People, get to know your CARBS!
Replies
-
Why is everyone getting so angry?
That's a very confusing question. I don't think anyone is angry. I can only speak for myself but I'm far from angry.0 -
OK here are a few that I found, not all directly relate, but most had at least some relevance to the topic of carbs.
http://tinyurl.com/38drbrv
http://tinyurl.com/28x6bm7
Small sample size on this one, but still a cool study.
http://tinyurl.com/2wv4uvm
really liked this one.
http://tinyurl.com/249khfl
this one points towards different people having different results with different diet types.
http://tinyurl.com/cbcz9o
and one more
Thanks for taking the time to dig up what you were looking at. I have read each of those. Here are a few others worthy of checking out:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/short/ajcn.2008.27326v1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15632335 - i don't have this full paper on this computer. I believe I do on my home server which I'll check if you haven't seen it
http://www.annals.org/content/140/10/778.full.pdf+html
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/21/2082
Do you have access to pubmed? That's typically what I have to bug my buddies for... when there's a paper on there I need.
used to, I don't any more. good resource, but expensive.0 -
I see a lot of people unclear about what types of food they can or can't eat because of the carb content. I don't think a lot of people really have a grasp of how one's body processes carbohydrates so I aim to clarify. Read on if you want to be an educated fat-eradicator!
Carbohydrates are the first of the two "energy" nutrients. Each gram of carbs provide 4 calories. The main function of carbs in the body is to provide a quick source of fuel for physical and mental work. It can be stored in any of the three main storage units of the body: in the muscle and liver as glycogen but also as body fat.
Carbs are the body's preferred energy source under most circumstances, so if sufficient amounts of carbs are present in the diet, it's hard to "force" the body to use fat for fuel. In other words, if you eat a lot of carbs, your blubber will likely stay right where it is.
Carbs also cause the greatest insulin spike of all three main macronutrients (protein, carbs, fat). In fact, the elevation of blood sugar levels (carbs are sugar) is the main stimulus for insulin release. This is both a pro and a con: insulin can help drive protein and carbs into the muscle (a Good Thing) but it can also stimulate fat storage (a Bad Thing). Furthermore, as long as insulin levels are elevated, it's next to impossible under normal circumstances to stimulate the release of fatty acids from the fat stores. This means that as long as insulin levels are high, fat loss is almost impossible. Remember also that when insulin levels are elevated it puts your body into "storage" mode.
So under certain circumstances elevated insulin is a good thing (when you need to shuttle in nutrients to your muscles ASAP) but most of the time it's not. The only two times you should have a lot of carbs (and thus spike insulin) are at breakfast, and right after a workout.
After you wake up, the breakfast insulin spike will help halt the catabolic (muscle wasting) state brought on by eight or more hours of fasting ("breakfast," of course, means "breaking the fast"). After a workout, the insulin spike will rapidly deliver the nutrients to the muscle. This will initiate the recovery and building process immediately, while countering the actions of cortisol. Keep in mind, however, that the amount of carbs you should have at these times will vary greatly depending on your goal and degree of leanness.
Any other time is not a good time to consume a significant amount of carbs, as the insulin elevation will have a negative impact on body composition. Your insulin level remains elevated for up to 4 or 5 hours after a carb-rich meal, which can bring fat loss to a standstill for this period of time. In other words, a high sugar meal will not only directly add fat to your body, it will also prevent fat use effectively, turning you into a fat storing machine.
Although carbs are your body's preferred fuel source, carbohydrates aren't essential the way many amino acids and fatty acids are essential. This means that you could function properly even on a diet of zero carbs: the body would adapt to other fuel sources and you'd do just fine.
Carbohydrates come in many varieties. Without going into too much detail, every carbohydrate from pure sugar to whole wheat is turned into glucose in the body. The main difference is the speed at which it's turned into glucose. The faster it turns into glucose, the greater the insulin spike will be (because more glucose will enter the blood stream at once). The speed at which a carbohydrate (or any food, for that matter) elevates blood sugar is measured by the glycemic index (GI). Every food is given a specific GI number, and the higher the number is, the faster it elevates blood sugar levels. While not always perfectly accurate, it does give us a clue as to how much a food will affect insulin production.
Items such as whole-grain products have a much lower GI than their refined-flour cousins. This means that the body can effectively manage the insulin response and you won't suffer fat-storage for it. The ugly cousins (white bread, candy, etc.) will provide a rapid insulin spike which will result in that spare tire around your midsection getting bigger.
