Carbs Question
Options
Replies
-
I seem to be going over my carbs daily lately and don't know if this is ok? A lot of my carbs do come from fruits and veggies so it is healthy carbs. Any advise on carbs would be greatly appreciated.
Sandra
Two questions...
1. Are you still in a deficit?
2. Does the extra carbs take away from your protein and fat macro goals?
If the answer is no then you are fine...0 -
This has floated around through the forums before, but a good read is http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
The main point of the article is about insulin, but it also has highlights of information about carbs in relation to satiety (feeling full), refined carbs, etc...
One items it brings out , is it's not that refined carbs are "bad", its just they are very calorically dense compared to that of unrefined carbs. So in a nutshell, easy to overeat (refined carbs) and provides very little, if any satiety; thus in the end, it's all about the total amount of calories ingested.
Lastly, I believe carbs in the presence of any other macronutrient will cause slower absorption, so this is why I think the Glycemic Index is not appropriate for use as the way they came up with these values were testing on fasted individuals and with those particular food items in isolation. How many times will you eat a piece of white bread after having fasted for 8+ hours with nothing else to go along with it?
Actually, I think glycemic index is very helpful to think about. If the glycemic index of the entire meal is high, you're much more likely to be a lot hungrier later than if the glycemic index of the entire meal is low.
I think that relates back to my statement from the article that the more refined carbs are calorically dense and offer very little if any satiety, thus why you tend to eat more of them to get satiated. But from an absorption standpoint, I would pose that the absorption of those refined carbs in the presence of proteins, fats, and fiber laden carbs (something consistent with a meal), would overall negate the primary use of the Glycemic Index as you now have introduced too many variables (macros) that negate the value of the index itself.0 -
This has floated around through the forums before, but a good read is http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
The main point of the article is about insulin, but it also has highlights of information about carbs in relation to satiety (feeling full), refined carbs, etc...
One items it brings out , is it's not that refined carbs are "bad", its just they are very calorically dense compared to that of unrefined carbs. So in a nutshell, easy to overeat (refined carbs) and provides very little, if any satiety; thus in the end, it's all about the total amount of calories ingested.
Lastly, I believe carbs in the presence of any other macronutrient will cause slower absorption, so this is why I think the Glycemic Index is not appropriate for use as the way they came up with these values were testing on fasted individuals and with those particular food items in isolation. How many times will you eat a piece of white bread after having fasted for 8+ hours with nothing else to go along with it?
Actually, I think glycemic index is very helpful to think about. If the glycemic index of the entire meal is high, you're much more likely to be a lot hungrier later than if the glycemic index of the entire meal is low.
I think that relates back to my statement from the article that the more refined carbs are calorically dense and offer very little if any satiety, thus why you tend to eat more of them to get satiated. But from an absorption standpoint, I would pose that the absorption of those refined carbs in the presence of proteins, fats, and fiber laden carbs (something consistent with a meal), would overall negate the primary use of the Glycemic Index as you now have introduced too many variables (macros) that negate the value of the index itself.
The glycemic index and macros are not mutually exclusive. The glycemic index tells us how fast the carbohydrate in any food is converted to glucose in the bloodstream. It factors in fats and protein that might be included with the carb content.0 -
WOW so many replies thank you everyone for your replies.
So let me start off by saying I am not doing a low carb diet it is just that is the only thing I go over everyday. I am staying at a a deficit every day and I am losing weight. I am not over by much for the most part it is just frustrating when I see all the fruits and veggies and how much carbs they have. I am thinking I am eating well then I see this and I think I am doing something wrong.
The only numbers I truly care about is my cholesterol as I have high cholesterol and I am trying to lower it. All my other numbers are under except the carbs. I didn't set any of my percentages on my macro goals as it did it automatically when I put in my goals so that is what I go by. I would have no clue what they should be or how to do this if I had to.
Again thanks so much for all the replies I just want to make sure it will not effect my weight loss as I am almost to my goal weight.
Sandra0 -
The glycemic index and macros are not mutually exclusive. The glycemic index tells us how fast the carbohydrate in any food is converted to glucose in the bloodstream. It factors in fats and protein that might be included with the carb content.
