Carbs - friend or foe?

queenbcronen

You do have to find the healthy balance for YOU. I am just recently diagnosed diabetic. I LOVE carbs. I am finding out they are not my friend now. I have ONE bagel and my blood sugar shoots through the roof. So I need to cut those things out unfortunately. Someone who does not have diabetes can handle carbs better. I know complex carbs are better than simple.

DBabbit

I'm SO confused on nutrition in general. But my specific concern today is carbs. Are they good or bad?

Complex carbs are better for you overall than simple carbs. (Think whole grain bread vs. white bread. The second is basically stripped of its nutrition, hence the reason we often see "enriched" in the ingredient list.) The reason being that complex carbs take a little longer to digest and do not spike your blood sugar like simple carbs do.

If you take a potato (carb, starch, and basically good for you), and then load it up with butter, sour cream, or hide it under a fatty gravy, that is when it becomes bad.

Legumes & rice (my favorite meal) are good for you in that they are a complete protein, but only if brown rice is used, because white rice has been stripped of the healthy bran, and also, if it isn't soaked in butter, sour cream, or other fatty toppings.

The same holds true for fruits and vegetables, which are generally seen as healthy. It is the full-fat salad dressings, fatty sauces, and additional sugar that cause the problems.

The closer you eat to the natural state, the better off you are - meaning, leave off the processed foods whenever possible. A whole apple is better than applesauce. Fresh fruit is much healthier than dried.

I have hypoglycemia, but I do not have diabetes. I have to eat some form of carb at least every 4 hours, or I will pass out. M&Ms are my friend. :laugh: Just kidding. I broke my chocolate addiction, so now I keep hard candies on hand, along with chewable glucose pills and only have a piece if I feel shaky. With me, it is usually a lack of food that causes sugar levels to plummet.

Is it a source issue (like fruit sugars aren't as bad as refined sugar)?

Fruits are healthy, but there are some that have a higher sugar content, which is important to know if you're diabetic and on a restricted low-carb diet. That isn't to say that fruits (cherries, grapes, bananas to name a few) should be avoided, but they should be eaten in limited quantities.

How many should I be eating a day?

An average serving of fruit is 2 a day. (1 small apple, 1 small banana, 10 cherries, 15 grapes, 1 cup of strawberries, 1 cup of blueberries)
Whole fruit is better than fruit juice, no matter which fruit you choose. You can get the same nutrients from vegetables that you get from fruit. You can do your own fruit/vegetable comparisons at Nutritiondata.com. They have charts and nutrition labels that tell you the glycemic load, calorie label, fats, proteins, carbs, and amino makeup on over 3000 foods.

Is it one of those things I could/should minimize?

Low-carb diets, when done sensibly, can help you lose weight faster, but you MUST include exercise or you will lose lean muscle mass, and it will show in your body's appearance and skin.

If you don't strength train, you may reach your desired weight, but you will not be healthy, and your skin and body image will show it. Women cannot naturally bulk up like a man, so you need not worry about looking like a bodybuilder. (Unless that's your goal!) What you're after is body tone, which is why weight lifting is important. On that note, you don't need to lift hundreds of pounds either. Five-ten pounds of freeweights is fine. Twenty-five is the max I would do, but you should talk to a trainer at the gym for that.

Does low carb create a carb defienciency and cause medical problems?

Lowering your carbs are necessary to help you lose weight. You do want to eat some, but in the form of low carbs (green leafy vegetables and low-carb fruit) so that you can continue to eat the necessary vitamins and minerals your body needs. If you were to totally avoid carbs, you would first experience headaches, grumpiness, be avoiding important vitamins and minerals, and eventually, wind up with heart disease, high cholesterol, and maybe even colan cancer if all you ate were fruits and meat, because nitrates form in cooked meats - especially red meat and processed meat (bacon, sausage, liverworst, etc.). (M. H.Ward, A. J.Cross, H. Divan, M. Kulldorff, S. Nowell-Kadlubar, F. F.Kadlubar, & R. Sinha, 2007)

"After adjustment for known risk factors and total meat consumption, Nowell et al. (23) found a 2-fold increased risk of colorectal cancer associated with processed meat
consumption above the median intake level. (M. H.Ward, A. J.Cross, H. Divan, M. Kulldorff, S. Nowell-Kadlubar, F. F.Kadlubar, & R. Sinha, Carcinogenesis vol.28 no.6 pp.1210–1216, 2007, doi:10.1093/carcin/bgm009, Advance Access publication February 2, 200, 7para. 1, p. 1213) http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/6/1210.full.pdf

Note that this is only one study, but you can find more carcinogen studies here: http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/

A few links you may find informative include:

http://nutrition.about.com/od/diets/a/lowcarbdianafaq.htm. This article is written by Shereen Jegtvig. She holds a Master's in Nutrition.