But no need to be super scientific about it. If your goal is body composition in general, the following rule applies:
Must-have carb sources: green veggies (broccoli, cucumbers, lettuce, spinach, celery, asparagus, etc.)
Can-have carb sources: other veggies (except potatoes), berries (blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, blackberries, etc.)
Occasional carb sources: Other fruits
Rare carb sources: brown rice, whole wheat bread, whole wheat pasta, cream of wheat, potatoes, yams
Should-avoid carb sources: white bread, white pasta, oatmeal
Must-avoid carb source: pastries, cookies, candy and any other junk sugary food
Sometimes page 3 loses the original posting. :flowerforyou:0 -
Any suggestions for those of us who like oatmeal in the morning with dried cranberries and raisins? I looked and found the carb level to be so high for oatmeal! Good grief...I thought it was good for you?0
-
Any suggestions for those of us who like oatmeal in the morning with dried cranberries and raisins? I looked and found the carb level to be so high for oatmeal! Good grief...I thought it was good for you?
Did you read this entire thread? If so, you missed the part where carbs aren't evil.0 -
Any suggestions for those of us who like oatmeal in the morning with dried cranberries and raisins? I looked and found the carb level to be so high for oatmeal! Good grief...I thought it was good for you?
Did you read this entire thread? If so, you missed the part where carbs aren't evil.
From what I read since you started this thread yesterday..........and what I am gleening from your post.......the idea is to have better quality carbs, right?
Steel cut oatmeal
blueberries
some sort of protien like egg whites
it is the combo, the quality and to have the higher carb stuff early, and the lower carb stuff as the day moves on.
At least this is what I have read thus far.
So thanks for posting. I will be changing things up and getting back into a better eating regime0 -
Sorry for the confusion. I didn't start this thread. I actually intervened because I didn't agree with what was originally said.0
-
Thanks, gonna take a look!
For those who are interested, I wrote an article about the meal frequency myth that you can find here in my MFP blog:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/stroutman81/view/meal-frequency-28437
0 -
Sorry for the confusion. I didn't start this thread. I actually intervened because I didn't agree with what was originally said.
Ok, now I am really super confused!! :laugh: Ask Banks........doesn't take much for me!!0 -
:glasses:Sorry for the confusion. I didn't start this thread. I actually intervened because I didn't agree with what was originally said.
Ok, now I am really super confused!! :laugh: Ask Banks........doesn't take much for me!!0 -
Yea, hunger is a very individual thing. Some people fast all day long only to eat all their calories during the PM hours around their training as this is what gives them the best results in terms of body composition and satiety. Check out all the buzz around intermittent fasting. There's some solid stuff there. Certainly not for everyone. But ideal for others.
On the other hand you have the folks that control hunger best by eating many small meals throughout the day. I'm actually in this camp. I eat 5-6 meals per day.
For those who are interested, I wrote an article about the meal frequency myth that you can find here in my MFP blog:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/stroutman81/view/meal-frequency-28437
Just read it, love the blog. Thanks for sharing all the information, it helps a lot.
I find frequent smaller meals seem to work best for me, but now I won't feel too bad if that doesn't work out on some days. Sometimes I get too busy to eat that often.0 -
I'm sorry but I think that's a load of rubbish and it is dangerous to make people scared of carbs. Carbs are essential for energy and as long as you burn more calories a day than you eat you should lose weight. Low carb diets can actually be bad for you.0
-
What's funny is this myth almost certainly accompanies the myth of eating many small meals per day to "stoke the metabolic fire" which is utterly ridiculous. Think of it like this: Do you think cavemen ate many small meals throughout the day? Or one giant feast when they happened to kill a saber tooth or deer? Hint: It's most probably the latter.
Hey! I'm just wading into this pool. First, I really don't know the research behind most of this stuff, at least not insofar as actual journal publications of clinical studies and I don't have really have a dog in this fight. This is just honest curiosity here, not trying to stroke an ego, my own or anyone else's. :happy:
That said, I just was wondering what comparisons to caveman ancestors can really tell us? Yeah, they probably just ate when food was available and their bodies were great at using that large, single shot of energy. But wasn't it great at storing that energy in reserve as fat so that the body could make it to the next feast? And isn't that fat storage exactly what we are trying to avoid?
Personally speaking, I don't buy the idea that eating every 2-3 hours is "stoking" the metabolism and I'm sure that I could probably survive on the same number of calories given in just 1 meal a day or even 1 meal every couple of days. I just know that I seem to feel hungry 2-3 hours after a meal no matter WHAT size it was, regardless of how much clean protein and fibrous carbohydrates it contains. So, I have to spread my calories out throughout the day. Not because I think it helps me lose fat, but rather that it keeps me from wanting to gnaw my hand off.
Sorry if this takes the discussion astray. It is an interesting topic to me.
Finally, I have access to all kinds of medical journals, if you need me to try to get an article for you. :happy:
I was thinking the same thing. Many small meals makes me feel as though I am never "starving" and helps me keep my portions under control. I don't know if it does any specific thing for my metabolism, but it prevents overeating by never allowing me to get to the ravenous level of hunger. Does it need any greater endorsement than that?
And another question I always wonder...why are we always so worried about how the cavemen did it? Who says cavemen were the pinnacle of health? :huh: :noway:0 -
I was thinking the same thing. Many small meals makes me feel as though I am never "starving" and helps me keep my portions under control. I don't know if it does any specific thing for my metabolism, but it prevents overeating by never allowing me to get to the ravenous level of hunger. Does it need any greater endorsement than that?
More endorsement for people like you? Of course not. But the point it - it's not something that needs universal endorsement. Put differently, it is not The Way to eat for fat loss. It's simply A way. Did you read my response to your quoted post as well as the article I linked in it?And another question I always wonder...why are we always so worried about how the cavemen did it? Who says cavemen were the pinnacle of health? :huh: :noway:
Yea, you're missing the point I was making. No biggy though. Win some you lose some. I never claimed they were healthy. I merely claimed that if the protein limit per feeding was real, based on the dietary patterns of our early ancestors, we would've been lacking in protein to a point where we most likely wouldn't have survived as a species. Nothing more. I try and word things so people won't read into them... but I suppose I dropped the ball on this one.0 -
Isn't the quote "different strokes, for different folks"?? Personally I find that eating 5-7 times a day keeps me from overeating, helps keep my portions in control and keeps my energy going throughout the day. Also I go for the low carb approach...no bread, pasta, chocolate etc. Lots of protein and fiber...but I still eat other stuff. However, I'm just one of many, it works for me and makes me feel awesome! :drinker:0
-
Smart woman.
Yea, hunger is a very individual thing. Some people fast all day long only to eat all their calories during the PM hours around their training as this is what gives them the best results in terms of body composition and satiety. Check out all the buzz around intermittent fasting. There's some solid stuff there. Certainly not for everyone. But ideal for others.
On the other hand you have the folks that control hunger best by eating many small meals throughout the day. I'm actually in this camp. I eat 5-6 meals per day.
For those who are interested, I wrote an article about the meal frequency myth that you can find here in my MFP blog:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/stroutman81/view/meal-frequency-28437Finally, I have access to all kinds of medical journals, if you need me to try to get an article for you. :happy:
Oh nice! I can always use another resource. I'm pretty well covered but don't be surprised if I hit you up eventually. I really appreciate the offer... thanks!
I am in the Intermittent Fasting Camp. I am still reading and researching it and I am only going a few hours so far, but I think it is a work up to process..............I do better with skipping the evening meal if I am going to IF.0 -
Yea, you're missing the point I was making. No biggy though. Win some you lose some. I never claimed they were healthy. I merely claimed that if the protein limit per feeding was real, based on the dietary patterns of our early ancestors, we would've been lacking in protein to a point where we most likely wouldn't have survived as a species. Nothing more. I try and word things so people won't read into them... but I suppose I dropped the ball on this one.
I agree with almost everything you have said here and elsewhere but this is a stretch. Cavemen were several generations away from today's homo sapiens and even cavemen didn't have to eat all their kill instantly but could save some for later. It is not incongruous to have cavemen survive and today's humans to have, let's say a diminishing return on the ability to absorb protein in large quantities (i.e. pee away the excess). I'm not saying we do or we don't have a limit, it is just that argument doesn't have scientific merit.0 -
I hate that this is an issue b/c it's the least important thing I've said in this thread. I said it in passing almost jokingly. That said, are you suggesting you believe cavemen at something like 3-4 ounces of meat per sitting? Something like a serving the size of a deck of cards? Because that's the serving size that yields 20-30 or so grams of protein, which is roughly the supposed upper limit.
But again, this is pretty much moot. If you're interested in sources for the available research on the topic that solidifies my argument... drop me an email and I'll pass them along.0 -
Ha ha Cavemen! I love how much a post can transform after 4 pages! :laugh:
Nice posts stroutman, some of them were kinda long, but still worth reading. I do think that you might be too hard on the OP's post though. He's not 100% wrong, just not painting the entire picture and focusing on the GI w/o emphasizing that no matter what you eat you will lose weight as long as you go below maintenance calorie-wise. But if you look at the populace and the obsesity epidemic, it's more than likely that most people's obesity has derived from excess caloric intake with a largely carbohydrate diet - too much bread, too many french fries, white rice, potatoes, etc, and the OP is right in stating that there's no necessity for the body to consume carbs as they don't contain the essential fatty acids, nor amino acids that our bodies need to sustain themselves.
That said, you and many others are still right in that eating carbs, all these types of carbs with high GI or not will not fatten you up as long as you don't go over maintenance. And you're right in that there's allot of religion and dogma in the nutrition industry that is partially correct at best and utter nonsense at worse and we (human beings) are always attempting to show off by making claims before there's ever enough evidence to back those claims.
I think the thing we all forget or don't really realize is how plastic the body is. I don't mean we are made of plastic, but that our body is constantly adjusting, constantly adapting, our internal mechanisms are always evolving and shifting. Always seeking equilibrium and making due with what it has. So on your example of using cavemen to prove that the body can absorb more than 30g protein / day I think you need to consider that the caveman's body had to absorb more than 30g / day because it needed to. And if it didn't need to, it wouldn't have. What that might mean is today, our bodies (mine or yours) might not "feel" (obviously feel isn't the right word for it, but the body is a "smart" adaptive mechanism, it makes decisions based on what it's given), the body might not "feel" the need to absorb more than 30 g per meal because it's getting enough throughout the day overall to only take what it thinks it needs at the moment. However, if you or I started to live more like cavemen, eventually our bodies would adapt, "get the idea" so to speak and gradually ramp up it's protein absorption per meal.
It's this flexibility and adaptability of the body that ultimately allows two different people the ability to digest and absorb the exact same meal with the exact same nutrients differently depending on how their bodies have adjusted to their unique pasts and unique lifestyles... and yeah of course genetics will play some role in there.
I'll leave you with a final image, that of that guy who did that entertainment documentary called "Supersize me," who ate McDonalds for every meal. Remember how initially his cholesterol level was very high after a few weeks and the Dr. was like, "you've got to stop this diet or you'll die in a month," but by the end of the month, things slowed down, levels went closer to normal, the body adapted to the diet, it was a crappy diet don't get me wrong, but the body figured it out and changed to ensure he could survive a bit longer on it - that's what's so amazing about our bodies and it underscores why it's so difficult to get the one perfect explanation of everything, b/c our bodies are so adaptive.
I'm just throwing this out there not as anything contrary to what's been said, but just b/c I see it (the plasticity of the body) as an important factor that's missing from the overall discussion.0 -
Too hard? I suppose I can see where you might think that. It wasn't my intent in the least, however, so if that's how my message was portrayed or construed, my apologies to the OP. I think it's important to note that I didn't speak about him, personally. I was more attacking the data being presented and would do so if it were coming from him, you, some book, an automated computer, etc.... no matter.
Misinformation is passed around in nearly every thread on every fat loss forum and I typically let it slide. I speak up when someone speaks authoritatively on a subject because that's when "the masses" are likely to listen up... as witnessed in this thread. If you're putting yourself out there as an authority, you need to be prepared to defend your stance and you need to approach things with an objective mind. You also need to avoid absolutist/alarmist statements. It rubs me the wrong way when there's a total lack attention to integrity of information.
The idea that highly processed, addictive sugars are more than likely a huge contributor to obesity can be pitched without presenting it in a shell of misinformation pertaining to fat metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism and thermodynamics. But that's that whole integrity of information thing and it clearly defines how correlation does not equal causation.
With regards to your comments pertaining to cavemen (and boy am I regretting using that rudimentary example).... I think you're underestimating the scale of biological evolution. Just as the human race is still battling the "biological hardwiring" that triggers the starvation response due to the feeding patterns and survival needs of early man (our bodies are very good at slowing metabolism down in the face of hypocaloric eating and not so great at speeding it up in the face of hypercaloric eating)... protein metabolism is likely very similar nowadays compared to then.
Evolutionarily based change takes an enormous amount of time.
That the dude in Supersize Me impacted his health and blood profile so drastically and quickly doesn't change the fact that the biochemistry of man is quite uniform. Sure, there's always going to be statistical outliers... but hopefully you get my point.
The variability of protein needs is more than likely based on not genetic individualities (though they no doubt influence it) but rather lifestyle habits, lean body mass, age, exercise mode/intensity/volume, etc.
I do appreciate your commentary. Thanks for sharing it.0 -
I should add that of course there's variations in how well certain folks will handle, say, carbs due to genetics. Something like insulin resistance *can* be influenced by genetics. Off the top of my head, I can't think of something genetic outside of diseased states that would impact protein metabolism... but that doesn't mean something doesn't exist. I simply haven't looked into it extensively.
Quite possibly the strongest indicator that the upper limit of protein digestion per feeding is much higher than the often passed around 20-30 grams is the work done on intermittent fasting.
There are a couple of papers floating around showing pretty significant protein loading in brief periods of time. Stuff like this:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/4/981?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Stote+KS,+et+al.+A+controlled+trial+of+reduced+meal+frequency+without+caloric+restriction+in+healthy,+normal-weight,+middle-aged+adults.+Am+J+Clin+Nutr.+2007+Apr;85(4):981-8&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Anyhow, this has been quite the thread. From carbophobia, to the state of the industry, to protein metabolism, to cavemen. Gotta love the net!0 -
I read the south beach diet book and it relies on this GI system... Tells you not to eat bananas... Or apples and other fruits... Yet we are told to eat 5 servings a day....
Im confused.0 -
I read the south beach diet book and it relies on this GI system... Tells you not to eat bananas... Or apples and other fruits... Yet we are told to eat 5 servings a day....
Im confused.
Apples are included in the South Beach Plan, in Phase 2 they are reintroduced. It is the very first entry on the Foods list. They don't say eat 5 servings of fruit a day, those servings should always be based first and foremost on Veggies.
Fruits should sort of be treated as a dessert or treat, not something to have multiple, multiple servings of every day.Foods Allowed in Phase 2 (Foods you can reintroduce to your diet)
FRUITS
Apples
Apricots-dried fresh
Blueberries
Cantaloupe
Cherries
Grapefruit
Grapes
Kiwi
Mangoes
Oranges
Peaches
Pears
Plums
Strawberries
DAIRY
Milk-light soy, fat-free or 1%
Yogurt-light, fruit-flavored, plain, low-fat or fat-free
STARCHES (use sparingly)
Bagels, small, whole grain
Bread-multigrain, oat and bran, rye, whole wheat
Cereal-Fiber One, Kellogg's Extra-Fiber All Bran, oatmeal (not instant), other high-fiber, Uncle Sam
Muffins, bran-sugar-free (no raisins)
Pasta, whole wheat
Peas, green
Pita-stone-ground, whole wheat
Popcorn
Potato, small, sweet
Rice-brown, wild
VEGETABLES AND LEGUMES
Barley
Beans, pinto
Black-eyed peas
MISCELLANEOUS
Chocolate (sparingly)-bittersweet, semisweet
Pudding, fat-free/sugar-free
Wine, red0 -
I read the south beach diet book and it relies on this GI system... Tells you not to eat bananas... Or apples and other fruits... Yet we are told to eat 5 servings a day....
Im confused.
I think the 5 a day message is confusing! but I guess they were thinking they would rather get people eating more fruit and veg and trying to change their lifestyles than worry about the calories they might contribute. Also, to be fair if you are replacing other food you eat with fruit, there are very few snack foods that would be lower calorie than a piece of fruit (especially if you compared it per gram of food). In the UK it is also '5 a day'. I personally like the Australian recommendations where we say 'go for 2 and 5' 2 fruit and 5 veg.0 -
I read the south beach diet book and it relies on this GI system... Tells you not to eat bananas... Or apples and other fruits... Yet we are told to eat 5 servings a day....
Im confused.
I think the 5 a day message is confusing! but I guess they were thinking they would rather get people eating more fruit and veg and trying to change their lifestyles than worry about the calories they might contribute. Also, to be fair if you are replacing other food you eat with fruit, there are very few snack foods that would be lower calorie than a piece of fruit (especially if you compared it per gram of food). In the UK it is also '5 a day'. I personally like the Australian recommendations where we say 'go for 2 and 5' 2 fruit and 5 veg.
From what I hear, most of the world governments can take some notes from Australia's government. Seems like when it comes to nutrition and such, they spell it out for people and that is great.0 -
I read the south beach diet book and it relies on this GI system... Tells you not to eat bananas... Or apples and other fruits... Yet we are told to eat 5 servings a day....
Im confused.
I think the 5 a day message is confusing! but I guess they were thinking they would rather get people eating more fruit and veg and trying to change their lifestyles than worry about the calories they might contribute. Also, to be fair if you are replacing other food you eat with fruit, there are very few snack foods that would be lower calorie than a piece of fruit (especially if you compared it per gram of food). In the UK it is also '5 a day'. I personally like the Australian recommendations where we say 'go for 2 and 5' 2 fruit and 5 veg.
From what I hear, most of the world governments can take some notes from Australia's government. Seems like when it comes to nutrition and such, they spell it out for people and that is great.
I was just thinking...........a serving is not an entire apple or orange, either. I had no idea how much a serving of anything was before I had gestational diabetes. nothing like the threat of a sick baby to make you aware of your foods (didnt stop me from gaining 40 more pounds after she was born though!)
Anyway, point is a small apple can be 2 servings.......3-4 oz of fresh juice is a serving........not the 12 oz cup they give you in a restaraunt.
I am trying to think more clean............and eat fresher. Hard, because a box of potatoes is so much easier than cleaning, cutting, cooking a idaho......but I am getting back intot he groove.
LOTS of good give and take on this thread. Thanks for all the research and info. I will take from it what I need, and leave the rest!! :flowerforyou:
and Cora........LOVE the Av dear0 -
I read the south beach diet book and it relies on this GI system... Tells you not to eat bananas... Or apples and other fruits... Yet we are told to eat 5 servings a day....
Im confused.
I think the 5 a day message is confusing! but I guess they were thinking they would rather get people eating more fruit and veg and trying to change their lifestyles than worry about the calories they might contribute. Also, to be fair if you are replacing other food you eat with fruit, there are very few snack foods that would be lower calorie than a piece of fruit (especially if you compared it per gram of food). In the UK it is also '5 a day'. I personally like the Australian recommendations where we say 'go for 2 and 5' 2 fruit and 5 veg.
From what I hear, most of the world governments can take some notes from Australia's government. Seems like when it comes to nutrition and such, they spell it out for people and that is great.
I was just thinking...........a serving is not an entire apple or orange, either. I had no idea how much a serving of anything was before I had gestational diabetes. nothing like the threat of a sick baby to make you aware of your foods (didnt stop me from gaining 40 more pounds after she was born though!)
Anyway, point is a small apple can be 2 servings.......3-4 oz of fresh juice is a serving........not the 12 oz cup they give you in a restaraunt.
I am trying to think more clean............and eat fresher. Hard, because a box of potatoes is so much easier than cleaning, cutting, cooking a idaho......but I am getting back intot he groove.
LOTS of good give and take on this thread. Thanks for all the research and info. I will take from it what I need, and leave the rest!! :flowerforyou:
and Cora........LOVE the Av dear
That is true about a serving and weighing everything out. I have to admit, I don't always weigh everything, I kind of eyeball it. And I will sit and eat a whole, small apple. I just buy the bags of apples that has all small ones in it.0 -
That is true about a serving and weighing everything out. I have to admit, I don't always weigh everything, I kind of eyeball it. And I will sit and eat a whole, small apple. I just buy the bags of apples that has all small ones in it.
I much prefer to buy the bags of the small apples as well Cora, the size of apples these days are what I consider XLarge, they are HUGE! If I'm at a store that doesn't have them at the time I pick up a couple of the med. size apples and simply cut them in half.:flowerforyou:0 -
I get confused on that 5 servings a day as well.
I had thought it meant 5 servings of fruit and veggies per day. Meaning 5 servings of the 2 food groups combined. Not 5 of each food group?. Is that what some of you thought as well?0 -
I get confused on that 5 servings a day as well.
I had thought it meant 5 servings of fruit and veggies per day. Meaning 5 servings of the 2 food groups combined. Not 5 of each food group?. Is that what some of you thought as well?
I believe people don't particularly like Veggies so they think it is ok to eat say......green beans and then 4 servings of fruit. That is entirely too much sugar, natural or not.
It should be the other way around............Like eating 4 servings of Veggies and 1 serving of fruit a day.............0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions