If low carb works, why are people still fat?
Options
Replies
-
Lol at the GI index mention. Tell me how relevant the GI index is to non diabetics
There is not enough science to prove it relevant or irrelevant at this point.
From the Harvard School of Public Health:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/#glycemic-indexDiets 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.
So you agree that saying something is worse than something else based on GI index rating is silly, right?
It would depend on the context. Some people like to play it safe when there some evidence that something can cause health problems but not enough evidence to be conclusive. Who am I to tell them that's silly?
Honestly I don't find it more or less silly than when people post a few links to studies on PubMed trying prove a point, when there are hundreds more studies on the same subject, many with conflicting results to those that they published.0 -
I was trying to follow the dietary advice from the Harvard School of Public Health and eating the good carbs. So the following:To what "healthy whole wheat" products do you refer? I haven't really been told to eat any whole wheat products specifically. I get most of my whole grains from brown rice, but I do sometimes eat wheat with no problem.
Adding Good Carbohydrates
For optimal health, get your grains intact from foods such as whole wheat bread, brown rice, whole grain pasta, and other possibly unfamiliar grains like quinoa, whole oats, and bulgur. Not only will these foods help protect you against a range of chronic diseases, they can also please your palate and your eyes.
Until recently, you could only get whole-grain products in organic or non-traditional stores. Today they are popping up in more and more mainstream grocery stores. Here are some suggestions for adding more good carbohydrates to your diet:
Try brown rice with a twist: Check out this recipe for Spicy Coconut Rice with Limes, courtesy of Harvard University Dining Services.
Start the day with whole grains. If you're partial to hot cereals, try steel-cut oats. If you're a cold cereal person, look for one that lists whole wheat, whole oats, or other whole grain first on the ingredient list.
Use whole grain breads for lunch or snacks. Check the label to make sure that whole wheat or another whole grain is the first ingredient listed.
Bag the potatoes. Instead, try brown rice or even "newer" grains like bulgur, wheat berries, millet, or hulled barley with your dinner.
Pick up some whole wheat pasta. If the whole grain products are too chewy for you, look for those that are made with half whole-wheat flour and half white flour.
Bring on the beans. Beans are an excellent source of slowly digested carbohydrates as well as a great source of protein.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/#adding-good-carbs0 -
Lol at the GI index mention. Tell me how relevant the GI index is to non diabetics
There is not enough science to prove it relevant or irrelevant at this point.
From the Harvard School of Public Health:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/#glycemic-indexDiets 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.
So you agree that saying something is worse than something else based on GI index rating is silly, right?
It would depend on the context. Some people like to play it safe when there some evidence that something can cause health problems but not enough evidence to be conclusive. Who am I to tell them that's silly?
Honestly I don't find it more or less silly than when people post a few links to studies on PubMed trying prove a point, when there are hundreds more studies on the same subject, many with conflicting results to those that they published.
Here's why it's silly, a Snickers has a lower GI rating than watermelon. If using GI, then the Snickers is the better choice. Also keep in mind GI is based on fasted subjects and foods in isocaloric amounts, simply by eating it with something else or not being fasted changes things.0 -
Don't you think if "eat less move more" actually worked, then no one would be fat?!?!?!0
-
Lol at the GI index mention. Tell me how relevant the GI index is to non diabetics
There is not enough science to prove it relevant or irrelevant at this point.
From the Harvard School of Public Health:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/#glycemic-indexDiets 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.
So you agree that saying something is worse than something else based on GI index rating is silly, right?
It would depend on the context. Some people like to play it safe when there some evidence that something can cause health problems but not enough evidence to be conclusive. Who am I to tell them that's silly?
Honestly I don't find it more or less silly than when people post a few links to studies on PubMed trying prove a point, when there are hundreds more studies on the same subject, many with conflicting results to those that they published.
Here's why it's silly, a Snickers has a lower GI rating than watermelon. If using GI, then the Snickers is the better choice. Also keep in mind GI is based on fasted subjects and foods in isocaloric amounts, simply by eating it with something else or not being fasted changes things.
But ... Snickers have peanuts and chocolate. I heard those were good for us.
Seriously though, I understand your point. But I don't think it makes GI useless, though I think GL (glycemic load) is a much better measure. Carrots have a high GI for goodness sake, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to eat enough carrots to go over on calories.
I think GI is a useful tool, but like most everything else it's wise to use common sense along with it.0 -
Don't you think if "eat less move more" actually worked, then no one would be fat?!?!?!
It's all about adherence, people don't seem to be very good at being consistent about it0 -
Lol at the GI index mention. Tell me how relevant the GI index is to non diabetics
There is not enough science to prove it relevant or irrelevant at this point.
From the Harvard School of Public Health:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/#glycemic-indexDiets 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.
So you agree that saying something is worse than something else based on GI index rating is silly, right?
It would depend on the context. Some people like to play it safe when there some evidence that something can cause health problems but not enough evidence to be conclusive. Who am I to tell them that's silly?
Honestly I don't find it more or less silly than when people post a few links to studies on PubMed trying prove a point, when there are hundreds more studies on the same subject, many with conflicting results to those that they published.
Here's why it's silly, a Snickers has a lower GI rating than watermelon. If using GI, then the Snickers is the better choice. Also keep in mind GI is based on fasted subjects and foods in isocaloric amounts, simply by eating it with something else or not being fasted changes things.
But ... Snickers have peanuts and chocolate. I heard those were good for us.
surely you jest, peanuts = legumes and choc has sugar and dairy and that stuff didn't exist in Paleo times ;P0 -
Don't you think if "eat less move more" actually worked, then no one would be fat?!?!?!
It's all about adherence, people don't seem to be very good at being consistent about it
Riiiiight. Those dumb slovenly lazy people who can't count calories and are too lazy to work out. Yes that's it. You solved the obesity crisis in one sentence!!! Voila!0 -
Lol at the GI index mention. Tell me how relevant the GI index is to non diabetics
There is not enough science to prove it relevant or irrelevant at this point.
From the Harvard School of Public Health:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/#glycemic-indexDiets 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.
So you agree that saying something is worse than something else based on GI index rating is silly, right?
It would depend on the context. Some people like to play it safe when there some evidence that something can cause health problems but not enough evidence to be conclusive. Who am I to tell them that's silly?
Honestly I don't find it more or less silly than when people post a few links to studies on PubMed trying prove a point, when there are hundreds more studies on the same subject, many with conflicting results to those that they published.
Here's why it's silly, a Snickers has a lower GI rating than watermelon. If using GI, then the Snickers is the better choice. Also keep in mind GI is based on fasted subjects and foods in isocaloric amounts, simply by eating it with something else or not being fasted changes things.
But ... Snickers have peanuts and chocolate. I heard those were good for us.
surely you jest, peanuts = legumes and choc has sugar and dairy and that stuff didn't exist in Paleo times ;P
Neither did I (despite what my grandchildren might think).0 -
I have a friend who went on a low carb diet and she lost almost 15 pounds but then she stopped. It's just sticking to it and most people now-a-days are too lazy to keep with a diet for an extended amount of time. (P.S not saying anything bad about my friend, I get lazy and go back and forth with this program myself.)0
-
Don't you think if "eat less move more" actually worked, then no one would be fat?!?!?!
It's all about adherence, people don't seem to be very good at being consistent about it
Riiiiight. Those dumb slovenly lazy people who can't count calories and are too lazy to work out. Yes that's it. You solved the obesity crisis in one sentence!!! Voila!
Oops my bad, forgot it's clearly the fault of a single macronutrient that keeps people from losing weight0 -
I have a friend who went on a low carb diet and she lost almost 15 pounds but then she stopped. It's just sticking to it and most people now-a-days are too lazy to keep with a diet for an extended amount of time. (P.S not saying anything bad about my friend, I get lazy and go back and forth with this program myself.)
I think this is biggest drawback to a low-carb diet. People tend not to stick with it. It's the same with very low calories, low fat and other diets that completely cut out large groups of food. If you are cutting the food purely for weight loss then once the weight is gone, the incentive to cut the food lessens and most people gradually go back to eating whatever they cut out and they gradually gain the weight back. This is likely because instead of finding a sensible diet that they were happy eating, they found a diet where they were happy with the fast results.0 -
As with any weight loss method, if it is merely a "diet" and not a lifestyle change a person will always fail.
That goes with low fat, low carb, calorie counting, etc...........
That's simply not true - my diet worked, and it has done previously
There are times in my life when I find myself 15-20lbs overweight; this might be because of injury, non-football season, or just circumstances where I can't exercise/eat as per normal
I then go on a strict, non-sustainable, horrible, hard work, diet, eating food that I really don't like and doing additional gym work that is too hard and also non-sustainable. Certainly not a lifestyle change!
Low and behold my diet works! 3 months later and I am back to my preferred weight. I am no longer on a diet and did not make a lifestyle change.
I will always fail? I think not. My diet worked.
Lol. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...looks like it. But, either way, that's hilarious. Lol.
Deadly serious - can you dispute anything I have said?
Yes, I can.0 -
Agreed. Glycemic load factors in portion size. Watermelon is a good example of correcting for portion size. On the opposite side of the equation is pastas, which measure as low on the GI index but high on glycemic load. Portion size is an important part of the equation.I think GL (glycemic load) is a much better measure.0 -
Riiiiight. Those dumb slovenly lazy people who can't count calories and are too lazy to work out. Yes that's it. You solved the obesity crisis in one sentence!!! Voila!
Your pointless sarcasm aside, the solution to obesity does fit in one sentence, actually just four words. Eat less, exercise more.0 -
Carbs are my friend! They give me energy in between meals. The difference is, now I go for high-fiber carbs and avoid empty calories.0
-
Don't you think if "eat less move more" actually worked, then no one would be fat?!?!?!
It's all about adherence, people don't seem to be very good at being consistent about it
Riiiiight. Those dumb slovenly lazy people who can't count calories and are too lazy to work out. Yes that's it. You solved the obesity crisis in one sentence!!! Voila!
I have no problem saying I got fat because I ate too much and didn't move enough. I could have counted calories, which I had no excuses not to do because the information is everywhere, but I didn't want to. I could have walked every day, but I didn't want to.
I'm not sure why so many low-carbers have trouble taking responsibility for themselves? Taubes made a mint telling people what they want to hear: it wasn't their fault, they didn't eat too much food, exercise is pointless... it's all the ebil, ebil food's fault.0 -
Riiiiight. Those dumb slovenly lazy people who can't count calories and are too lazy to work out. Yes that's it. You solved the obesity crisis in one sentence!!! Voila!
Your pointless sarcasm aside, the solution to obesity does fit in one sentence, actually just four words. Eat less, exercise more.
...Except for those of us who've busted our a**es following the "eat less, move more" (which has its own diminishing returns, btw), doing everything "right", and still saw neither the scale, nor the tape measure move.
What most people don't seem to realize is that while "eat less, move more" does work for the general population (particularly one that's used to sitting on their butts, eating Cheetos all day), there is a fair-sized portion for which that doesn't actually work for, even though those people are considered "healthy" by medical tests (good A1C, thyroid, etc results).I'm not sure why so many low-carbers have trouble taking responsibility for themselves? Taubes made a mint telling people what they want to hear: it wasn't their fault, they didn't eat too much food, exercise is pointless... it's all the ebil, ebil food's fault.
Perhaps because for a lot of people who have gone the low-carb route, "eat less, move more" didn't work. Carbs screw with your hormones by dumping glucose into your bloodstream, causing an insulin response (yes, even "healthy" carbs do this, not just sugar). Do that enough times, with enough insulin, over a long enough period of time, and you desensitize your muscles and burn out your pancreas (not unlike how alcoholics often burn out their livers). Even for those with adequate insulin sensitivity, other hormones can make people prone to gaining weight and not being able to lose it. This is a common symptom of PCOS, which elevates testosterone in women with it, making it nearly impossible for them to lose weight. There's also growing evidence that humans in general can't handle gluten very well (ie - that gluten intolerance isn't nearly as rare as once believed), and that a good portion of the population may actually have subclinical intolerance to it, which has often been linked to a host of non-descript problems (part of what makes it so difficult to diagnose), which can directly and indirectly lead to weight gain and/or difficulty losing weight.
So yes, for some of us, it is the "ebil, ebil food's" fault.0 -
Riiiiight. Those dumb slovenly lazy people who can't count calories and are too lazy to work out. Yes that's it. You solved the obesity crisis in one sentence!!! Voila!
Your pointless sarcasm aside, the solution to obesity does fit in one sentence, actually just four words. Eat less, exercise more.
...Except for those of us who've busted our a**es following the "eat less, move more" (which has its own diminishing returns, btw), doing everything "right", and still saw neither the scale, nor the tape measure move.
What most people don't seem to realize is that while "eat less, move more" does work for the general population (particularly one that's used to sitting on their butts, eating Cheetos all day), there is a fair-sized portion for which that doesn't actually work for, even though those people are considered "healthy" by medical tests (good A1C, thyroid, etc results).I'm not sure why so many low-carbers have trouble taking responsibility for themselves? Taubes made a mint telling people what they want to hear: it wasn't their fault, they didn't eat too much food, exercise is pointless... it's all the ebil, ebil food's fault.
Perhaps because for a lot of people who have gone the low-carb route, "eat less, move more" didn't work. Carbs screw with your hormones by dumping glucose into your bloodstream, causing an insulin response (yes, even "healthy" carbs do this, not just sugar). Do that enough times, with enough insulin, over a long enough period of time, and you desensitize your muscles and burn out your pancreas (not unlike how alcoholics often burn out their livers). Even for those with adequate insulin sensitivity, other hormones can make people prone to gaining weight and not being able to lose it. This is a common symptom of PCOS, which elevates testosterone in women with it, making it nearly impossible for them to lose weight. There's also growing evidence that humans in general can't handle gluten very well (ie - that gluten intolerance isn't nearly as rare as once believed), and that a good portion of the population may actually have subclinical intolerance to it, which has often been linked to a host of non-descript problems (part of what makes it so difficult to diagnose), which can directly and indirectly lead to weight gain and/or difficulty losing weight.
So yes, for some of us, it is the "ebil, ebil food's" fault.
Hilarious.0 -
There's also growing evidence that humans in general can't handle gluten very well (ie - that gluten intolerance isn't nearly as rare as once believed), and that a good portion of the population may actually have subclinical intolerance to it, which has often been linked to a host of non-descript problems (part of what makes it so difficult to diagnose), which can directly and indirectly lead to weight gain and/or difficulty losing weight.
Where is this growing evidence??
I'm not at all sure that's true, but even if it were, not all grains contain gluten so it would not be a reason to cut out grains completely.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions