Good Carbs

tigersword

There's no such thing as a "good carb," or a "bad carb." Food is not eaten in a vacuum.

So you don't think table sugar is a "bad carb"?

Not at all. It's 4 calories per gram, just like every other carb. Nothing is inherently good and bad. 3.5 grams of table sugar a day in a cup of coffee is not worse for you than 40 grams of carbs in brown rice. A diet is all in how it fits together, no one food can be generally labeled as good or bad, context and dosage make certain foods good or bad.

A teaspoon of sugar in coffee is one thing. A 2 liter bottle of soda in one sip is different. Dosage and context. That same example can be applied to any food, no matter how "good" or "bad" people may say it is. Brown rice is supposedly "healthy," would eating 10 pounds of brown rice a day still be healthy? Of course not. The overall picture matters way more than saying any one thing is just "good" or "bad."

This is incorrect. Carbs from different sources elicit different blood glucose reactions. The greater the blood glucose reaction, the more insulin that will be released, triggering the body to convert the glucose into fat. Basically, good carbs = less insulin, less fat, bad carbs = more insulin, more fat.

If you aren't eating at a surplus, it's not getting converted into fat.......

Hummmmm, well then I am an anomally. I can eat 1000 cals of protein and fat and lose 2 lbs over night. I can eat 1000 cals of high carbage and gain 2 lbs. IF nothing else, high sugar intake makes me blot up like a balloon.

Water is not fat. High carb leads to water storage, cutting carbs leads to water loss. Neither method changes the amount of fat stored or lost.

Sidesteal

But you are just being silly. Yes, a healthy diet will include a variety of foods that satisfy our micronutrient needs (duh!). But you will still likely benefit more from whole wheat bread because whole grains are better carb sources than overly processed grains.

You directly asked for a circumstance in which white bread would be more beneficial than oatmeal and I believe I did that. Then, you called me silly.

Nicely done.

lizziebeth1028

There are some people that will tell you in the end a carb is a carb. But I like to think that fruits and veggies are more 'functional' foods with healthier benefits than let's say a Twinkie. Whole grains, brown rice are healthier and more functional than cheetos. In my book anyway. I just feel better when I make the healthier choice.

Acg67

Neither one is good or bad. It depends on the overall diet. Too much oatmeal is bad, also.

Depending on dose, a slice of white bread with butter on it could be better than oatmeal.

In what situation would the white bread be better than the oatmeal? (the butter isn't really the issue since it could just as easily go on the oatmeal).

If the rest of your diet was lacking in thiamin or folic acid you would probably benefit from the white bread.
EDIT: I may be incorrect on thiamin.

But you are just being silly. Yes, a healthy diet will include a variety of foods that satisfy our micronutrient needs (duh!). But you will still likely benefit more from whole wheat bread because whole grains are better carb sources than overly processed grains.

Bohn T, et al. Phytic acid added to white-wheat bread inhibits fractional apparent magnesium absorption in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 2004; (79) 3: 418-423.

www.ajcn.org/content/79/3/418.full.pdf

Reinhold JG, et al. Decreased absorption of calcium, magnesium, zinc and phosphorus by humans due to increased fiber and phosphorus consumption as wheat bread. Journal of Nutrition, Apr, 1976; 106 (4): 493-503.

jn.nutrition.org/content/106/4/493.full.pdf

bcattoes

Neither one is good or bad. It depends on the overall diet. Too much oatmeal is bad, also.

Depending on dose, a slice of white bread with butter on it could be better than oatmeal.

In what situation would the white bread be better than the oatmeal? (the butter isn't really the issue since it could just as easily go on the oatmeal).

If the rest of your diet was lacking in thiamin or folic acid you would probably benefit from the white bread.
EDIT: I may be incorrect on thiamin.

Also, 1 slice of white bread vs 2 pounds of oatmeal. Dosage is really the most important part of anything. I just want someone to explain exactly why table sugar is "bad" in a reasonable dose. I also want someone to actually explain why an insulin spike is bad, considering insulin spikes are a normal part of human metabolism.

SOURCE: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/index.html#when-sugar-management
Diets rich in high-glycemic-index foods, which cause quick and strong increases in blood sugar levels, have been linked to an increased risk for diabetes, (5) heart disease, (6, 7) and overweight, (8, 9,10) and there is preliminary work linking high-glycemic diets to age-related macular degeneration, (11) ovulatory infertility, (12) and colorectal cancer. (13) Foods with a low glycemic index have been shown to help control type 2 diabetes and improve weight loss. Other studies, though, have found that the glycemic index has little effect on weight or health. This sort of flip-flop is part of the normal process of science, and it means that the true value of the glycemic index remains to be determined. In the meantime, eating whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables—all foods with a low glycemic index—is indisputably good for many aspects of health.

tigersword

But you are just being silly. Yes, a healthy diet will include a variety of foods that satisfy our micronutrient needs (duh!). But you will still likely benefit more from whole wheat bread because whole grains are better carb sources than overly processed grains.

You directly asked for a circumstance in which white bread would be more beneficial than oatmeal and I believe I did that. Then, you called me silly.

Nicely done.

Not only that, but doesn't the phytonutrient content in whole grains tend to reduce the bioavailabilty of the other nutrients in the grain compared to more processed "white" grains?

Sidesteal

But you are just being silly. Yes, a healthy diet will include a variety of foods that satisfy our micronutrient needs (duh!). But you will still likely benefit more from whole wheat bread because whole grains are better carb sources than overly processed grains.

You directly asked for a circumstance in which white bread would be more beneficial than oatmeal and I believe I did that. Then, you called me silly.

Nicely done.

Not only that, but doesn't the phytonutrient content in whole grains tend to reduce the bioavailabilty of the other nutrients in the grain compared to more processed "white" grains?

Acg is fast today And a mind reader, apparently.

bcattoes

But you are just being silly. Yes, a healthy diet will include a variety of foods that satisfy our micronutrient needs (duh!). But you will still likely benefit more from whole wheat bread because whole grains are better carb sources than overly processed grains.

You directly asked for a circumstance in which white bread would be more beneficial than oatmeal and I believe I did that. Then, you called me silly.

Nicely done.

Thanks!

Acg67

But you are just being silly. Yes, a healthy diet will include a variety of foods that satisfy our micronutrient needs (duh!). But you will still likely benefit more from whole wheat bread because whole grains are better carb sources than overly processed grains.

You directly asked for a circumstance in which white bread would be more beneficial than oatmeal and I believe I did that. Then, you called me silly.

Nicely done.

Not only that, but doesn't the phytonutrient content in whole grains tend to reduce the bioavailabilty of the other nutrients in the grain compared to more processed "white" grains?

Acg is fast today And a mind reader, apparently.

bcattoes

Neither one is good or bad. It depends on the overall diet. Too much oatmeal is bad, also.

Depending on dose, a slice of white bread with butter on it could be better than oatmeal.

In what situation would the white bread be better than the oatmeal? (the butter isn't really the issue since it could just as easily go on the oatmeal).

If the rest of your diet was lacking in thiamin or folic acid you would probably benefit from the white bread.
EDIT: I may be incorrect on thiamin.

But you are just being silly. Yes, a healthy diet will include a variety of foods that satisfy our micronutrient needs (duh!). But you will still likely benefit more from whole wheat bread because whole grains are better carb sources than overly processed grains.

Bohn T, et al. Phytic acid added to white-wheat bread inhibits fractional apparent magnesium absorption in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 2004; (79) 3: 418-423.

www.ajcn.org/content/79/3/418.full.pdf

Reinhold JG, et al. Decreased absorption of calcium, magnesium, zinc and phosphorus by humans due to increased fiber and phosphorus consumption as wheat bread. Journal of Nutrition, Apr, 1976; 106 (4): 493-503.

jn.nutrition.org/content/106/4/493.full.pdf

Sorry, in my example I already has too much calcium, magnesium, zinc and phosphorus so the whole wheat bread is better.

tigersword

Neither one is good or bad. It depends on the overall diet. Too much oatmeal is bad, also.

Depending on dose, a slice of white bread with butter on it could be better than oatmeal.

In what situation would the white bread be better than the oatmeal? (the butter isn't really the issue since it could just as easily go on the oatmeal).

If the rest of your diet was lacking in thiamin or folic acid you would probably benefit from the white bread.
EDIT: I may be incorrect on thiamin.

Also, 1 slice of white bread vs 2 pounds of oatmeal. Dosage is really the most important part of anything. I just want someone to explain exactly why table sugar is "bad" in a reasonable dose. I also want someone to actually explain why an insulin spike is bad, considering insulin spikes are a normal part of human metabolism.

SOURCE: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/index.html#when-sugar-management
Diets rich in high-glycemic-index foods, which cause quick and strong increases in blood sugar levels, have been linked to an increased risk for diabetes, (5) heart disease, (6, 7) and overweight, (8, 9,10) and there is preliminary work linking high-glycemic diets to age-related macular degeneration, (11) ovulatory infertility, (12) and colorectal cancer. (13) Foods with a low glycemic index have been shown to help control type 2 diabetes and improve weight loss. Other studies, though, have found that the glycemic index has little effect on weight or health. This sort of flip-flop is part of the normal process of science, and it means that the true value of the glycemic index remains to be determined. In the meantime, eating whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables—all foods with a low glycemic index—is indisputably good for many aspects of health.

Correlation =/= causation. As was even stated there, there is no real evidence of health issues. And saying low glycemic foods are good for health is irrelevant. Saying one is known as healthy doesn't mean the other isn't.

But I suppose going out of your way to demonize a specific food type is much more logical than the concept that people can eat a mix of lower glycemic carbs and higher glycemic carbs and be perfectly healthy.:huh:

bcattoes

Neither one is good or bad. It depends on the overall diet. Too much oatmeal is bad, also.

Depending on dose, a slice of white bread with butter on it could be better than oatmeal.

In what situation would the white bread be better than the oatmeal? (the butter isn't really the issue since it could just as easily go on the oatmeal).

If the rest of your diet was lacking in thiamin or folic acid you would probably benefit from the white bread.
EDIT: I may be incorrect on thiamin.

Also, 1 slice of white bread vs 2 pounds of oatmeal. Dosage is really the most important part of anything. I just want someone to explain exactly why table sugar is "bad" in a reasonable dose. I also want someone to actually explain why an insulin spike is bad, considering insulin spikes are a normal part of human metabolism.

SOURCE: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/index.html#when-sugar-management
Diets rich in high-glycemic-index foods, which cause quick and strong increases in blood sugar levels, have been linked to an increased risk for diabetes, (5) heart disease, (6, 7) and overweight, (8, 9,10) and there is preliminary work linking high-glycemic diets to age-related macular degeneration, (11) ovulatory infertility, (12) and colorectal cancer. (13) Foods with a low glycemic index have been shown to help control type 2 diabetes and improve weight loss. Other studies, though, have found that the glycemic index has little effect on weight or health. This sort of flip-flop is part of the normal process of science, and it means that the true value of the glycemic index remains to be determined. In the meantime, eating whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables—all foods with a low glycemic index—is indisputably good for many aspects of health.

Correlation =/= causation. As was even stated there, there is no real evidence of health issues. And saying low glycemic foods are good for health is irrelevant. Saying one is known as healthy doesn't mean the other isn't.

But I suppose going out of your way to demonize a specific food type is much more logical than the concept that people can eat a mix of lower glycemic carbs and higher glycemic carbs and be perfectly healthy.:huh:

Because that's exactly what I said. Dam, where is that smiley with the rolling eyes?

tigersword

You are the one saying some carbs are good, some carbs are bad. Saying to eat one type of carb, and not another would be demonizing a type of food.

bcattoes

You are the one saying some carbs are good, some carbs are bad. Saying to eat one type of carb, and not another would be demonizing a type of food.

No, you are wrong. I never said to eat anything.

myfitnessnmhoy

What would you consider good carbs?

Just would like to know what others are putting in their body.

Any insight would be helpful!

An "ideal" carbohydrate is one that is:
- Complex, so it takes the body a long time to break down into sugars.
- Accompanied with something like fiber that further slows the absorption of the sugar.
- Accompanied with nutrients, and in particular things that are hard to get elsewhere as efficiently.

A "poor" carbohydrate is one that is:
- Very simple and breaks down very rapidly
- Has nothing in it to slow absorption
- Has no nutrients accompanying it.

There are few "ideal" carbohydrates, but there are a lot of decent ones. A decent carbohydrate is something like oatmeal or a piece of fruit such as an apple or banana. A very poor carbohydrate is something like table sugar. There's a whole lot of middle ground here, though.

I tend to prefer to put carbohydrate-y things like oatmeal, multi-grain breads and pastas, bananas, apples, oranges, carrots, peas, etc into my body, and in general less processing tends to win out over more processing in terms of desirability from a good-eating perspective.

I tend to try and minimize (note: not avoid - minimize - you can process anything in small doses without too much trouble) things like table sugar, maple syrup, honey, white breads, jams and jellies, candy, and sweets in general. I still enjoy them, but in small doses so I'm not overwhelming my body with simple sugars.

tigersword

You are the one saying some carbs are good, some carbs are bad. Saying to eat one type of carb, and not another would be demonizing a type of food.

No, you are wrong. I never said to eat anything.

Semantics. Calling one food good while calling another one bad, you did call oatmeal a good carb and table sugar a bad carb.

bcattoes

You are the one saying some carbs are good, some carbs are bad. Saying to eat one type of carb, and not another would be demonizing a type of food.

No, you are wrong. I never said to eat anything.

Semantics. Calling one food good while calling another one bad, you did call oatmeal a good carb and table sugar a bad carb.

No, not semantics. Defining good carbs and bad carbs is not the same as saying "eat this and not that".

Table sugar is a bad carb because it has no nutrients and no fiber. That doesn't mean you should never eat it or that it will definitley harm you if you do.

Oatmeal is a good carb because it contains nutrients, is a good source of fiber and has been shown to provide health benefits when eaten. That doesn't meant you should eat it, or that it will not harm you if you do.

What it does mean, is that in general one is more likely to gain health benefits from including oatmeal in one's diet than from including table sugar.

LesterBlackstone

Labeling any food as "good" or "bad" in isolation is completely nonsensical.

Carbs high in fiber are generally labelled as "good", but in the context of a UD2.0 type refeed, they are very, very bad.



http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-importance-of-context.html

LaJaunaF

There's no such thing as a "good carb," or a "bad carb." Food is not eaten in a vacuum.

So you don't think table sugar is a "bad carb"?

Not at all. It's 4 calories per gram, just like every other carb. Nothing is inherently good and bad. 3.5 grams of table sugar a day in a cup of coffee is not worse for you than 40 grams of carbs in brown rice. A diet is all in how it fits together, no one food can be generally labeled as good or bad, context and dosage make certain foods good or bad.

A teaspoon of sugar in coffee is one thing. A 2 liter bottle of soda in one sip is different. Dosage and context. That same example can be applied to any food, no matter how "good" or "bad" people may say it is. Brown rice is supposedly "healthy," would eating 10 pounds of brown rice a day still be healthy? Of course not. The overall picture matters way more than saying any one thing is just "good" or "bad."

This is incorrect. Carbs from different sources elicit different blood glucose reactions. The greater the blood glucose reaction, the more insulin that will be released, triggering the body to convert the glucose into fat. Basically, good carbs = less insulin, less fat, bad carbs = more insulin, more fat.

If you aren't eating at a surplus, it's not getting converted into fat.......

I think instead of thinking in terms of calorie load, think in terms of nutrient richness. Sugar had zero nutrients. Plants on the other hand are nutrient rich and therefore are "good for you" compared to empty, void, junky, sugary foods, which I am sure most of us will agree are "bad for you". We should be seeking to feed our bodies the best, nutrient rich foods we can find and enjoy.

tigersword

Sugar IS a nutrient. Your brain's personal favorite, I might add. Skeletal muscles tend to love it, as well.

tmauck4472

There's no such thing as a "good carb," or a "bad carb." Food is not eaten in a vacuum.

Bad Carbs='s pasta, white bread, white rice. To me those are the bad carbs.

Good Carbs='s Fruits, Veggies

JMO

LaJaunaF

Sugar IS a nutrient. Your brain's personal favorite, I might add. Skeletal muscles tend to love it, as well.

I watched a show about Weird Eating Habits....A woman was only eating candy 24/7 for years and years and years. Her family was concerned for her health and convinced her to go see her doctor who in turn sent her for tests for chemistry/ blood levels. She had the "appearance" of healthy from an external view. But her chemistry told a different story. All of her blood levels were so out of wack that the doctor was concerned about her having a stroke/heart attack soon. He convinced her to eat a more "balanced" diet, including meat, veggies, fruits and to eliminate sugar completely. She came back in 6 months and her blood panels had returned to almost normal. We cannot eat empty calories day in and day out and not have consequences. Just sayin'.

tigersword

Sugar IS a nutrient. Your brain's personal favorite, I might add. Skeletal muscles tend to love it, as well.

I watched a show about Weird Eating Habits....A woman was only eating candy 24/7 for years and years and years. Her family was concerned for her health and convinced her to go see her doctor who in turn sent her for tests for chemistry/ blood levels. She had the "appearance" of healthy from an external view. But her chemistry told a different story. All of her blood levels were so out of wack that the doctor was concerned about her having a stroke/heart attack soon. He convinced her to eat a more "balanced" diet, including meat, veggies, fruits and to eliminate sugar completely. She came back in 6 months and her blood panels had returned to almost normal. We cannot eat empty calories day in and day out and not have consequences. Just sayin'.

Yes, because sharing the fact that sugar is a nutrient for the brain means I'm advocating eating nothing but sugar 24/7. All carbs are sugar. Veggies and fruits all have sugar, so there was no way she eliminated sugar completely. I would say that eating a balanced diet had more to do with fixing her blood work and health, and NOT eating a balanced diet had everything to do with her poor health. The sugar was not directly responsible on its own, the lack of protein, healthy fats, vitamins and minerals were responsible. Your argument is a logical fallacy, as it completely ignores dosage and context.

LaJaunaF

Sugar IS a nutrient. Your brain's personal favorite, I might add. Skeletal muscles tend to love it, as well.

I watched a show about Weird Eating Habits....A woman was only eating candy 24/7 for years and years and years. Her family was concerned for her health and convinced her to go see her doctor who in turn sent her for tests for chemistry/ blood levels. She had the "appearance" of healthy from an external view. But her chemistry told a different story. All of her blood levels were so out of wack that the doctor was concerned about her having a stroke/heart attack soon. He convinced her to eat a more "balanced" diet, including meat, veggies, fruits and to eliminate sugar completely. She came back in 6 months and her blood panels had returned to almost normal. We cannot eat empty calories day in and day out and not have consequences. Just sayin'.

Yes, because sharing the fact that sugar is a nutrient for the brain means I'm advocating eating nothing but sugar 24/7. All carbs are sugar. Veggies and fruits all have sugar, so there was no way she eliminated sugar completely. I would say that eating a balanced diet had more to do with fixing her blood work and health, and NOT eating a balanced diet had everything to do with her poor health. The sugar was not directly responsible on its own, the lack of protein, healthy fats, vitamins and minerals were responsible. Your argument is a logical fallacy, as it completely ignores dosage and context.

You are right.