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/lowcarb101/a/carblevel.htm This article discusses carb levels, and is reviewed by a board of medical practitioners.

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/u/healthnutrition.htm#s3 This article tells you quite a bit about carbs.

Last, but not least, Brigham and Women's Hospital has some advice on low carb diets: http://www.brighamandwomens.org/Patients_Visitors/pcs/nutrition/services/healtheweightforwomen/special_topics/intelihealth0803.aspx


I wish you much success on your journey!

chicorac

Good carbs (Complex Carbs) are your friend expecially if you do strength training. Carbs from whole wheats, fruits, nuts, sweet potatoes, brown rice etc help you recover easierfrom a workout and prevents injuries. The right carbs along with protein also helps build lean muscle mass which helps burn fat and increases your metabolism.

On the other hand Simple Carbs; Carbs from refined products i.e. white bread, white rice, sugar or any carbs already refined has no health benefit. If you'd like to reduce carbs, I'd suggest you reduce this type. They linger in your system longer and have been known to cause health problems including obesity.

mynameisuntz

Sigh, a lot of misinformation in there, BDabbit.

Did you really say that you HAVE to eat low carb to lose weight?

AlsDonkBoxSquat

Carbs aren't the enemy as long as you're eating the right ones. For example, there's a huge difference between wonder bread and brown rice, kwim? The more complex and "whole" (or less processed) your grains are, the better. Now, if you're like me and have intolerences to certain grains that's going to make a huge difference too. I am intolerent to gluten, which means that while it won't kill me I do experience a large amout of discomfort and bloating. My body doesn't break it down as efficiently as gluten free grains, so cutting gluten out of my diet made a huge difference without cutting out all the carbs. Also, you need to make sure that not strictly carb diet, the key is to make sure that your meal plan is balanced.

grimnir

Yeah, well I hesitate to think how my digestion would go with zero fiber in my diet. That stuff is straight up good for you, whether science shows that most people are capable of going without or not. Also, given the current state of the science, you're not even having a meaningful scientific discussion, you're taking turns throwing up conflicting studies and summaries of studies that seem to offer statistically significant results, but are in fact highly inconsistent across the range of individual experience. And that's the difference between you and me. I'm not telling you what you should do, and I don't claim any sort of bull**** expertise. I'm saying *I* feel good. I'm saying *I* am losing weight. I'm saying *I* like what I'm eating and can stick with it indefinitely. How is that less relevant to the OP, exactly?

I get the distinct impression that you are someone who likes to feel important on the internet by consistently mis-representing the appropriate degree of confidence a rational and informed person should have in what you believe to be science's current understanding of nutrition, as if mere statistical significance across a few hundred or a few thousand people could trump the particulars of individual metabolisms and psychological factors when it comes to losing weight over the long haul. Your pointless and damaging reliance on 'scientific' diet optimization does a gross disservice to everyone who takes you seriously, and itself is a twisted and particularly noxious form of eating disorder that is WAY too common on these forums.

Here's something that you should have no trouble agreeing with: for most people, most of the time, if you eat less food than you need to maintain your current weight, you will lose weight over time. Oooh, look how controversial I'm being! I'm just slinging opinions left and right, with no regard to science! Maybe you could follow up with a nice long quasi-scientific screed about how Michael Pollan's dictum 'eat food, not too much, mostly plants' is inaccurate and inadequate, or harmful to whatever 'scientific' nonsense you think is important.

Post what you like, what works for you, makes you feel good, and has been successful for you losing weight/dropping fat, OBVIOUSLY we need all three kinds of food to live, it's just a matter of how much of each we're getting, and it is very much a personal thing.

Wow.

You go on a tirade about this not being an important conversation and then basically bro-science the entire subject matter. What you say in the quoted part is COMPLETELY FALSE. People posting what "works for them" is not a good method of dietary, nutritional or exercise methods. Statistical analysis based of CONTROL GROUPS and scientific data is what matters, not what some chump on the internet (me, you or anyone else) has to say.

When someone quotes an article that has sources from numerous reputable sites, that is a good scientific method of approaching a subject. Random opinions on the internet are NOT a good scientific method of approaching a subject.

And no, you do NOT need all 3 kinds of food to live. Ketosis and gluconeogenesis support my position. This is why people can survive on very very low carb diets.

but isnt the idea in here to share what works? Since every body type is different, it would make sense no?
For example dont some peoples body types work better with higher carbs, and others with proteins then others? If so. Arent they right to share there success for someone else to try?

Everyone is free to share their opinions. That's the point of this website. There are a few problems to this approach though:

1) N = 1. A control group (yourself) of one person isn't an effective way to show what "works" and what doesn't work. Some people can eat 5,000 calories a day and lose weight. If they come on here talking about how everyone should try it, all it will do is slow people down who are confused as it is.

2) Science > opinion. When a group of professionals put together a study with 15 people, 50 people or do a meta-analysis of thousands of people, the data they receive from those studies outweighs opinion.

3) If opinions and sharing what works is the best method, all you're going to have is THOUSANDS of competing opinions talking about what works and then everyone will be confused.

4) Regardless of sharing opinions, posting FALSE information is never good. For instance, if someone says that carbohydrates are essential in a diet, they are posting false information. Are carbohydrates good in a diet? Sure, I like them as much as the next guy but they are not essential and science backs that claim up. (ketosis and gluconeogenesis) Therefore, opinions that are directly contradictory to science are not good.

There are numerous other points I can make but I think I've said enough for now. I do not have a problem with opinions from people, just blatant mis-information.

RangerSteve

It's the internet, if you can't deal with someone debating you then I suggest you turn the computer off. Also, you're using logical fallacies in your post. The main logical fallacy you're using is a false dichotomy. The choices are not A and B. There are many options to choose from.

Your distinct impression of me is completely wrong. I don't feel the need to feel important on the internet or real life. If you have disagree with what I'm posting, I would suggest you post counter-sources that prove what I'm saying is wrong. That's all I've asked for since I've posted in this thread, sources. You know, the same stuff that's required when you write a college essay?

You're right that I am using science and statistics in order to backup my idea of what does and does not work. The reason is because

N = 10,000 > N = 1

If 10,000 people show a statistical significance towards a certain value then that significance is greater than what someone (you, me or anyone else) says on the internet. If you can't handle that fact then I don't know what else to tell you.

I never disagreed that eating less calories than you're using doesn't make you lose weight. How is that controversial? When you have something of substance to post, I'll listen with an open mind and read what you say. Until then, I'm going to call you out if you post mis-information. Thanks.

Yeah, well I hesitate to think how my digestion would go with zero fiber in my diet. That stuff is straight up good for you, whether science shows that most people are capable of going without or not. Also, given the current state of the science, you're not even having a meaningful scientific discussion, you're taking turns throwing up conflicting studies and summaries of studies that seem to offer statistically significant results, but are in fact highly inconsistent across the range of individual experience. And that's the difference between you and me. I'm not telling you what you should do, and I don't claim any sort of bull**** expertise. I'm saying *I* feel good. I'm saying *I* am losing weight. I'm saying *I* like what I'm eating and can stick with it indefinitely. How is that less relevant to the OP, exactly?

I get the distinct impression that you are someone who likes to feel important on the internet by consistently mis-representing the appropriate degree of confidence a rational and informed person should have in what you believe to be science's current understanding of nutrition, as if mere statistical significance across a few hundred or a few thousand people could trump the particulars of individual metabolisms and psychological factors when it comes to losing weight over the long haul. Your pointless and damaging reliance on 'scientific' diet optimization does a gross disservice to everyone who takes you seriously, and itself is a twisted and particularly noxious form of eating disorder that is WAY too common on these forums.

Here's something that you should have no trouble agreeing with: for most people, most of the time, if you eat less food than you need to maintain your current weight, you will lose weight over time. Oooh, look how controversial I'm being! I'm just slinging opinions left and right, with no regard to science! Maybe you could follow up with a nice long quasi-scientific screed about how Michael Pollan's dictum 'eat food, not too much, mostly plants' is inaccurate and inadequate, or harmful to whatever 'scientific' nonsense you think is important.

Post what you like, what works for you, makes you feel good, and has been successful for you losing weight/dropping fat, OBVIOUSLY we need all three kinds of food to live, it's just a matter of how much of each we're getting, and it is very much a personal thing.

Wow.