No, it doesn't factor it in.0 -
I use whole grains , couscous , quinoa , brown rice ect .. and i weigh it .. i use the correct amount for a serving.. cereal for breakfast whether it is kashi cereal or steel cut oats .. then two meals a day i have a protein, vegetable and whole grain ..i really try hard to stay away from white flour products0
-
Science doesn't back this up though.When white bread, pasta, potatoes etc start creeping into your diet and making up a bigger percentage of your meals, this could hinder weight loss - - from experience
What he said.^0 -
This has floated around through the forums before, but a good read is http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
The main point of the article is about insulin, but it also has highlights of information about carbs in relation to satiety (feeling full), refined carbs, etc...
One items it brings out , is it's not that refined carbs are "bad", its just they are very calorically dense compared to that of unrefined carbs. So in a nutshell, easy to overeat (refined carbs) and provides very little, if any satiety; thus in the end, it's all about the total amount of calories ingested.
Lastly, I believe carbs in the presence of any other macronutrient will cause slower absorption, so this is why I think the Glycemic Index is not appropriate for use as the way they came up with these values were testing on fasted individuals and with those particular food items in isolation. How many times will you eat a piece of white bread after having fasted for 8+ hours with nothing else to go along with it?
Actually, I think glycemic index is very helpful to think about. If the glycemic index of the entire meal is high, you're much more likely to be a lot hungrier later than if the glycemic index of the entire meal is low.
I think that relates back to my statement from the article that the more refined carbs are calorically dense and offer very little if any satiety, thus why you tend to eat more of them to get satiated. But from an absorption standpoint, I would pose that the absorption of those refined carbs in the presence of proteins, fats, and fiber laden carbs (something consistent with a meal), would overall negate the primary use of the Glycemic Index as you now have introduced too many variables (macros) that negate the value of the index itself.
The glycemic index and macros are not mutually exclusive. The glycemic index tells us how fast the carbohydrate in any food is converted to glucose in the bloodstream. It factors in fats and protein that might be included with the carb content.
No. Get your facts straight. Glycemic index measures carb ONLY food sources, eaten in a fasted state. It doesn't hold weight in real world meal applications, not to mention it has been deemed bunk by countless sources. Glycemic load of a meal is much more applicable, but studies are limited do the the fact that there are pretty much endless meal combinations (although it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that protein and fats ingested with carbs blunts the glycemic response).Fructose in concentrated forms (i.e. sucrose and high fructose corn syrup) is unhealthy unless it's consumed after a workout to replenish glycogen reserves. And even post-workout, it's better to just eat some fruit which comes with plenty of fiber.
Wrong as well. Fructose is a poor choice to replenish glycogen reserves (which, by the way, will be restored in average athletes over a 12-24 hour period anyway with regular diet). Fructose is primarily delivered to and metabolized in the liver for energy, whereas glucose is delivered to the liver but then utilized by organs and muscle cells (and fat cells). Nutrient timing post workout is really only important to elite athletes with multiple training sessions within hours of each other. But if nutrient timing post workout really mattered, fructose isn't the number one choice.
Either way, anyone labeling carbs "good" or "bad" just shows a lack of understanding with nutrition and the human body.0 -
Personally, simple carbs make me hungrier if I eat them by themselves. That's why I opt for complex containing fiber and if I do eat a simple carb, I also throw in some fat and protein with it.0
-
Personally, simple carbs make me hungrier if I eat them by themselves. That's why I opt for complex containing fiber and if I do eat a simple carb, I also throw in some fat and protein with it.
^This. Micro nutrient dense, complex carbs will make you "feel" more full. Those that don't understand this are quick to bash less micro nutrient dense carbs as "bad" because those that find it hard to control intake will eat more, thereby eating more calories. It's not white bread or white pasta that makes you gain weight, or makes it harder to lose weight. Its excess calories that will.0 -
This has floated around through the forums before, but a good read is http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
The main point of the article is about insulin, but it also has highlights of information about carbs in relation to satiety (feeling full), refined carbs, etc...
One items it brings out , is it's not that refined carbs are "bad", its just they are very calorically dense compared to that of unrefined carbs. So in a nutshell, easy to overeat (refined carbs) and provides very little, if any satiety; thus in the end, it's all about the total amount of calories ingested.
Lastly, I believe carbs in the presence of any other macronutrient will cause slower absorption, so this is why I think the Glycemic Index is not appropriate for use as the way they came up with these values were testing on fasted individuals and with those particular food items in isolation. How many times will you eat a piece of white bread after having fasted for 8+ hours with nothing else to go along with it?
Actually, I think glycemic index is very helpful to think about. If the glycemic index of the entire meal is high, you're much more likely to be a lot hungrier later than if the glycemic index of the entire meal is low.
I think that relates back to my statement from the article that the more refined carbs are calorically dense and offer very little if any satiety, thus why you tend to eat more of them to get satiated. But from an absorption standpoint, I would pose that the absorption of those refined carbs in the presence of proteins, fats, and fiber laden carbs (something consistent with a meal), would overall negate the primary use of the Glycemic Index as you now have introduced too many variables (macros) that negate the value of the index itself.
The glycemic index and macros are not mutually exclusive. The glycemic index tells us how fast the carbohydrate in any food is converted to glucose in the bloodstream. It factors in fats and protein that might be included with the carb content.
No. Get your facts straight. Glycemic index measures carb ONLY food sources, eaten in a fasted state. It doesn't hold weight in real world meal applications, not to mention it has been deemed bunk by countless sources. Glycemic load of a meal is much more applicable, but studies are limited do the the fact that there are pretty much endless meal combinations (although it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that protein and fats ingested with carbs blunts the glycemic response).Fructose in concentrated forms (i.e. sucrose and high fructose corn syrup) is unhealthy unless it's consumed after a workout to replenish glycogen reserves. And even post-workout, it's better to just eat some fruit which comes with plenty of fiber.
Wrong as well. Fructose is a poor choice to replenish glycogen reserves (which, by the way, will be restored in average athletes over a 12-24 hour period anyway with regular diet). Fructose is primarily delivered to and metabolized in the liver for energy, whereas glucose is delivered to the liver but then utilized by organs and muscle cells (and fat cells). Nutrient timing post workout is really only important to elite athletes with multiple training sessions within hours of each other. But if nutrient timing post workout really mattered, fructose isn't the number one choice.
Either way, anyone labeling carbs "good" or "bad" just shows a lack of understanding with nutrition and the human body.
Incorrect. Fructose is the fastest way to replenish glycogen in a glycogen depleted liver.0 -
Personally, simple carbs make me hungrier if I eat them by themselves. That's why I opt for complex containing fiber and if I do eat a simple carb, I also throw in some fat and protein with it.
^This. Micro nutrient dense, complex carbs will make you "feel" more full. Those that don't understand this are quick to bash less micro nutrient dense carbs as "bad" because those that find it hard to control intake will eat more, thereby eating more calories. It's not white bread or white pasta that makes you gain weight, or makes it harder to lose weight. Its excess calories that will.
Fuzzy logic. In one sentence you bombastically criticize people who "bash" refined carbs as bad but in another sentence acknowledge that they can make you hungrier. Also, in another post you said fructose is a poor choice to replenish glycogen reserves but it's the fastest way to replenish glycogen in the liver.
You should be careful with getting on a soapbox and talking down to people about their "nutritional knowledge".0 -
Personally, simple carbs make me hungrier if I eat them by themselves. That's why I opt for complex containing fiber and if I do eat a simple carb, I also throw in some fat and protein with it.
^This. Micro nutrient dense, complex carbs will make you "feel" more full. Those that don't understand this are quick to bash less micro nutrient dense carbs as "bad" because those that find it hard to control intake will eat more, thereby eating more calories. It's not white bread or white pasta that makes you gain weight, or makes it harder to lose weight. Its excess calories that will.
Fuzzy logic. In one sentence you bombastically criticize people who "bash" refined carbs as bad but in another sentence acknowledge that they can make you hungrier. Also, in another post you said fructose is a poor choice to replenish glycogen reserves but it's the fastest way to replenish glycogen in the liver.
You should be careful with getting on a soapbox and talking down to people about their "nutritional knowledge".
