avoid certain foods, while encouraged to eat others.0 -
Simple carbs, like in processed foods are different from complex carbs, like in veggies. Simple carbs release energy instantly -- that is why it is so enjoyable to eat them. The problem is, all that energy is released and in not used up fast, turns to fat. And, your body releases insulin and other hormones to bring blood sugar down. So your sugar levels will come down just as fast, you won't like that feeling, and you natural response will be that soon you will want to reach for more simple carbs again. It can be a cycle for some people.
Complex carbs release energy slower, so you don't have those crashes. Most whole foods have a combination of both carbs.
Also, body resists burning fat stores. You have to reach certain threshold before that process activates. It would rather you eat something, so you will get a hunger signal.
It will first go for easiest energy - glucose in your blood steam. So slow release is more beneficial.
Also some methods in which calories are calculated (oxygen consumed in burning for example) don't account for the fiber you can't process and will poop out. So in reality you process even less calories from veggies than listed. Not so with bread or pasta. You get all of them, and very efficiently.
So this "a calorie is a calorie" mantra is a very oversimplified statement, to the point of being misleading.
What is oversimplified is the belief that lack of control plays no part in weight gain. What happens if one doesn't "reach for more simple carbs" and remains in a caloric deficit? Will they magically gain weight because they ate a simple carb? And you are aware that ingesting protein causes insulin to be released as well?
Willpower lasts a while. You can't live on just willpower forever. That is what I see that in people's diaries. People who have cereal in the morning, pasta for lunch, and sandwich for dinner, and crackers for snacks tend not to do well long term.
And this general attitude of "screw nutrition, it is all about calories" attitude is harmful.
I enjoy simple carbs as much as anyone (especially alcohol), but I know if I have a croissant in the morning, I have to eat more nutritious foods for lunch and dinner.
Yes, everything we consume raises our blood sugar, but in very different ways. That is why diabetics are taught to avoid certain foods, while encouraged to eat others.
Most people take care to meet their macros. My lunch for example... I could get a 12" roasted chicken sub but instead I double up on meat and get a 6" to improve the macros so that it's more in line with my goals for the day. It's not low carb, but it's not ALL carb either. Balance.0 -
Totally non-scientific, but I find bread/pasta carbs are too calorie-dense for the amount of satisfaction/fullness I get from them. So if I have a day where I eat lots of starchy carbs I end up going over or feeling hungrier than if I eat more fruit/veg carbs and protein.
If I'm not tracking and eating more starchy carbs, I'm pretty sure I unwittingly go over my calories because I don't feel as full/satisfied.
And again, not scientific, but I would suspect that lower carb diets work because they focus on getting protein and good fats, which make you feel fuller so you are less likely to eat over your calories?0 -
Whoah. Did I just kill this thread with common sense? Bow chick-a wow-wow!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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