Good Carb....Bad Carb

Sabine_Stroehm

OP: Why did your doctor recommend low carb? Because of diabetes? Insulin resistance?

If yes, the carbs you need to avoid are simple carbohydrates… i.e. cake, cookies, candy, ice cream, cheesecake, chips, juice, soda. Stick to complex carbs only… i.e. brown rice, sweet potatoes and potatoes (in moderation), non-starchy veggies, fruits, (preferably berries), quinoa.

Remember:

-Always pair carbs with a protein and fat. It helps stabilize blood sugar and prevent spikes/crashes.
-Eat every 3-4 hours.
-Eat between 15-30 grams of carbs per meal and no more than 15 grams of carbs per snack.

Not nitpicking, but wouldn't potato chips be a complex carb since they are..well, potatoes? Otherwise, good list. And perhaps we should elaborate on what the non-starchy vegetables are, since really if the OP has a medical reason to monitor/limit carbs, the colorful vegetables would be the ones to build the plant part of the diet around.

http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/non-starchy-vegetables.html#sthash.YValpLvo.dpuf

The following is a list of common non-starchy vegetables: Amaranth or Chinese spinach Artichoke Artichoke hearts Asparagus Baby corn Bamboo shoots Beans (green, wax, Italian) Bean sprouts Beets Brussels sprouts Broccoli Cabbage (green, bok choy, Chinese) Carrots Cauliflower Celery Chayote Coleslaw (packaged, no dressing) Cucumber Daikon Eggplant Greens (collard, kale, mustard, turnip) Hearts of palm Jicama Kohlrabi Leeks Mushrooms Okra Onions Pea pods Peppers Radishes Rutabaga Salad greens (chicory, endive, escarole, lettuce, romaine, spinach, arugula, radicchio, watercress) Sprouts Squash (cushaw, summer, crookneck, spaghetti, zucchini) Sugar snap peas Swiss chard Tomato Turnips Water chestnuts Yard-long beans - See more at:

And aren't fruits simple carbs?

Yes, sorry. Fruits are classified as simple carbs that contain fiber and vitamins/minerals. I'm used to writing fruits and veggies together. Meant to add it to the simple carb list though!

Ha. I didn't even notice FRUIT (as my brain lumps them together too!)

NextPage

I am really missing the logic of looking at carbs as good or bad in terms of weight loss. In terms of health it also isn't just the macros that are important but also vitamins, minerals, fibre etc. - variety is good. In the same vein as subtracting fibre from your carb count as one poster suggested, will people start saying that the vitamin C, E etc needs be subtracted? It seems like unneeded mental gymnatistics. Why not focus on healthy choices and good health bang for your calorie buck?

Perhaps the conclusion should be that all macros include food items that are good for my health (good skin, bones, cancer fighting properties etc.) and the majority of food choices should be good ones (treats should fit in there). Of course, if you have a health condition or allergry to any food item or group you should limit or avoid it. Also, there isn't anything magical property in protein and fats that make calories irrelevant (although there are days that I wish I good eat meat like it was water )

People can play around with their ratios of fat, protein and carbs all they want and one size doesn't fit all. However, in the end we all have to watch portion control and net calories.

baconslave

Is there a way to differentiate between good and bad carbs in the food diary?

I am trying this "low carb" thing on my doctors advice....and I like it so far...but I sometimes go over on carbs when eating low carb approved foods, so I am assuming they are good carbs....right?

Depends on what it is ... if it's all fruit and veggies I wouldn't sweat it... I go over my carbs on the daily but they all come from fruit and veggies and nothing else.

This precisely. Not other discussion, bro-science or otherwise, is necessary.

Your diet should look like this carb-wise:
Most carbs: veggies
Some carbs: fruits
Sparingly: grains and starches

In your opinion.

Pretty sure that 99% of every reply on this entire forum is someone or other's opinion. Or contains a link to someone's opinion. Just like it appears that your comment is suggesting that it is your opinion that my opinion isn't valid. Unless you are an expert of some kind...:huh:

And we all know what they say about opinions...