Clearly you didn't read my post, or you lack reading comprehension. I didn't criticize people that "bash" refined carbs. I criticized those that label carbs as "good" and "bad". Stating that "bad" carbs, i.e. white bread, white pasta, hinder weight loss or make you gain weight is a fallacy, plain and simple. Micro nutrient dense carbs containing fiber will make you "feel" full - are you disputing this? My post was stating that individuals whom cannot control intake, give into hunger, then blame "bad" carbs for stalling weight loss or contributing to weight gain are incorrect. Calories in vs calories out.
In my other post I challenged your assertion that fructose is "unhealthy" unless ingested post workout to replenish glycogen stores, and stated glucose was a better choice. Most individuals refer to replenishing muscle glycogen stores post workout... I was unaware that you are more concerned with replenishing liver glycogen stores.
I did however, jump the gun on your glycemic index post. Carbs containing protein and/or fat are accounted for. My problem, and many others, with the glycemic index is the real world application, since most individuals are not only eating a carb source for a meal.0 -
Personally, simple carbs make me hungrier if I eat them by themselves. That's why I opt for complex containing fiber and if I do eat a simple carb, I also throw in some fat and protein with it.
^This. Micro nutrient dense, complex carbs will make you "feel" more full. Those that don't understand this are quick to bash less micro nutrient dense carbs as "bad" because those that find it hard to control intake will eat more, thereby eating more calories. It's not white bread or white pasta that makes you gain weight, or makes it harder to lose weight. Its excess calories that will.
Fuzzy logic. In one sentence you bombastically criticize people who "bash" refined carbs as bad but in another sentence acknowledge that they can make you hungrier. Also, in another post you said fructose is a poor choice to replenish glycogen reserves but it's the fastest way to replenish glycogen in the liver.
You should be careful with getting on a soapbox and talking down to people about their "nutritional knowledge".
Liver glycogen =/= Muscle glycogen
Edit* Derp
already mentioned above
0 -
This has floated around through the forums before, but a good read is http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
The main point of the article is about insulin, but it also has highlights of information about carbs in relation to satiety (feeling full), refined carbs, etc...
One items it brings out , is it's not that refined carbs are "bad", its just they are very calorically dense compared to that of unrefined carbs. So in a nutshell, easy to overeat (refined carbs) and provides very little, if any satiety; thus in the end, it's all about the total amount of calories ingested.
Lastly, I believe carbs in the presence of any other macronutrient will cause slower absorption, so this is why I think the Glycemic Index is not appropriate for use as the way they came up with these values were testing on fasted individuals and with those particular food items in isolation. How many times will you eat a piece of white bread after having fasted for 8+ hours with nothing else to go along with it?
Actually, I think glycemic index is very helpful to think about. If the glycemic index of the entire meal is high, you're much more likely to be a lot hungrier later than if the glycemic index of the entire meal is low.
I think that relates back to my statement from the article that the more refined carbs are calorically dense and offer very little if any satiety, thus why you tend to eat more of them to get satiated. But from an absorption standpoint, I would pose that the absorption of those refined carbs in the presence of proteins, fats, and fiber laden carbs (something consistent with a meal), would overall negate the primary use of the Glycemic Index as you now have introduced too many variables (macros) that negate the value of the index itself.
The glycemic index and macros are not mutually exclusive. The glycemic index tells us how fast the carbohydrate in any food is converted to glucose in the bloodstream. It factors in fats and protein that might be included with the carb content.
No. Get your facts straight. Glycemic index measures carb ONLY food sources, eaten in a fasted state. It doesn't hold weight in real world meal applications, not to mention it has been deemed bunk by countless sources. Glycemic load of a meal is much more applicable, but studies are limited do the the fact that there are pretty much endless meal combinations (although it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that protein and fats ingested with carbs blunts the glycemic response).Fructose in concentrated forms (i.e. sucrose and high fructose corn syrup) is unhealthy unless it's consumed after a workout to replenish glycogen reserves. And even post-workout, it's better to just eat some fruit which comes with plenty of fiber.
Wrong as well. Fructose is a poor choice to replenish glycogen reserves (which, by the way, will be restored in average athletes over a 12-24 hour period anyway with regular diet). Fructose is primarily delivered to and metabolized in the liver for energy, whereas glucose is delivered to the liver but then utilized by organs and muscle cells (and fat cells). Nutrient timing post workout is really only important to elite athletes with multiple training sessions within hours of each other. But if nutrient timing post workout really mattered, fructose isn't the number one choice.
Either way, anyone labeling carbs "good" or "bad" just shows a lack of understanding with nutrition and the human body.
Incorrect. Fructose is the fastest way to replenish glycogen in a glycogen depleted liver.
Fructose is slower releasing, and takes much longer to digest than Glucose. Eat both after workouts I say, but fructose is not going to be as fast as glucose.
In liquid form they will slam into the muscles even faster. I buy glucose in powder form and add it to fruit juice with salt and protein powder and whizz it up post ex when I'm training more than once a day. It really is only necessary to be this diligent when you're training like an athlete. A steady stream of amino acids and various releasing carbs throughout the day and not more than a few hours post exercise (for the carbs) is sufficient.
Starchy carbs like potatoes, pasta, bagels,rice and grains (and other forms of glucose) are the number one go to to transport those amino acids into the muscles, and replenish glycogen, and repair for the next beating. Fruit juice is good for replenishing electrolytes and balancing the acidity of body fluids, rehydrating.0 -
I seem to be going over my carbs daily lately and don't know if this is ok? A lot of my carbs do come from fruits and veggies so it is healthy carbs. Any advise on carbs would be greatly appreciated.
Sandra
Hi Sandra
I do it this way, I work out my protein first, 100+ grams per day, then fill the rest of the calories up with carbs. I don't really do low fat food so get nice amounts of fat, (50-70)g. You can play around with the percentages in your food diary by going into customise mode.
I've lost fat on days when I've hoovered up 400g of carbs (training for triathlon) so dont worry about them.
Just keep your eye on the calorie deficit.0 -
My carb rules:
- No added sugar and high fructose corn syrup
- No sweetened beverages (no juice, no soda) - only water and milk
- Only fruit immediately after a workout (helps with recovery)
- Focus on complex/low glycemic index carbs (veggies and whole grains)
- Limited use of simpler carbs if you're working out (white bread, bagels, pasta) - also helps with recovery
- Zero to very little carbs of any kind at night
This works for me and I've lost 65 lbs.
Great rules that have helped you be in calorie deficit.
It's the calorie deficit, not the rules though that have lost you the weight.0 -
This is good reading. http://www.biolayne.com/nutrition/carbs-at-night-fat-loss-killer-or-imaginary-boogeyman/
Also, for help filling out your diary, http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/925464-fitting-it-in-giggity.0 -
Clearly you didn't read my post, or you lack reading comprehension. I didn't criticize people that "bash" refined carbs. I criticized those that label carbs as "good" and "bad". Stating that "bad" carbs, i.e. white bread, white pasta, hinder weight loss or make you gain weight is a fallacy, plain and simple. Micro nutrient dense carbs containing fiber will make you "feel" full - are you disputing this? My post was stating that individuals whom cannot control intake, give into hunger, then blame "bad" carbs for stalling weight loss or contributing to weight gain are incorrect. Calories in vs calories out.
In my other post I challenged your assertion that fructose is "unhealthy" unless ingested post workout to replenish glycogen stores, and stated glucose was a better choice. Most individuals refer to replenishing muscle glycogen stores post workout... I was unaware that you are more concerned with replenishing liver glycogen stores.
I did however, jump the gun on your glycemic index post. Carbs containing protein and/or fat are accounted for. My problem, and many others, with the glycemic index is the real world application, since most individuals are not only eating a carb source for a meal.
(* nods *) - yeah, I think we're good and in sync now. I see what you meant about good/bad carbs. Yep, I agree with that.0 -
My carb rules:
- No added sugar and high fructose corn syrup
- No sweetened beverages (no juice, no soda) - only water and milk
- Only fruit immediately after a workout (helps with recovery)
- Focus on complex/low glycemic index carbs (veggies and whole grains)
- Limited use of simpler carbs if you're working out (white bread, bagels, pasta) - also helps with recovery
- Zero to very little carbs of any kind at night
This works for me and I've lost 65 lbs.
I eat all that and lose weight.
I maintain a caloric deficit is all.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions