bread/pasta carbs and fruit/veggie carbs??

jonnythan

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.

whierd

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.

Achrya

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.

thesophierose

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.

TheRealJigsaw

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.

Helenov

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.

neanderthin

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.

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.

LuckyFur

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.

shinkalork

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.

mmipanda

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.

whierd

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.

neanderthin

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.

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.

wowweightplus

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/

neanderthin

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/

Not really. Again there's no context or dosage............just the same ol same ol good and bad nonsense.

mmipanda

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:

1stday13

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?

For me, I just asked my doctor about it last week. ( I was always over on carbs) Almost all from fruits & Veggies.
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.

whierd

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.

dieselbyte

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.

tigersword

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.

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.

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.

jayrudq

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!