You go on a tirade about this not being an important conversation and then basically bro-science the entire subject matter. What you say in the quoted part is COMPLETELY FALSE. People posting what "works for them" is not a good method of dietary, nutritional or exercise methods. Statistical analysis based of CONTROL GROUPS and scientific data is what matters, not what some chump on the internet (me, you or anyone else) has to say.

When someone quotes an article that has sources from numerous reputable sites, that is a good scientific method of approaching a subject. Random opinions on the internet are NOT a good scientific method of approaching a subject.

And no, you do NOT need all 3 kinds of food to live. Ketosis and gluconeogenesis support my position. This is why people can survive on very very low carb diets.

but isnt the idea in here to share what works? Since every body type is different, it would make sense no?
For example dont some peoples body types work better with higher carbs, and others with proteins then others? If so. Arent they right to share there success for someone else to try?

Everyone is free to share their opinions. That's the point of this website. There are a few problems to this approach though:

1) N = 1. A control group (yourself) of one person isn't an effective way to show what "works" and what doesn't work. Some people can eat 5,000 calories a day and lose weight. If they come on here talking about how everyone should try it, all it will do is slow people down who are confused as it is.

2) Science > opinion. When a group of professionals put together a study with 15 people, 50 people or do a meta-analysis of thousands of people, the data they receive from those studies outweighs opinion.

3) If opinions and sharing what works is the best method, all you're going to have is THOUSANDS of competing opinions talking about what works and then everyone will be confused.

4) Regardless of sharing opinions, posting FALSE information is never good. For instance, if someone says that carbohydrates are essential in a diet, they are posting false information. Are carbohydrates good in a diet? Sure, I like them as much as the next guy but they are not essential and science backs that claim up. (ketosis and gluconeogenesis) Therefore, opinions that are directly contradictory to science are not good.

There are numerous other points I can make but I think I've said enough for now. I do not have a problem with opinions from people, just blatant mis-information.

RangerSteve

Good carbs (Complex Carbs) are your friend expecially if you do strength training. Carbs from whole wheats, fruits, nuts, sweet potatoes, brown rice etc help you recover easierfrom a workout and prevents injuries. The right carbs along with protein also helps build lean muscle mass which helps burn fat and increases your metabolism.

On the other hand Simple Carbs; Carbs from refined products i.e. white bread, white rice, sugar or any carbs already refined has no health benefit. If you'd like to reduce carbs, I'd suggest you reduce this type. They linger in your system longer and have been known to cause health problems including obesity.

This isn't completely true either.

Simple carbs definitely have a place for many people in their dietary choices. For instance, if you are a very active person and workout more than once a day (glycogen depleting workouts) then it's very important to refill your glycogen levels through quick transport of glucose into the blood stream. This is appropriately covered with simple carbohydrate intake. I'll give an example:

Workout 1: Strength training (intense) for 1 hour

Post workout meal: Simple protein and simple carbohydrate plus fluid replenishment

Workout 2: Trail running (intense) for 1 hour

^----If that post workout meal would have been brown rice and sweet potatoes, the glycogen replenishment would have been much slower, resulting in a possible loss of performance or exhaustion. That's not to say it WOULD happen since the human body can turn glucose over quickly when needed but it's definitely easier from a simple source of carbohydrates.

For most people, and I'm guessing a majority on this site, they don't technically need simple carbs in their diet. However, it's important to remember that they have their place and are a good source of energy for intense activity.

DBabbit

Sigh, a lot of misinformation in there, BDabbit.

Did you really say that you HAVE to eat low carb to lose weight?

Please point out WHAT that misinformation is. "a lot" just doesn't make things clear.

mynameisuntz

Sigh, a lot of misinformation in there, BDabbit.

Did you really say that you HAVE to eat low carb to lose weight?

Please point out WHAT that misinformation is. "a lot" just doesn't make things clear.

Saying you have to lower carbs to lose weight?

grimnir

Yeah, well there are good studies showing that there is statistically significant evidence pointing to the existence of precognition, but that just means people across a very large group are right about predicting the answer 52% of the time instead of 50%. That doesn't mean we should call up psychic hotlines to make investment decisions, which is essentially the sort of unsupportable leap you're condoning. There are any number of ways 'statistically significant' results can lead to incorrect conclusions, as is frequently the case with correlation vs causation errors. The history of nutritional science is LOADED with these kinds of problems, because we simply don't have a complete picture of how it works yet. You can talk all you want about how good the science is, but unless you're really digging into how each study is conducted, drawing conclusions based on the summaries is pretty well meaningless. If all you want to do is look at min/maxing diets according to what is slightly more effective for some non-existent 'average' person, your entire approach is absolutely guaranteed to be less effective than a personalized program.

What I'm getting at is you haven't even BEGUN to address the question of different people having distinctly different metabolic, and perhaps more importantly, different psychological responses to certain stimuli, based on an individual's particular biological and psychological factors. It seems like you want to think that the science gives clear answers that work for everyone, when even the most basic understanding of the subject will reveal the great range of personal experience, and that just because there's a study that shows a 7% increase of fat loss following whatever program it is you're hot for right now, it quite simply DOES NOT INDICATE that this works for everyone, because I can absolutely guarantee that whatever study you feel like pointing at will not have made a thorough analysis of the enormous range of different factors at work. In essence, your entire argument is based on a fundamental misapplication of statistics, and I have to think it's because you want to believe that the science is more conclusive and broad-reaching than it actually is.

I mean, if you really think I'm being emotional and irrational, why don't you explain how saying that people should start from a base of simple restriction of calories and then experiment to find the particular diet that makes them feel best while losing weight at a reasonable rate is in any way being emotional, or less effective as a method of weight loss? Because it is exceedingly obvious to me that the best diet is the one that you can stick to for as long as it takes to lose the weight, and that is necessarily going to be a personal decision. At most, getting into the fine details as you recommend is useful for looking at a diet that isn't working or has stopped working. It's not important for 90% of us.

ladyhawk00

Ok, I've spent a great deal of time cleaning up this thread, as I believe it has some good information/debate. Can we please remember to follow forum rules?

4) Do not attack/slam/insult other users. The forums are here so that members can help support one another. Attacks or insults against each other takes away from the supportive atmosphere and will not be tolerated. You can discuss the message or topic, but not the messenger - NO EXCEPTIONS. If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, YOU will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself, defending a friend, etc. are NOT excuses. Violations of this rule are taken very seriously and may result in being banned without warning! If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

There is never a need for insults or belittling another person on the forums. Debate is encouraged, but keep it respectful and on topic at all times.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Ladyhawk00
MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator

One more reminder to keep it respectful at all times. If there continue to be attacks and insults, we'll have to lock/remove the thread, and we really prefer not to do that. Feel free to voice opinions, discuss, debate and disagree about the topic at hand - but keep the commentary about other users and your opinions of them to yourself.

Thank you.

DBabbit

Sigh, a lot of misinformation in there, BDabbit.

Did you really say that you HAVE to eat low carb to lose weight?

Please point out WHAT that misinformation is. "a lot" just doesn't make things clear.

Saying you have to lower carbs to lose weight?

If you are referring to the statement, "Lowering your carbs are necessary to help you lose weight. You do want to eat some, but in the form of low carbs (green leafy vegetables and low-carb fruit) so that you can continue to eat the necessary vitamins and minerals your body needs." That is exactly what I'm saying.

Perhaps I should have added that unless the OP was thinking about competing in a strenuous exercise such as racing, or working at bodybuilding, where she would need the addition of simple sugars immediately afterwards, then a high carb diet is not conducive to weight loss, nor to good health.

Note that I did not say she needed to avoid carbs, as that would not be a healthy way of eating.

RangerSteve

Yeah, well there are good studies showing that there is statistically significant evidence pointing to the existence of precognition, but that just means people across a very large group are right about predicting the answer 52% of the time instead of 50%. That doesn't mean we should call up psychic hotlines to make investment decisions, which is essentially the sort of unsupportable leap you're condoning. There are any number of ways 'statistically significant' results can lead to incorrect conclusions, as is frequently the case with correlation vs causation errors. The history of nutritional science is LOADED with these kinds of problems, because we simply don't have a complete picture of how it works yet. You can talk all you want about how good the science is, but unless you're really digging into how each study is conducted, drawing conclusions based on the summaries is pretty well meaningless. If all you want to do is look at min/maxing diets according to what is slightly more effective for some non-existent 'average' person, your entire approach is absolutely guaranteed to be less effective than a personalized program.

What I'm getting at is you haven't even BEGUN to address the question of different people having distinctly different metabolic, and perhaps more importantly, different psychological responses to certain stimuli, based on an individual's particular biological and psychological factors. It seems like you want to think that the science gives clear answers that work for everyone, when even the most basic understanding of the subject will reveal the great range of personal experience, and that just because there's a study that shows a 7% increase of fat loss following whatever program it is you're hot for right now, it quite simply DOES NOT INDICATE that this works for everyone, because I can absolutely guarantee that whatever study you feel like pointing at will not have made a thorough analysis of the enormous range of different factors at work. In essence, your entire argument is based on a fundamental misapplication of statistics, and I have to think it's because you want to believe that the science is more conclusive and broad-reaching than it actually is.

I mean, if you really think I'm being emotional and irrational, why don't you explain how saying that people should start from a base of simple restriction of calories and then experiment to find the particular diet that makes them feel best while losing weight at a reasonable rate is in any way being emotional, or less effective as a method of weight loss? Because it is exceedingly obvious to me that the best diet is the one that you can stick to for as long as it takes to lose the weight, and that is necessarily going to be a personal decision. At most, getting into the fine details as you recommend is useful for looking at a diet that isn't working or has stopped working. It's not important for 90% of us.

Strawman argument.

Look man, I'm really not trying to be rude here. I'm sure you're a smart guy and I've already been getting warnings that even using the phrase "logical fallacy" is somehow mean so I'll try and give it a rest. Just stop posting things that don't have to do with what was being discussed.

No one is arguing that psychological aspects and different metabolic aspects don't play a factor in diet and health in general. However, unless you have blood work done that shows something as a condition (hypothyroidism, low testosterone, etc) then it shouldn't be taken into account.

Other than that, I'm not really going to respond much to the rest of your post. You're saying that because statistics and studies are imperfect, we should not follow their results. Instead, we're supposed to follow the results of people who say "this worked for me, you should therefore do it" as if that is somehow better. No. Just plain....NO. We go with the best scientific approach at the time and that's how it works. That's how all sports nutritionists operate, all exercise physiologists operate and all those who are invested in the scientific community operate. It has nothing to do with my ego, your ego or anyone else. It has to do with a scientific approach to statements such as those seen in this thread ("carbs are essential" etc etc)

So, until peer reviewed and control group studies are presented to prove what I say wrong, I will call out mis-information as I see it. If you don't appreciate that, I suggest you take it up with the numerous organizations who fund studies to further advance our knowledge of the subject. Thanks.

hpsnickers1

Ok, I've spent a great deal of time cleaning up this thread, as I believe it has some good information/debate. Can we please remember to follow forum rules?

4) Do not attack/slam/insult other users. The forums are here so that members can help support one another. Attacks or insults against each other takes away from the supportive atmosphere and will not be tolerated. You can discuss the message or topic, but not the messenger - NO EXCEPTIONS. If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, YOU will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself, defending a friend, etc. are NOT excuses. Violations of this rule are taken very seriously and may result in being banned without warning! If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

There is never a need for insults or belittling another person on the forums. Debate is encouraged, but keep it respectful and on topic at all times.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Ladyhawk00
MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator

Thank you.

mynameisuntz

Sigh, a lot of misinformation in there, BDabbit.

Did you really say that you HAVE to eat low carb to lose weight?

Please point out WHAT that misinformation is. "a lot" just doesn't make things clear.

Saying you have to lower carbs to lose weight?

If you are referring to the statement, "Lowering your carbs are necessary to help you lose weight. You do want to eat some, but in the form of low carbs (green leafy vegetables and low-carb fruit) so that you can continue to eat the necessary vitamins and minerals your body needs." That is exactly what I'm saying.

Perhaps I should have added that unless the OP was thinking about competing in a strenuous exercise such as racing, or working at bodybuilding, where she would need the addition of simple sugars immediately afterwards, then a high carb diet is not conducive to weight loss, nor to good health.

Note that I did not say she needed to avoid carbs, as that would not be a healthy way of eating.

If your caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories and you eat 400g of pure sugar, which equates to 1,600 calories, you would not gain weight.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

MissKim

Processed carbs=bad
Natural carbs found in nature=good


too much of anything=bad

MissKim

also depends what your goals are...just to lose weight?? then just eat the calories set for you by mfp and you'll lose some weight, regardless of where you get those calories.

if your goals are to lose bodyfat, improve health, reverse diseases, live a healthy lifestyle, then I would recommend doing lots of research on the macronutrients and learn what happens in your body with the different things you put in it. quality does matter when it comes to health.

mynameisnutz

also depends what your goals are...just to lose weight?? then just eat the calories set for you by mfp and you'll lose some weight, regardless of where you get those calories.

if your goals are to lose bodyfat, improve health, reverse diseases, live a healthy lifestyle, then I would recommend doing lots of research on the macronutrients and learn what happens in your body with the different things you put in it. quality does matter when it comes to health.

Amen.

DBabbit

Sigh, a lot of misinformation in there, BDabbit.

Did you really say that you HAVE to eat low carb to lose weight?

Please point out WHAT that misinformation is. "a lot" just doesn't make things clear.

Saying you have to lower carbs to lose weight?

If you are referring to the statement, "Lowering your carbs are necessary to help you lose weight. You do want to eat some, but in the form of low carbs (green leafy vegetables and low-carb fruit) so that you can continue to eat the necessary vitamins and minerals your body needs." That is exactly what I'm saying.

Perhaps I should have added that unless the OP was thinking about competing in a strenuous exercise such as racing, or working at bodybuilding, where she would need the addition of simple sugars immediately afterwards, then a high carb diet is not conducive to weight loss, nor to good health.

Note that I did not say she needed to avoid carbs, as that would not be a healthy way of eating.

If your caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories and you eat 400g of pure sugar, which equates to 1,600 calories, you would not gain weight.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

They might see a loss in weight, but unless they are doing very high amounts of weightlifting/bodybuilding, they are not going to be healthy. And before you say, "AHA, I'M RIGHT," think about this. Type 2 Diabetics would drop dead with that much sugar in their system. Besides, a sugar high has been proven time and again to create a high energy rush followed by a period of crashing. You cannot eat like that and maintain a healthy body, which is what HEALTHY nutrition is all about. If all you ate were Snicker's Bars, and you maintained a calorie deficit, you might lose weight, but you aren't going to be healthy if you keep it up.

mynameisuntz

They might see a loss in weight, but unless they are doing very high amounts of weightlifting/bodybuilding, they are not going to be healthy. And before you say, "AHA, I'M RIGHT," think about this. Type 2 Diabetics would drop dead with that much sugar in their system. Besides, a sugar high has been proven time and again to create a high energy rush followed by a period of crashing. You cannot eat like that and maintain a healthy body, which is what HEALTHY nutrition is all about. If all you ate were Snicker's Bars, and you maintained a calorie deficit, you might lose weight, but you aren't going to be healthy if you keep it up.

Now let's say it's 400g of white rice with some vegetables in there. All carbs. Does that change your stance, or do you still think they won't be healthy? Not talking about people with type II diabetes. They have a clinical condition requiring special attention.

We're not talking about general health - your comment was solely in regards to weight loss, so that's what we're talking about.

400g carbs solely from white rice and some veggies which equates to a 1,600 calorie diet - do you think that would be a healthy diet, then?

chrisdavey

The above situtation would create weight loss not fat loss. Therefore, not recommended IMO.

CraftyGirl4

FRIEND! I love carbs and everyone needs them. Even people on a low-carb diet are eating carbs.

mynameisuntz

The above situtation would create weight loss not fat loss. Therefore, not recommended IMO.

It would still be predominately fat that is lost.

It's not what I would recommend for fat loss, either, but first she brought up weight loss and then she brought up general health, and so now I'm asking her a question in response to that. Is a diet of 1,600 calories, almost entirely carbs (300 - 400g carbs), unhealthy?

chrisdavey

The above situtation would create weight loss not fat loss. Therefore, not recommended IMO.

It would still be predominately fat that is lost.

Wouldn't this depend on a few things like exercise routine, current BF%, body type (endo, meso or ecto)

And healthy is in itself a subjective word. Some people would say a healthy diet would meet all the micronutrient RDI's, others focus on macro's, others focus on specifics (possibly medically related). How long is a piece of string thing.

mynameisuntz

Wouldn't this depend on a few things like exercise routine, current BF%, body type (endo, meso or ecto)

No, I don't believe so. Even in diets with poor macronutrient balance, it's still fat that is the major fuel source when compensating a caloric deficit - specifically a deficit that is not too steep. A high protein diet will increase the amount of fat that is used as fuel, indeed, but insufficient protein doesn't immediately mean you start losing all lean mass; it just reduces the amount of fat that gets lost per pound of body weight lost.

And healthy is in itself a subjective word. Some people would say a healthy diet would meet all the micronutrient RDI's, others focus on macro's, others focus on specifics (possibly medically related). How long is a piece of string thing.

Agreed - but I'm asking her. I think the basic markers of generally good health are pretty universally accepted. You don't have to bench press 2x your body weight and you don't have to run a marathon, but being free of CVD, cancer, general disability, etc. are pretty much a general consensus.

DBabbit

The above situtation would create weight loss not fat loss. Therefore, not recommended IMO.

It would still be predominately fat that is lost.

It's not what I would recommend for fat loss, either, but first she brought up weight loss and then she brought up general health, and so now I'm asking her a question in response to that. Is a diet of 1,600 calories, almost entirely carbs (300 - 400g carbs), unhealthy?

400g carbs solely from white rice and some veggies which equates to a 1,600 calorie diet - do you think that would be a healthy diet, then?

If you reread my first comment, I said my favorite meal was legumes and rice. Rice and beans create a complete protein, so even though the carb load is 37g and 42g respectively, there is some protein in white rice. NutritionData.com says white glutinous rice has 37g protein. I use red kidney beans, and they have 13g of protein. This is not an unhealthy diet, but you referred to eating 1600 calories in pure sugar here:

If your caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories and you eat 400g of pure sugar, which equates to 1,600 calories, you would not gain weight.

To answer this question, let's look at the two examples you gave.

1600 calories of pure sugar with a deficit of 500 calories.

Any sugar your body does not burn turns to fat. You may lose weight temporarily by restricting calories, but it will not last long, and you would basically have to starve yourself to keep up that kind of diet. As we all know, starvation mode, more properly known as "

For the sake of keeping things equal since we're only going to eat table sugar on this theorhetical diet.

Sugar, granulated [sucrose], 774 calories (per cup)
Protein: 0g
Total Carb: 200g
Dietary Fiber: 0g
Sugars: 200g

Your body turns any unused sugar to fat.


1600 calories of a complete protein meal (rice and beans - I'll use red kidney beans as an example) contains a 6.4 : 1.22 ratio of protein/carbs, or for simplicity's sake, 28 protein:116 carbs if my math is correct.

Rice (white, glutinous, cooked) 169 calories (per cup)
Protein: 4g
Total Carb: 37g
Dietary Fiber 2g
Sugars:

Beans (kidney, red, mature seeds, canned) 215 calories (per cup)
Protein: 13g
Total Carb: 42g
Dietary Fiber: 14g
Sugars: 5g


Total calories: 384
Total protein: 15g
Total carb: 79g
Total Dietary Fiber: 16g

Protein: 60 calories
Carbs: 316 calories


To answer your question regarding a diet of sugar O_0:

No, and that is your simple answer. You are not going to be healthy, you will crash and burn more often than not. Where would you get the energy you needed after you've crashed to do the things you need to do - like exercise? You will not be able to maintian eating only sugar as your main source of energy to lose weight, and then maintain it if you want a healthy body. Furthermore, you would have to basically starve yourself to keep up with that kind of diet.

On a diet of rice and red kidney beans:

Yes - which I believe is the answer you're looking for, as it contains both protein and carbs, which your body needs to function properly. Adding a little fat will help. And don't forget the exercise.

mynameisuntz

Any sugar your body does not burn turns to fat. You may lose weight temporarily by restricting calories, but it will not last long, and you would basically have to starve yourself to keep up that kind of diet.

Unused sugar is turned to fat? What about glycogen? Did you forget that carbs are stored as glycogen?

On a diet of rice and red kidney beans:

Yes - which I believe is the answer you're looking for, as it contains both protein and carbs, which your body needs to function properly. Adding a little fat will help. And don't forget the exercise.

I'm not talking about red kidney beans, though. I asked about white rice and vegetables, where there will be an overall lack of protein. The diet will be overwhelmingly carb-based.

In terms of weight loss, you said you have to lower carb intake. Why is this diet, even though the macronutrients are comparable, going to result in more weight loss than eating a diet with the same calories/macronutrients as pure sugar?

Not talking about general health - SOLELY talking about weight loss.

mynameisuntz

Double post.

aippolito1

Carbs are definitely my friend. I wouldn't get through my workouts without carbs beforehand. I don't stay full long enough if I eat very little carbs with my meals. You just have to make sure the carbs you're eating are good for you. I try not to eat too many white, simple carbs but I do love my steamed white rice. For pasta, I eat multigrain, bread is usually whole wheat or multigrain, I eat whole oats, but I also eat french bread which is white.