Your views on 'CARBOHYDRATES'

Ripken818836701

I'm loving this thread already. So much misinformation right off the bat.

Carbs are controversial and rightfully so. There is too much mixed data on them out there.

I'm reading a book called "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living". Basically the authors are Stephen Phinney and Jeff Volek and have been researching low-carb diets for decades with published papers. They believe that the majority of overweight people have varying degrees of intolerance to carbohydrate foods. They say that not only is a low-carbohydrate diet very healthy (often healthier than low-fat diets), but that significant amounts of carbohydrates are not required for athletic performance either.

There's a fine line in your last statement. Depends on the type of athletic performance you are referring to. I can guarantee that an offensive lineman in the NFL would not do well at all without a good amount of carbs in his diet. (Just using this as an example)

Well as soon as we have NFL lineman on MFP asking for dietary advice, then this might really matter.

Well Im not an NFL player but on the advice of a couple paleo wacko's at the gym ( even though they dont look much different now than they did 13 months ago when I met them) I tried a low carb diet for a couple weeks, I felt weak, lost strength in my lifts and wasnt able to put the same intensity into my workouts. As soon as I raised my carbs everything returned to normal. I have no doubt that if I didnt eat a diet that was very high in carbs I wouldnt be anywhere close to where I am now. I'm not saying everyone should do it, but for me I'm sticking with carbs.

I think you read my posts wrong bud. I wasn't talking about the argument earlier where people think carbs are essential for human life, which they aren't. For athletic performance in a variety of different types, they are needed for obvious reasons. But to survive, they are not.

No I understand your point, I was replying to the person (grinch) that you were aswell.

10KEyes

But yeah, I eat carbs, whatever is in my veggies and the occasional fruit or sweet potato. Gotta go.

infamousmk

I frucking ♥ carbs.

42kgirl

I frucking ♥ carbs.

My kind of gal!

odusgolp

I'm sorry...what?!?!?! None of that made a lick of sense...

You said lick *snicker*

♥ChUbByCoyLe♥

CARBS.....LOVE EM!!!!

saintspoon

I believe eating a wide variety of foods (pretty normal type diet) is the easiest diet!

Chipmaniac

If the paleo diet fad was correct, then humans wouldn't be able to process starches and such in the first place.

I don't know anything about the paleo diet. Is that their claim? That we cannot process starches?

The claim is that we aren't meant to eat grains and the like which came about through human agriculture because cave men didn't harvest wheat etc. I'm suggesting that the fact that we can digest this so-called "processed" food means that we have adapted to that diet over time.

I think the problem is that people see the current obesity epidemic and are looking for easy answers. Carbs are just the current scapegoat. Nevermind that centuries of our ancestors ate carbs without becoming obese. Nevermind that Asian countries that had a largely rice and fish based diet had extremely low incidence of obesity and heart disease. Forget all that. The cave men had it all figured out.

The reason for the obesity epidemic is not carbs. It's the abundance of food that is both cheap and has a high caloric density. In the past, most humans in even developed countries did not have enough resources to obtain enough food to overeat. They didn't need will power because it wasn't required. It's not carbs, it's the confluence of cheap, convenient, bad food coupled with a society ever more demanding of convenience that is responsible.

10KEyes

The reason for the obesity epidemic is not carbs. It's the abundance of food that is both cheap and has a high caloric density. In the past, most humans in even developed countries did not have enough resources to obtain enough food to overeat. They didn't need will power because it wasn't required. It's not carbs, it's the confluence of cheap, convenient, bad food coupled with a society ever more demanding of convenience that is responsible.

Of course it isn't the "carb". I agree with your statement. However that inexpensive high density caloric food that you speak of is largely grains or grain based and grains are almost entirely carbohydrates, which is really what I was driving at, not the carb itself. I eat carbs in my veggies, fruit, and some nuts and although carbs are not essential they are important, just not in large quantities.

Additionally these high density caloric carbohydrate laden foods are quickly metabolized into sugar quickly by the body. It has been noted that sugar activates the same region of the brain as does cocaine. Then there is the sugar craving connection and is it related to this activity in the brain. It would seem to me there is more too it than the abundance of food, rather it seems food with an unnatural abundance of calories, which for the most part is grain related.

10KEyes

The claim is that we aren't meant to eat grains and the like which came about through human agriculture because cave men didn't harvest wheat etc. I'm suggesting that the fact that we can digest this so-called "processed" food means that we have adapted to that diet over time.

Even the grains have been cultivated to yield higher density product (more germ/less fiber) in the same footprint of space. What this means is higher caloric value per unit of commodity. The corn of today is not the same as the corn 200 years ago. The wheat of today is not the same as the wheat of 1600s. While we may be able to digest the grains (many cannot very well and can even have malabsorption issues) it doesn't mean that we should.

Bevkus

Entertaining, as always. Thanks everyone for bringing a few chuckles my way. Funny how tHis topic goes round and round and round...see you all again in a few days..the next time someone starts a new thread on this.

Always a pleasue...pass the popcorn

Ripken818836701

The reason for the obesity epidemic is not carbs. It's the abundance of food that is both cheap and has a high caloric density. In the past, most humans in even developed countries did not have enough resources to obtain enough food to overeat. They didn't need will power because it wasn't required. It's not carbs, it's the confluence of cheap, convenient, bad food coupled with a society ever more demanding of convenience that is responsible.

Of course it isn't the "carb". I agree with your statement. However that inexpensive high density caloric food that you speak of is largely grains or grain based and grains are almost entirely carbohydrates, which is really what I was driving at, not the carb itself. I eat carbs in my veggies, fruit, and some nuts and although carbs are not essential they are important, just not in large quantities.

Additionally these high density caloric carbohydrate laden foods are quickly metabolized into sugar quickly by the body. It has been noted that sugar activates the same region of the brain as does cocaine. Then there is the sugar craving connection and is it related to this activity in the brain. It would seem to me there is more too it than the abundance of food, rather it seems food with an unnatural abundance of calories, which for the most part is grain related.

I eat grains each and every day and with every meal and it didnt affect my weight loss.

grinch031

I'm loving this thread already. So much misinformation right off the bat.

Carbs are controversial and rightfully so. There is too much mixed data on them out there.

I'm reading a book called "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living". Basically the authors are Stephen Phinney and Jeff Volek and have been researching low-carb diets for decades with published papers. They believe that the majority of overweight people have varying degrees of intolerance to carbohydrate foods. They say that not only is a low-carbohydrate diet very healthy (often healthier than low-fat diets), but that significant amounts of carbohydrates are not required for athletic performance either.

There's a fine line in your last statement. Depends on the type of athletic performance you are referring to. I can guarantee that an offensive lineman in the NFL would not do well at all without a good amount of carbs in his diet. (Just using this as an example)

Well as soon as we have NFL lineman on MFP asking for dietary advice, then this might really matter.

Well Im not an NFL player but on the advice of a couple paleo wacko's at the gym ( even though they dont look much different now than they did 13 months ago when I met them) I tried a low carb diet for a couple weeks, I felt weak, lost strength in my lifts and wasnt able to put the same intensity into my workouts. As soon as I raised my carbs everything returned to normal. I have no doubt that if I didnt eat a diet that was very high in carbs I wouldnt be anywhere close to where I am now. I'm not saying everyone should do it, but for me I'm sticking with carbs.

I think you read my posts wrong bud. I wasn't talking about the argument earlier where people think carbs are essential for human life, which they aren't. For athletic performance in a variety of different types, they are needed for obvious reasons. But to survive, they are not.

No I understand your point, I was replying to the person (grinch) that you were aswell.

Whether you need a lot of carbs to fuel your workouts depends on how intense your workouts need to be. Probably the majority of MFPers trying to better their health don't *need* a lot of carbs to fuel their workouts if they give themselves 2-4 weeks to adapt to using more fat to fuel their workouts.

The argument I want to make is that there is a tradeoff for using carbohydrates as fuel for athletic performance. There are many people who struggle with weight loss and excessive hunger on a high-carb diet and would benefit on a low-carb diet. For speed of weight loss, low-carb and high-carb doesn't make much difference, but there is a lot of evidence showing that low-carb diets are superior for improving the lipid profile. Also the benefit of being able to lose weight on low-carb without counting calories often outweighs the loss of athletic performance because the weight loss automatically improves performance in many cases.

grinch031

The reason for the obesity epidemic is not carbs. It's the abundance of food that is both cheap and has a high caloric density. In the past, most humans in even developed countries did not have enough resources to obtain enough food to overeat. They didn't need will power because it wasn't required. It's not carbs, it's the confluence of cheap, convenient, bad food coupled with a society ever more demanding of convenience that is responsible.

Of course it isn't the "carb". I agree with your statement. However that inexpensive high density caloric food that you speak of is largely grains or grain based and grains are almost entirely carbohydrates, which is really what I was driving at, not the carb itself. I eat carbs in my veggies, fruit, and some nuts and although carbs are not essential they are important, just not in large quantities.

Additionally these high density caloric carbohydrate laden foods are quickly metabolized into sugar quickly by the body. It has been noted that sugar activates the same region of the brain as does cocaine. Then there is the sugar craving connection and is it related to this activity in the brain. It would seem to me there is more too it than the abundance of food, rather it seems food with an unnatural abundance of calories, which for the most part is grain related.

I eat grains each and every day and with every meal and it didnt affect my weight loss.

I ate grains each and every day and was unable to sustain weight loss because I felt hungry all the time despite eating the same amount of food as I now eat without the grains.

So we have just canceled each other out.

AlyRoseNYC

My view is that the crappy processed carbs are the yummiest.

Sabine_Stroehm

i stay away from all white starches, Whole wheat carbs are good to keep you fuled

^^this^^
Starchy carbs, white carbs make me feel crappy. I get stomach aches etc. But nice slow carbs, good whole grain carbs, vegetables, legumes etc. are good fuel.

c3nterstage

Carbs are essential to life!! but they don't have to come from bread/flour/refined sources. That means potatos, rice, beans, and other starchy vegetables. If you don't eat carbs you will lose weight quickly but it's just water weight so when you start eating carbs again all the water weight will come back basically overnight (personal experience + advice from my nutritionist). This does mean that if you have to fit in to a really tight dress or are going to the beach, cutting carbs for 3 days (but no more!!) can be a useful trick. But overall, just eat carbs. Any diet that restricts a food group is BAD NEWS!!!

bcattoes

If the paleo diet fad was correct, then humans wouldn't be able to process starches and such in the first place.

I don't know anything about the paleo diet. Is that their claim? That we cannot process starches?

The grains thing is silly. Some people have problems with some grains, certainly, but for most they are not a problem. The Paleo crowd loses me when they start with the "legumes are poisonous" nonsense.

grinch031

If the paleo diet fad was correct, then humans wouldn't be able to process starches and such in the first place.

I don't know anything about the paleo diet. Is that their claim? That we cannot process starches?

The grains thing is silly. Some people have problems with some grains, certainly, but for most they are not a problem. The Paleo crowd loses me when they start with the "legumes are poisonous" nonsense.

How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?

10KEyes

How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?

From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.