So, are carbs evil or not?

volume77

jhjgkhhk

MyChocolateDiet

Both ways have worked for me. Limiting carbs. Also simply counting cals. The end.

SheriKCourtney

bump

blu_meanie_ca

Unfortunately, Ed, individuals vary greatly. There is a distinct difference between men and women. What works for normal or even obese males, will not necessarily work for obese females--especially females "past their primes" (which, by nature's standards is past 35 and the child-bearing years). There is NOT just a one-size-fits all solution---that is much too simplistic.

What's the difference, exactly? All the women, even those "past their primes", who follow the recommended training methods involving lifting weights and calorie deficit show extraordinary progress.

I can't eat as many calories as a man who is about the same size.

Besides that, nothing. Although, I'm only 30 so I still have five years until I'm "past my prime." Always nice of people to tell others when they are over the hill, isn't it?

Hee Hee
When I was pregant with my second I had to get an assement at the hospital due to being high risk. The biggest reason I was high risk -"advanced maternal age". I was 32 .

kdeaux1959

To lose weight, it is pretty much that a calorie is a calorie EXCEPT that it does take a little more energy to break down PROTEIN than other molecules so by eating more protein, one may have a marginally higher metabolic rate. However, to eat healthy, it is better to reduce intake of PROCESSED carbs such as chips, sugars and such.... For me, I watch my caloric intake, push the protein to help rebuild muscle and exercise. I have cut out a lot of candies, chips, etc. and have tried to focus a bit more on healthier food groups but I do still like some sweets.

mmapags

Unfortunately, Ed, individuals vary greatly.

^^This is just plain untrue. Within a fairly narrow range of exception, most human biology is pretty much the same. In the instant of this poster, I beleive the backstory involves years of habitial overeating of mainly sugary carbs. That is an exception.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html

mmapags

Trying to stop confusion actually. Caloric deficit IS all that is needed. The science and math is there.

But determining what is a calorie deficit for any individual has many parameters and is not easy to determine. My macros are set for one pound a week and I faithfully follow my plan to a "t" . I also exercise what I have determined is a safe level for me and I faithfully record that. Yet, I only lose about a half-pound per week. I can tell you that if I ate half of my calories in "empty calories" (and sugar is, by anyone's measure, empty calories) I would not only stop losing weight altogether but I would also become ill. You can't slap your maxims on everyone and expect not to do real harm to people who don't know any better.

So, instead everyone should take your anecdotal experience and apply it as a universal maxim?

Not at all. I am the exception to your maxims as are many, many others---especially women.

Ok, so there are some exceptions. No one is confused about that. And as much as I'd like to take credit for being the author of the energy balance equation, as well as the theories for properly setting macronutrients, they are not "my" maxins. As the saying goes "it's science Yo!".

So is it "science" that Zucker rats become very, very fat because of their genetic inability to manufacture leptin (when given leptin injections, they return to a normal weight). Many, many obese individuals often have the ability to manufacture leptin but have apparently become resistant to its effects.

And that makes them a possible exception. Not the norm.

mmapags

That is a favorite chef's trick. When they get too much salt in a dish (in this case it was deliberate) they put in several tablespoons of sugar so that the customer won't think it too salty.

As a professional chef, I can catagorically say this is just plain made up nonsense!! lol Recipes are formulated based on the flavor profile. Nobody is willy nilly going around putting sugar into things so the customer won't think it's too salty!! That's absurd!!

If a recipe is too salty, you reduce the salt. Boom! Logic! Mind Blow!!

You seem to have a habit of making things up.

msleanlegs

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html

This was a good read; thanks!

msleanlegs

I used to think carbs were bad. I tried so many times to follow low carb and semi-low carbs diets and couldn't make it work in the long run. Been eating well over 200 grams of carbs a day for the past 5 weeks and this feels right. Doesn't feel like I'm dieting, yet the weight is still coming off and my body is toning up. I don't think carbs are bad anymore (at least the wholesome ones ).

mmapags

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html

This was a good read; thanks!

Quite welcome! His website is a wealth of info. Worth bookmarking.

tigersword

Trying to stop confusion actually. Caloric deficit IS all that is needed. The science and math is there.

But determining what is a calorie deficit for any individual has many parameters and is not easy to determine. My macros are set for one pound a week and I faithfully follow my plan to a "t" . I also exercise what I have determined is a safe level for me and I faithfully record that. Yet, I only lose about a half-pound per week. I can tell you that if I ate half of my calories in "empty calories" (and sugar is, by anyone's measure, empty calories) I would not only stop losing weight altogether but I would also become ill. You can't slap your maxims on everyone and expect not to do real harm to people who don't know any better.

So, instead everyone should take your anecdotal experience and apply it as a universal maxim?

Not at all. I am the exception to your maxims as are many, many others---especially women.

Ok, so there are some exceptions. No one is confused about that. And as much as I'd like to take credit for being the author of the energy balance equation, as well as the theories for properly setting macronutrients, they are not "my" maxins. As the saying goes "it's science Yo!".

So is it "science" that Zucker rats become very, very fat because of their genetic inability to manufacture leptin (when given leptin injections, they return to a normal weight). Many, many obese individuals often have the ability to manufacture leptin but have apparently become resistant to its effects.

Yes it is "science," as those rats have been specifically genetically engineered to behave that way. Also, leptin in rats behaves much differently than leptin in humans, and the current theory on leptin resistance is that it is an adaptation to obesity, as newer researchers are theorizing that leptin isn't actually a satiety signal (as insulin already has that job covered,) but more of an anti-starvation signal. This is why people with low levels of leptin gain weight, and is a major contributor to dieters regaining weight. Leptin levels are at a baseline. When someone gains weight, leptin levels rise. When they lose weight, leptin levels fall. When leptin levels fall, metabolism slows. When metabolism slows, the body fights back by wanting to add more weight on, out of fear of starvation.

ExRelaySprinter

I couldn't function without Carbs! Lol
I really don't know how some people survive on just protein (?)
I need to have Pasta, Rice, Bread or Potatoes with every "main" meal or it would feel like i haven't eaten enough and i 'd just feel weak and hungry very soon after.
As long as you stick to eating healthier Carbs (i.e Brown Bread, Wholewheat Pasta etc) you should be fine!

Matt_Wild

Nothing wrong with carbs at all.

I just had 160g of popcorn as I diet as I've got 4000 calories to play around with any a friend brought them back from the cinema who is on a diet too.

If it it falls within your macros, there is no problem.

There is NO such thing as a bad food really.

CoachReddy

Nothing wrong with carbs at all.

I just had 160g of popcorn as I diet as I've got 4000 calories to play around with any a friend brought them back from the cinema who is on a diet too.

If it it falls within your macros, there is no problem.

There is NO such thing as a bad food really.

not from a moral perspective no, but there are less nutritional and more nutritional foods, thus bad/good - i don't know why people love playing semantics with this so much. bad and good are just easier to type than the above.

Matt_Wild

not from a moral perspective no, but there are less nutritional and more nutritional foods, thus bad/good - i don't know why people love playing semantics with this so much. bad and good are just easier to type than the above.

Tell me what is wrong with a food if it fits into your daily macros?

Please go on tell me the horror of choosing a bar made out of sugar than a potato?

Tell me how this will effect the overall body composition. I'll give you a clue, it won't.

Sure, if you HAVE to have lower calories, you choose a lense dense food which may mean a basic sweet potato, but tell me how that carb is any better or worse than a pop tart if you have room in your calories?

sunman00

although titled 'protein' this is a great article about intake of all macros & is simple to understand;

it has a big section on carbs but explains the carb/fat/protein relationship very well

http://www.acaloriecounter.com/diet/how-much-protein-per-day/

ahamm002

Tell me what is wrong with a food if it fits into your daily macros?

Please go on tell me the horror of choosing a bar made out of sugar than a potato?

Tell me how this will effect the overall body composition. I'll give you a clue, it won't.

Sure, if you HAVE to have lower calories, you choose a lense dense food which may mean a basic sweet potato, but tell me how that carb is any better or worse than a pop tart if you have room in your calories?

Two main things:

1. Some people aren't iceman with their diets. Foods like pop-tarts are easy for us slackers to abuse.

2. While you're 100% correct that body composition won't suffer, what about other heath issues? Pop tarts don't have anywhere near the fiber or micro-nutrient profile that a sweet potatoe does. So if you max out your carbs with junk food, you're likely going to be deficient in at least fiber, and possibly other stuff like magnesium, anti-oxidants, etc.

Of course some junk food won't matter at all if it fits your macros and you're still eating plenty of veggies, but a lot of people definitely do not eat enough veggies.

jonnythan

Nothing wrong with carbs at all.

I just had 160g of popcorn as I diet as I've got 4000 calories to play around with any a friend brought them back from the cinema who is on a diet too.

If it it falls within your macros, there is no problem.

There is NO such thing as a bad food really.

not from a moral perspective no, but there are less nutritional and more nutritional foods, thus bad/good - i don't know why people love playing semantics with this so much. bad and good are just easier to type than the above.

The problem with "good/bad" is that they're meaningless terms. The only bad foods are the ones you can't fit into your daily goals. Foods that do fit into your daily goals are good.

There's no such thing as an inherently bad food. And there's certainly no such thing as an inherently bad nutrient.