Can you really eat all the veggies you want?

That_Girl

potatoes aren't really a vegetable, they are a root i think...all potatoes are a moderation thing!

In that case, better not count carrots as a veggie, either, since they are also a root.

Potatoes aren't too bad. Make sure to leave the skins on, because that is the healthiest part (and they are the tastiest part of the potato).

And I think she said sweet potato? Isn't there a difference between the nutritional value of sweet vs. russet potatoes?

edorice

Huh? That insulin response is saying "store as fat" to drop blood sugar. Spike your insulin response daily and let's see if you still have that rip.

Reducing the dietary glycemic load and the glycemic index was proposed as a novel approach to weight reduction. A parallel-design, randomized 12-wk controlled feeding trial with a 24-wk follow-up phase was conducted to test the hypothesis that a hypocaloric diet designed to reduce the glycemic load and the glycemic index would result in greater sustained weight loss than other hypocaloric diets. Obese subjects (n = 29) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 diets providing 3138 kJ less than estimated energy needs: high glycemic index (HGI), low glycemic index (LGI), or high fat (HF). For the first 12 wk, all food was provided to subjects (feeding phase). Subjects (n = 22) were instructed to follow the assigned diet for 24 additional weeks (free-living phase). Total body weight was obtained and body composition was assessed by skinfold measurements. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by the homeostasis model (HOMA). At 12 wk, weight changes from baseline were significant in all groups but not different among groups (-9.3 +/- 1.3 kg for the HGI diet, -9.9 +/- 1.4 kg for the LGI diet, and -8.4 +/- 1.5 kg for the HF diet). All groups improved in insulin sensitivity at the end of the feeding phase of the study. During the free-living phase, all groups maintained their initial weight loss and their improved insulin sensitivity. Weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity scores were independent of diet composition. In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201?ordinalpos=1itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


I can link a few more articles when I get back from studying if you want.

Putting "obese subjects" on ANY "diet" is going to give whatever results that they were looking for. I know that for myself, as I am getting closer to my goal weight I have to watch glycemic index. It would be folly for anybody to follow the theory of what was done on obese subjects.

Crowhorse

potatoes aren't really a vegetable, they are a root i think...all potatoes are a moderation thing!

In that case, better not count carrots as a veggie, either, since they are also a root.

Potatoes aren't too bad. Make sure to leave the skins on, because that is the healthiest part (and they are the tastiest part of the potato).

And I think she said sweet potato? Isn't there a difference between the nutritional value of sweet vs. russet potatoes?

Sweet potatoes are also good for you.

http://www.foodreference.com/html/sweet-pot-nutrition.html

pyro13g

Huh? That insulin response is saying "store as fat" to drop blood sugar. Spike your insulin response daily and let's see if you still have that rip.

Reducing the dietary glycemic load and the glycemic index was proposed as a novel approach to weight reduction. A parallel-design, randomized 12-wk controlled feeding trial with a 24-wk follow-up phase was conducted to test the hypothesis that a hypocaloric diet designed to reduce the glycemic load and the glycemic index would result in greater sustained weight loss than other hypocaloric diets. Obese subjects (n = 29) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 diets providing 3138 kJ less than estimated energy needs: high glycemic index (HGI), low glycemic index (LGI), or high fat (HF). For the first 12 wk, all food was provided to subjects (feeding phase). Subjects (n = 22) were instructed to follow the assigned diet for 24 additional weeks (free-living phase). Total body weight was obtained and body composition was assessed by skinfold measurements. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by the homeostasis model (HOMA). At 12 wk, weight changes from baseline were significant in all groups but not different among groups (-9.3 +/- 1.3 kg for the HGI diet, -9.9 +/- 1.4 kg for the LGI diet, and -8.4 +/- 1.5 kg for the HF diet). All groups improved in insulin sensitivity at the end of the feeding phase of the study. During the free-living phase, all groups maintained their initial weight loss and their improved insulin sensitivity. Weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity scores were independent of diet composition. In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201?ordinalpos=1itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


I can link a few more articles when I get back from studying if you want.

Put it to the test. Bet you end up where you started.

Knbrooks42

:noway:

jkim80

In general the answer is no,you cannot eat all the vegetables you want. But the average person doesn't eat enough vegetables to do themselves any harm. Assuming you are not adding salt, oils, butter etc and you are keeping to no mor ethan say 10 servings of veggies a day, you are probably pretty safe for genereally ignoring them, but if you add to or change them significantly then count them, things like boiling greatly reduce the benefits of most vegetable versus cooking methods like steaming.

As for the difference between a cheesebuger and a vegetable, we all know about saturated fats and how bad they are, lean protien from meat is good in moderation because the protien is great but it is the fat that often comes with it that is the problem. We need good fats, like those found in olive oil for example but saturated fat is not a good fat and watching your cholesterol intake is also good. Protiens actually take more energy to digest than fats and carbs. And complex carbs (whole wheat and high fibre foods) are digested more slowly than simple carbs which are quickly broken down into sugars and absorbed into the blood stream, causing an insulin spike and storage as fat. Eating a diet where these spike occur constantly is why type 2 diabetes has become such a problem. The main point that I take from the article reference earlier about the glycemis index study, is that dispite obesity and what might have been years of bad eating habits, eating a well balanced diet can help reverse the effects and turn back the clock on the insulin resistence because once our bodies become soo accustom to high insulin levels say hello to type 2 diabetes.

Another note about simple carb and high sugar foods is REBOUND HUNGER, sugary and fatty foods cause the release of chemicals in our body that help elevate mood temporarily but our bodies rapid storage of the calorie overload often takes things a little too far dropping our blood sugar resulting in a feeling of hunger DISPITE having already eaten enough calories. So when you choose veggies over a cupcake you will feel satisifed in half an hour with the veg but be raiding the pantry after the cupcake

YeaILift

Put it to the test. Bet you end up where you started.

I do - daily. Unless you plan on remaining sedentary while consuming a hypercaloric, low-protein/high-carb, low-fiber diet, GI will have minimal effect on your fat storage (and muscle growth), ceteris paribus.

soysos

Put it to the test. Bet you end up where you started.

I do - daily. Unless you plan on remaining sedentary while consuming a hypercaloric, low-protein/high-carb, low-fiber diet, GI will have minimal effect on your fat storage (and muscle growth), ceteris paribus.

I eat a low protein high carb low fiber diet and can't seem to stop loosing weight. of corse I also manage a restaurant, and work out three times a week.

Pebble321

A calorie is a calorie...if it comes from a sweet potato that's better than it coming from a cheeseburger I guess but if it has calories, you need to log it accurately and try to stay within the guidelines of the system.

If calories are calories why are they better coming from a sweet potato rather than a cheeseburger?

Because your body is getting a whole lot more goodness from a sweet potato - fibre, vitamins, minerals etc whereas a cheeseburger contains processed grains and sugars, fat, salt and not too much else that helps your body function well.
You might lose weight if the cals are the same but you won't be as healthy and will probably still be hungry for actual food not junk.

YeaILift

I eat a low protein high carb low fiber diet and can't seem to stop loosing weight. of corse I also manage a restaurant, and work out three times a week.

You missed the hypercaloric requirement. However, you are a living example that insulin defaults to a diet with calories under maintenance.

Because your body is getting a whole lot more goodness from a sweet potato - fibre, vitamins, minerals etc whereas a cheeseburger contains processed grains and sugars, fat, salt and not too much else that helps your body function well.
You might lose weight if the cals are the same but you won't be as healthy and will probably still be hungry for actual food not junk.

You don't give our bodies enough credit. The only way your example would be valid is if hamburgers were your main source of nutrition every day. Similarly, you'll get a lack of nutrition from a diet if you only ate sweet potatoes every day.

As far as hunger, that varies from person to person. Maybe they would be happier having a hamburger thus it is better?

What exactly is "junk food"? Can you give a list of foods everyone would agree with?

Pebble321

Because your body is getting a whole lot more goodness from a sweet potato - fibre, vitamins, minerals etc whereas a cheeseburger contains processed grains and sugars, fat, salt and not too much else that helps your body function well.
You might lose weight if the cals are the same but you won't be as healthy and will probably still be hungry for actual food not junk.

You don't give our bodies enough credit. The only way your example would be valid is if hamburgers were your main source of nutrition every day. Similarly, you'll get a lack of nutrition from a diet if you only ate sweet potatoes every day.

As far as hunger, that varies from person to person. Maybe they would be happier having a hamburger thus it is better?

What exactly is "junk food"? Can you give a list of foods everyone would agree with?

Hmmm, I'm not sure that you really want an answer, but here goes:

Re: not giving our bodies enough credit - yup, you are probably right.
My example was simplistic, and I don't assume that anyone would interpret it that you should eat nothing but sweet potatoes all day. My intention was to answer the OP's questions about whether calories are just same if they are from different food. Of course a calorie is a calorie, that is just a measurement, but some foods certainly have higher nutritional value than others.

Personally, I am of the option that eating a diet with lots of veges, some fruit and overall less processed food is probably going to be better for you in the longer term than eating the same amount of calories in sugary cereal for breakfast, fast food cheeseburger for lunch, fried chicken and chips for dinner.
Having said that I also think that just about any food is OK in moderation, we just need to choose better options more often - ie, not a cheeseburger for every meal. And I agree that everyone's hunger and reason for eating is different - if a cheeseburger makes you happy, then it's a good decision to have one now and again.

Of course I can't give you a list "foods everyone would agree with" to define junk food. (Almost every second thread on this site is proof that there is no one way to go about losing weight or eating healthily. It would be impossible to give a list of ANYTHING that "everyone would agree with"

My own definition of junk includes many things found on the menu of a fast food burger or chicken place, most things found in the "confectionary" aisle of the supermarket, and many of the items out there that masquerade as food but are really a low cost concoction of white flour, corn syrup, "nature identical" flavours, etc. Other people may have a different take on this, but I'm fine with that!

Does this mean I never eat "junk" - well no, I'm working towards that and getting there slowly.