That aside, I think that if we are considering the OP's question which was about lowering carbohydrate intake, we don't need to go off on a discussion of every aspect under the sun of low-carbing, insulin resistance, or the good-carb/bad-carb argument. Some things, though good information, are irrelevant to the posed question.

But obviously that is just an opinion.

Actually, the OP was interested in differentiating between good carbs and bad carbs so I'm not sure why there wouldn't be a good carb/bad carb discussion.

My opinion, as you correctly identified it, was based upon the post I quoted, indicating that veggies and fruit are what OP should be concerned with. I was just saying that it isn't necessary to get mired in the discussion. The quick and dirty is that what are considered "good carbs" are primarily: veggies and fruits. And a little grains. I was opting for the quick answer to what OP wanted to know. I apologize if I was not clear.

I understand your opinion. I just don't agree with it. My first reply to you was to make sure the OP didn't take it as a fact since it was presented as such by saying no further discussion is needed insinuating that everyone believes what you stated.

Yes, but you forgot this part of the post you quoted:

Some low-carb, but not "low-low-carb" do the net carbs thing. It motivates you to choose higher fiber options. Which indirectly often helps your calorie count and helps you choose the more nutrient dense foods. Win/win.

I wouldn't worry about all the Glycemic Index arguments unless you either have blood sugar probs or need inspiration for additions to your "good carb" list.

Yes, cause it has nothing to do with the disagreement.

But it has everything to do with your Strawman argument... Leaving out that last part sets my post in a different light. It's obviously easy to knock the first part down without it's conclusion. If I meant them to exist separately, I might well have posted them separately. I obviously did not mean that. I maintain that the OP doesn't need to get mired down with other people arguing about good-carb/bad-carb or arguing whether or not a carb is just a carb. I meant to encapsule the information in a quick, uncomplicted form in its entirety , not carved up.

My opinion is fine, when taken as a whole, as it was authored, and you are entitled to disagree with whichever part. But I would prefer to not be misrepresented.

And I don't expect anyone to take my experiences and opinions as gospel, even though I think what I have to say is important and contributes to the community or the understanding of the OP. Otherwise I wouldn't bother posting at all.

I don't understand how the part I left off has anything to do with that fact that I think the below opinion is wrong. Either way this is getting redundant.

Your diet should look like this carb-wise:
Most carbs: veggies
Some carbs: fruits
Sparingly: grains and starches

I eat 200-300 grams of carbs per day so only taking 50% (which is less than most as you stated) of that.... Are you really saying I should get 100-150 of those from broccoli (pick a vegetable)? So I should be having 10-15 servings of vegetables per day so that most of my carbs can come from veggies?

Not saying that at all. Because we aren't talking about your diet. We are talking about OP's diet. The discussion isn't whether or not OP's diet is the right one either. It's about how OP should spend her carbs. You can do whatever you like obviously. That's fine for you. Good for you (sincerely meant.) But OP's doctor put her on a low-carb diet. It's about her low-carb diet.

There are many different low-carb approaches. Some are 100g, some 50g, some 20g. We weren't told which one. My suggestion was a general approach. Eat a bunch of veggies, some fruits and a little grains. That was my advice. And seeing as how we have already discovered I'm not an expert, duh, OP can do what he/she wants. My belief is that you prioritize veggies and fruits and once you knock those puppies out, you can do what you want with grains. From my perspective, my version of low-carb gives me little wiggle room. I eat veggies and leave fruits and grains alone until maintenance at which point I will get to choose from more "good carbs." Grains are higher in carbs, and if I want the food volume bang-for-your-buck, that has to be my strategy (even given a net carb strategy). OP's doctor may have given her a higher count, and therefore she has more room to fudge, to pick and choose, and spend her carbs differently.

I fail to see what's wrong with making sure you get your veggie nutrients squared away, giving them a high priority. But as you disagree in the importance in veggie prioritization, I suppose there is nothing left to discuss.

Have a fine remainder of your day.

Sabine_Stroehm

I am really missing the logic of looking at carbs as good or bad in terms of weight loss. In terms of health it also isn't just the macros that are important but also vitamins, minerals, fibre etc. - variety is good. In the same vein as subtracting fibre from your carb count as one poster suggested, will people start saying that the vitamin C, E etc needs be subtracted? It seems like unneeded mental gymnatistics. Why not focus on healthy choices and good health bang for your calorie buck?

Perhaps the conclusion should be that all macros include food items that are good for my health (good skin, bones, cancer fighting properties etc.) and the majority of food choices should be good ones (treats should fit in there). Of course, if you have a health condition or allergry to any food item or group you should limit or avoid it. Also, there isn't anything magical property in protein and fats that make calories irrelevant (although there are days that I wish I good eat meat like it was water )

People can play around with their ratios of fat, protein and carbs all they want and one size doesn't fit all. However, in the end we all have to watch portion control and net calories.

And yet, many folks here do NOT consider net calories at all (I'd never HEARD of net calories til I signed up here, and still think it's an odd way to look at it all). Many here consider their overall calories in terms of their activity level. My point: everyone approaches this in the way that makes sense to them today. And that will likely evolve, for each of us. (heck, some of us don't even count calories....)

baconslave

Perhaps the conclusion should be that all macros include food items that are good for my health (good skin, bones, cancer fighting properties etc.) and the majority of food choices should be good ones (treats should fit in there). Of course, if you have a health condition or allergry to any food item or group you should limit or avoid it. Also, there isn't anything magical property in protein and fats that make calories irrelevant (although there are days that I wish I good eat meat like it was water smile )

People can play around with their ratios of fat, protein and carbs all they want and one size doesn't fit all. However, in the end we all have to watch portion control and net calories.

Exactly right. I can get on board with that.

I am a low-carb, calorie counter. Low-carb helps me watch my portion control and calories. If you aren't on it for medical reasons, then that's another thing it is good for. You are re-training yourself.

MistressPi

Who doesn't consider whole grains are good carbs? I'm talking medical or nutrition experts here, not just random personal opinions.

William Davis, MD (author, "Wheat Belly"); David Perlmutter, MD (author: "Grain Brain"); Gary Taubes ("Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why We Get Fat, and What to Do About It")

^^^ all excellent reads.

Are these books in the fantasy section?

To the OP, my condolences on your thread getting hijacked by all the wingnuts. Probably safe to assume if you are following your doctor's advice to ask them the question as every arm chair dietician is going to chime in with their theory and various crackpot theories dejour.

Well researched, well written non-fiction, actually. With impressive bibliographies. It's Science, Baby!

Need2Exerc1se

http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html
"Take Home Messages

* For your body composition, it doesn’t matter if a carb is classified as simple or complex or if it has a high or low glycemic or insulin load or index. Only the total amount of carbs in your diet matters and this only matters because carbs contain calories.
* For your health, the source of carbs is only relevant if you’re unhealthy. If you’re already healthy, it generally doesn’t matter."

So, this site thinks fiber does't matter at all?

Unless you've got poop problems - no, fibre doesn't matter that much. Besides most people consume more than they actually need anyway!

Fiber does more than solve poop problems, but that kind of seems like your saying fiber doesn't matter unless you aren't getting enough.

Are you talking soluble fibre or insoluble fibre?

I was just talking fiber in general. Both are good for you.

Soluble fibre is good for you and for your stomach and gut flora. I would question how great or needed insoluble fibre is?

Grains contain soluble fiber.

Yes but mainly insoluble fibre.

Many vegetables contain more insoluble than soluble. But again, both are good for you.

Yes they do but they are not normally consumed in the same volumes as grains.

Therefore the overall insoluble fibre is less going through your bowels - I suppose less insoluble fibre makes for less impressive sized poops, but unless you are entering them in for a competition I'm not sure that would be a problem.

LOL This is by far the silliest conversation I've had in a while. What does the volume in which something is normally consumed have to do with whether it is good for you or not?

I love silly conversations and really - volume has everything to do with things!

Exactly why it's silly. You say grains are bad because they are bad in in the wrong volume, but other foods are good. But every food is bad in the wrong volume. Even water is bad in the wrong volumes. Maybe this is why we all die. All food and drink is bad. We are doomed.

hovis153

Try this site as a beginner

http://www.dietdoctor.com/lchf

also look for recipe for oopies as alternative to bread.

I have lost 100lb on low carb, I feel great and have had some excess skin removed with more coming off next week.

And my GP approved and supported me on low carb.

Cut out anything and everything that is processed in and box or jar and higher carb veg e.g. peas, sweetcorn, parsnip, carrots (may get with a few now and again), butternut squash, sweet potatoes, ordinary potatoes and becareful of onions.

Up your fats including coconut oil (make sure it is for cooking and not beauty quality).

tennisdude2004

http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html
"Take Home Messages

* For your body composition, it doesn’t matter if a carb is classified as simple or complex or if it has a high or low glycemic or insulin load or index. Only the total amount of carbs in your diet matters and this only matters because carbs contain calories.
* For your health, the source of carbs is only relevant if you’re unhealthy. If you’re already healthy, it generally doesn’t matter."

So, this site thinks fiber does't matter at all?

Unless you've got poop problems - no, fibre doesn't matter that much. Besides most people consume more than they actually need anyway!

Fiber does more than solve poop problems, but that kind of seems like your saying fiber doesn't matter unless you aren't getting enough.

Are you talking soluble fibre or insoluble fibre?

I was just talking fiber in general. Both are good for you.

Soluble fibre is good for you and for your stomach and gut flora. I would question how great or needed insoluble fibre is?

Grains contain soluble fiber.

Yes but mainly insoluble fibre.

Many vegetables contain more insoluble than soluble. But again, both are good for you.

Yes they do but they are not normally consumed in the same volumes as grains.

Therefore the overall insoluble fibre is less going through your bowels - I suppose less insoluble fibre makes for less impressive sized poops, but unless you are entering them in for a competition I'm not sure that would be a problem.

LOL This is by far the silliest conversation I've had in a while. What does the volume in which something is normally consumed have to do with whether it is good for you or not?

I love silly conversations and really - volume has everything to do with things!

Exactly why it's silly. You say grains are bad because they are bad in in the wrong volume, but other foods are good. But every food is bad in the wrong volume. Even water is bad in the wrong volumes. Maybe this is why we all die. All food and drink is bad. We are doomed.

This conversation is silly because of your statement above. I don't think I have once said grains are bad!

Just because I don't over egg the benefits of something that doesn't mean I have to automatically think it's bad (that's a bit one dimensional thinking).

I didn't think Dallas back in the 80's was a great show, I didn't dislike it though - I just didn't watch it!

Read through my previous posts. I am saying grains have a place in a diet. I'm just not promoting them for their 'perceived health benefits'.

To me grain is just above neutral - if someone gives me a sandwich I'll eat it, but I wouldn't go hunting down a sandwich on a daily basis - I just like other stuff!

Need2Exerc1se

http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html
"Take Home Messages

* For your body composition, it doesn’t matter if a carb is classified as simple or complex or if it has a high or low glycemic or insulin load or index. Only the total amount of carbs in your diet matters and this only matters because carbs contain calories.
* For your health, the source of carbs is only relevant if you’re unhealthy. If you’re already healthy, it generally doesn’t matter."

So, this site thinks fiber does't matter at all?

Unless you've got poop problems - no, fibre doesn't matter that much. Besides most people consume more than they actually need anyway!

Fiber does more than solve poop problems, but that kind of seems like your saying fiber doesn't matter unless you aren't getting enough.

Are you talking soluble fibre or insoluble fibre?

I was just talking fiber in general. Both are good for you.

Soluble fibre is good for you and for your stomach and gut flora. I would question how great or needed insoluble fibre is?

Grains contain soluble fiber.

Yes but mainly insoluble fibre.

Many vegetables contain more insoluble than soluble. But again, both are good for you.

Yes they do but they are not normally consumed in the same volumes as grains.

Therefore the overall insoluble fibre is less going through your bowels - I suppose less insoluble fibre makes for less impressive sized poops, but unless you are entering them in for a competition I'm not sure that would be a problem.

LOL This is by far the silliest conversation I've had in a while. What does the volume in which something is normally consumed have to do with whether it is good for you or not?

I love silly conversations and really - volume has everything to do with things!

Exactly why it's silly. You say grains are bad because they are bad in in the wrong volume, but other foods are good. But every food is bad in the wrong volume. Even water is bad in the wrong volumes. Maybe this is why we all die. All food and drink is bad. We are doomed.

This conversation is silly because of your statement above. I don't think I have once said grains are bad!

Just because I don't over egg the benefits of something that doesn't mean I have to automatically think it's bad (that's a bit one dimensional thinking).

I didn't think Dallas back in the 80's was a great show, I didn't dislike it though - I just didn't watch it!

Read through my previous posts. I am saying grains have a place in a diet. I'm just not promoting them for their 'perceived health benefits'.

To me grain is just above neutral - if someone gives me a sandwich I'll eat it, but I wouldn't go hunting down a sandwich on a daily basis - I just like other stuff!

Okay, fair enough. I inferred form your posts that you thought grains were bad. My apology. I thought you were the one that said why eat grains, why not eat vegetables instead. Perhaps I'm getting my posts confused.

baconslave

Okay, fair enough. I inferred form your posts that you thought grains were bad. My apology. I thought you were the one that said why eat grains, why not eat vegetables instead. Perhaps I'm getting my posts confused.

You are thinking about me. And that isn't what I said. I never said no grains, or that they were bad. I said prioritze veggies, get them in before your grains and fruits. Low-carb diets have a finite number. This naturally means something is going to have to decrease. I picked grains, because they are highest in carbs. Higher than veggies and many fruits.

This of course only applies at all if you are on a low-carb diet, in which you must budget your carbohydrates, and even more specifically, the lower your limit, the more you need to prioritize them. Apparently that's silly reasoning to most on here.

Let's say you have 100g/day. You eat a sandwich, whole wheat bread, there is 44g of your daily already used up. Keeping in mind that veggies, fruit, milk, cheese, eggs, and others all have carbohydrates, too. So let's add that toast you have at breakfast (2 slices 44g). Or maybe some flavored oatmeal (32g). There is 88g (or 76g) of your daily. You haven't even eaten supper yet. NO fruits or veggies. Whole wheat pasta and broccoli, maybe for supper? That is 37g for the pasta and a whole cup of broccoli (11g). That makes it 124g. You're over. And you've had 2 servings of veggies, no cheese, or dairy of spaghetti sauce for those noodles. No meat yet, but generally, meat doesn't have much, except shrimp has a little...Eggs have carbs, though.

If you want to argue, "You didn't use net carbs." Ok. Let's do the net carbs. It is still 108. Still over. What about milk? 12g. Yogurt? More veggies (salad, avocado, zucchini)? Cheese? Eggs? Still haven't had any yet.

If you don't prioritize your veggies, and budget your grains, you are missing out on a lot of nutrients. And also a lot of taste and enjoyment. Diabetics, insulin resistance, and celiacs have to prioritize. For their medical health. Of course if you are happy with living like that, then that is fine. No moral judgments on grains or sugar. I don't think they care anyway, as they have no feelings, but feel free to get upset for them if that floats your boat. :laugh:

I never said I expected the world to eat low-carb. I said if you are low-carb you need to prioritize. And OP was told by the medical establishment that she needs to eat low-carb at an unknown level. But I expect it's around 100g.



Everyone seems to want to keep hating on low-carb or go crazy about limiting grains, but this thread is about low-carbing for medical reasons. It is necessary for some. If you want to keep your diet balanced, something just about every low-carber critic parrots ad nauseum, then you have to prioritize your veggies, otherwise they are crowded out. You can't have it both ways. Either it is a bad diet because it is not balanced, or it is bad when I suggest you try to keep it balanced. That's what I keep getting. That is silly reasoning.



OP, I hope amidst all this, you got the information you needed for you to make informed judgments, or discovered good jumping off points for future research. Add me if you'd like to ask any questions. Best wishes on your lifestyle change.



Thank God it's Thursday! Have a great day, everyone.