People, get to know your CARBS!

Options
245

Replies

  • PJilly
    PJilly Posts: 21,734 Member
    Options
    I appreciate people dropping some knowledge on us from time to time- but I just want to go on record and say there are a lot of factors to a balanced diet, and there is nothing wrong with a low two digit body fat percentage- ( double digits can be healthy). I personally need a lot of fiber to live my life right, and I sometimes get that from some plain oatmeal in the morning, and some raw veggies and fruits throughout the day- Some of which are on the avoid list.

    I am sure you know your stuff about carbs- but I think that if a banana makes me happy, it's a much better and healthier choice than the junk many folks eat. I know this is not your point- that you are being specific about carb education, but some of the things on the "worse" list seemed like things that you described as low on the GI- so on that point I am a bit confused.
    I have to agree with this. I am not going to argue with any of the science presented here, but I also know that I have had what I consider to be great success eating a diet that has plenty of carbs: oatmeal, potatoes, whole-wheat pasta, brown rice, whole-wheat bread. I've hit my original goal, am close to hitting my new fine-tuned goal, and I feel better than I've ever felt before. A single-digit body fat percentage is not something I am interested in. If I were, I'd seriously consider changing the way I'm doing things. But if what I'm doing is working for me, I have zero motivation to change it drastically.
  • sakillian
    sakillian Posts: 1
    Options
    I've been trying to make sense of this forever! I am insulin resistant and I've never been able to get a full grasp on how to keep things under control. The only thing I know is when I eat too many carbs, my heart races like I'm having a panic attack. For years that's what I attributed it to but when they put me on glucophage (spelling?), the heart racing episodes were greatly reduced!

    Thanks to the info
  • July24Lioness
    July24Lioness Posts: 2,399 Member
    Options
    So basically you're telling me I can't eat most fruit on a daily basis because it's an occasional carb? Or that I should be AVOIDING brown rice, wheat pasta, wheat bread, pita, wraps, etc? Hmmm...

    I don't think I agree. I like my fruit and pita bread!

    I have been saying this for the past year. The original poster is absolutely correct in what they are saying.
  • July24Lioness
    July24Lioness Posts: 2,399 Member
    Options
    I've been trying to make sense of this forever! I am insulin resistant and I've never been able to get a full grasp on how to keep things under control. The only thing I know is when I eat too many carbs, my heart races like I'm having a panic attack. For years that's what I attributed it to but when they put me on glucophage (spelling?), the heart racing episodes were greatly reduced!

    Thanks to the info

    The original posters post is why Atkins works for reversing insulin resistance. The Atkins plan (done by the book) is great for controlling blood sugar and negating insulin spikes and slowly reintroducing higher carb veggies, fruits, nuts, grains and dairy into your eating plan to find out if you have any food intolerances...............

    Doing Atkins and working with a Naturopathic doctor, I was able to find out that I am severly allergic to broccoli and cauliflower. And these are veggies that I was consuming a lot of because my taste buds like them, but apparantly the rest of my body doesn't like them.
  • jajlies
    jajlies Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    Thanks for all this info ....I have oatmeal with blueberrys every morning , thought this was good but , I do know I couldn't loose weight when I ate alot of fruit , thinking it was good for me . I love fruit and could live on just that, (except I wouldn't loose any weight)
  • emederos
    emederos Posts: 25
    Options
    Thanks for all this info ....I have oatmeal with blueberrys every morning , thought this was good but , I do know I couldn't loose weight when I ate alot of fruit , thinking it was good for me . I love fruit and could live on just that, (except I wouldn't loose any weight)

    Oatmeal in the morning is not a bad thing.

    Upon waking, the muscles are primed to take in large amounts of calories (especially carbs) without inducing high levels of lipogenesis. In addition, a large breakfast will rev up the metabolism for the rest of the day. So it's safe to have that bowl of oatmeal in the morning (as well as any other good complex carbs).

    When i say oatmeal and such should be avoided is for people who use it as a snack or meal replacement. Remember. Breakfast and Post-workout are carb-safe times.
  • cardigirl
    cardigirl Posts: 492 Member
    Options
    I thought single digit body fat percentages for women was considered unhealthy. Maybe that's only for older women?
  • emederos
    emederos Posts: 25
    Options
    As an aside, people. Please remember to apply these meals to your current goals. If you're not particularly interested in dropping to single % body fat, then all the tips may not apply to you. Just remember the basic rules of how carbs function and it'll help you understand your meal planning that much more.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    It would appear you haven't read the available research on the subject with an objective eye. That's my take on your original post, which I don't say to offend. You seem stuck on the "carbs/insulin makes you fat" wagon which is quite an outdated model. You can't go down that path without factoring in energetic state for the 24-hour period.

    What you're suggesting is that having elevated insulin blocks fat oxidation and lipolysis....which is true. After a meal, this does happen. The problem is even protein elevates insulin above fasting levels, so unless you're eating fat-only... well, you catch my drift.

    The big glaring hole here is that carbophobes don't account for what happens the rest of the day. They can't address what happens, if, say, you eat on huge meal and spike the hell out of insulin, store fat, shut off lipolysis... and then don't eat again for the rest of the day.

    If that one meal was only 1000 calories and you need 2000 a day to cover your energy costs, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?

    Hint: It won't.

    I'm not suggesting anyone go out and start scarfing down sugar by the bucket. That's not my point at all. But research clearly indicates that some folks will do better with more carbs in their diets than others. A lot of this is influenced by genetics, body fat, insulin sensitivity, training, etc. To blanketly state that carbs are evil outside very select windows of time is very misguided.

    If you looked at the totality of research that's available with an objective eye, you'd see that there are enormous problems with it. The mostly glaringly obvious issue is the available research does not match protein intakes between the comparative diets. By this, I mean the high carb diet contains lower protein and the low carb diets contain higher protein. When the low carb diet "wins" in the various papers, authors mistakenly assume it's the low carbs that are creating the advantage.

    You can't have multiple variables changing in a study and be sure of the causative factors for what you're studying.

    In this case, higher protein means more preservation of lean body mass, which we know means higher energetic costs due to the metabolism of LBM vs. fat. It also means a higher thermic effect of feeding. As we know, protein has the highest TEF out of the macro nutrients so logically a diet higher in protein will net to less calories "making it through" to storage. Lastly, we know from the available research that protein is the most satiating nutrient so a higher protein diet will logically lead to a reduction in total calories consumed.

    Most of the available low vs. mod/high carb research doesn't strictly control caloric intake data via ward. Therefore we're left with a lot of self-reporting which, we know by way of the available research, leads to very inaccurate data.

    But even if it were accurate, given what I noted above about higher vs. lower protein consumptions... it becomes impossible to single out carbs as being the causative variable when you've got things like net energetic intakes, TEF, lean body mass discrepancies confounding the picture due to variations in protein consumption.

    There are a variety of factors regulating fat metabolism other than insulin and insulin doesn't operate in a vacuum. Its effects are not independent of the energy status of the body. To suggest that insulin is responsible for a net gain in mass/energy in a living organism, without regards to net mass/energy intake, indicates a misunderstanding of the complexities governing factors of tissue gains/loss in the body.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    And for those who don't feel like reading all of that, which is most likely everyone who's not the original poster, there's really no reason to fear carbs if you have things planned out correctly.

    If you're calories are in check relative to your goal and you're consuming adequate amounts of protein, essential fats and fibrous veggies... eating carbs throughout the day isn't going to make you fat or hinder your progress.

    If we simply want to speak from anecdote... I eat carbs with every meal and have no issues maintaining leanness. I also have a full book of clients who can attest to the same thing.

    Granted, some folks will invariably do better with a lower carb approach but that needs to be assessed on an individual basis. Insulin/carbs aren't universally "fattening" outside of breakfast and post workout feedings irregardless of calorie intake. That's simply not how it works.
  • confuseacat
    confuseacat Posts: 137 Member
    Options
    I Enjoy your posts stoutman81 . :drinker:
  • naturebaby
    naturebaby Posts: 161
    Options
    good assessment steve..different boxes for different people!
  • princessleia1980
    princessleia1980 Posts: 81 Member
    Options
    Can you (original poster) give me an example of a typical days meals eating in this way please?
  • AwMyLoLo
    AwMyLoLo Posts: 1,571 Member
    Options
    Bump to read more later. I hate to see sweet potatoes on the rarely eat list, as they are my go-to carb source with dinner :frown:
  • emederos
    emederos Posts: 25
    Options
    Can you (original poster) give me an example of a typical days meals eating in this way please?

    Sure thing. This is suited to my current goals, keep that in mind.

    BREAKFAST:
    - 6 Egg Whites
    - 4-6oz. Top Sirloin or Top Round Steak
    - ON Whey Protein Shake

    Calories: 470, Carbs: 4g; Protein: 114g; Fats 15g


    SNACK:
    One serving Blue Diamond Oven Roasted Almonds
    One Fage Greek Yogurt

    Calories: 270, Carbs: 13g; Protein: 22g; Fats: 19g


    LUNCH:
    One Perdue Perfect Portions Chicken Breast
    Steamed Brocolli Side
    One Polly-O String Cheese (Low Fat Mozzarella)

    Calories: 235; Carbs 5g; Protein: 38g; Fats: 8g


    You get the idea. Lean protein from meats. Good carbs from veggies, almonds, yogurt, etc. And chock-full-o-protein for firing up your muscles and internal incinerator.

    Those are 3 meals take you up to lunch time and they add up to 935 calories with only 22g carbs and a whopping 174g protein. You could effectively eat 6 meals a day and keep the count under 1800 calories, easily by adding or subtracting some food items. You'll stay full all day and your metabolism will be cranking at full throttle.

    Hope this helped.
  • thumper44
    thumper44 Posts: 1,464 Member
    Options
    Not to hijack this thread about carbs, but.

    Could you explain about protein intake per meal etc.
    I've heard the body doesn't process more than 30grams of protein per meal, or I saw another reference to process 10 grams per hour.
    I'm trying to get ~225grams protein daily, and I've been maxing myself out at about 40-45 grams per meal.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    You won't find a universally accepted upper limit of protein intake per meal. For starters, the available research simply doesn't spell it out and of what's available, the idea of an upper limit per meal simply isn't supported. Secondly, just as some people will fare better with regards to fat loss eating higher carbs vs. lower carbs... protein needs also vary on an individual basis.

    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.

    These people most likely got huge doses of protein in one sitting and if they were as void in protein as some would suggest (since supposedly they'd only be digesting and utilizing 20-30 grams of the 100-200 they were getting) I doubt humans would still be around.

    The same reason the "stoke the metabolic rate" myth is bunk is the same reason the protein upper limit myth is bunk - rate/speed of digestion will vary based on the load placed upon the digestive system. By that, I mean large doses of food/protein will simply take longer to work it's way "through the system" than the time it'd take a smaller meal.

    The take home point is don't get too hung up on the meal to meal nuances. Worry about your daily totals. The RDA puts protein requirements at .8 g/kg. For a sedentary person, that's most likely adequate, which even that is questionable. For someone who's dieting, exercising, interested in persevering/building lean body mass, etc... something closer to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is most likely more suitable.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    You won't find a universally accepted upper limit of protein intake per meal. For starters, the available research simply doesn't spell it out and of what's available, the idea of an upper limit per meal simply isn't supported. Secondly, just as some people will fare better with regards to fat loss eating higher carbs vs. lower carbs... protein needs also vary on an individual basis.

    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.

    These people most likely got huge doses of protein in one sitting and if they were as void in protein as some would suggest (since supposedly they'd only be digesting and utilizing 20-30 grams of the 100-200 they were getting) I doubt humans would still be around.

    The same reason the "stoke the metabolic rate" myth is bunk is the same reason the protein upper limit myth is bunk - rate/speed of digestion will vary based on the load placed upon the digestive system. By that, I mean large doses of food/protein will simply take longer to work it's way "through the system" than the time it'd take a smaller meal.

    The take home point is don't get too hung up on the meal to meal nuances. Worry about your daily totals. The RDA puts protein requirements at .8 g/kg. For a sedentary person, that's most likely adequate, which even that is questionable. For someone who's dieting, exercising, interested in persevering/building lean body mass, etc... something closer to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is most likely more suitable.

    Dude, you kick serious *kitten*! I'm so glad I agree with you because you're fact based logic and reasoning is as close to flawless as I can find.

    I don't know if it's just me being beaten down by the years on here or what, but I realized that 2 years ago, I would have put out all the research I found yesterday on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and insulin response (there were about 25 that I found yesterday based on clinical studies) but I just didn't have the energy to cite and summarize them. So thank you, and let me know if you want me to forward some to you (although it sounds like you've probably already read them), I can dig them up again if you like.
  • jb_sweet_99
    jb_sweet_99 Posts: 856 Member
    Options
    I appreciate people dropping some knowledge on us from time to time- but I just want to go on record and say there are a lot of factors to a balanced diet, and there is nothing wrong with a low two digit body fat percentage- ( double digits can be healthy). I personally need a lot of fiber to live my life right, and I sometimes get that from some plain oatmeal in the morning- which you put on the avoid list. , and some raw veggies and fruits throughout the day

    I am sure you know your stuff about carbs- but I think that if a banana makes me happy, it's a much better and healthier choice than the junk many folks eat. I know this is not your point- that you are being specific about carb education, but some of the things on the "worse" list seemed like things that you described as low on the GI- so on that point I am a bit confused.

    While I do agree with what you have said, I agree with this as well. I am on the G.I. Diet and white new potatoes, brown rice and high fiber whole grain breads are low G.I. (Green Light) so I don't know about that part...
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    Dude, you kick serious *kitten*! I'm so glad I agree with you because you're fact based logic and reasoning is as close to flawless as I can find.

    I don't know if it's just me being beaten down by the years on here or what, but I realized that 2 years ago, I would have put out all the research I found yesterday on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and insulin response (there were about 25 that I found yesterday based on clinical studies) but I just didn't have the energy to cite and summarize them.

    Thanks man. From what I've seen from you... I like the things you have to say as well as the way you interpret research.

    I'm going to rant a bit here...

    The issue is we have a topic (fat loss and health) that has massive public appeal. Most everyone in this country, let alone world, has an interest in improving health and optimizing body composition. Knowing this, many folks and businesses are drawn to this industry to act authoritatively. If said draw is not fueled by the desire to make a quick buck... it's typically fueled by the yearning for a stroked ego. Especially with the Internet, nowadays people can proclaim expertise and start preaching without a hint of a background in this stuff and as long as they use big words, "the masses" are going to listen without objectivity. Without question.

    Very rarely do you find someone entering this industry or proclaiming expertise who values integrity - integrity of self and integrity of information. Very few in this industry concern themselves with the soundness of what they're saying/selling. Rather it's how much money is it making me, how smart is it making me look, how many people are following my advice, etc. Money and/or ego.

    And that's a problem. Especially once you factor in how many emotionally sensitive people are desperately seeking "The Answers." It's hard to assess advice and information objectively when you're being led by distraught, frustrated emotions and that's exactly what most "consumers" do. And that's exactly what most "authorities" prey on.

    I certainly don't consider myself an expert. Hopefully I never do - I enjoy the idea of being a student throughout my entire life. I place an enormous premium on objective, rational skepticism and research. When combined, these two things net out to unbiased and accurate information and advice.

    I'm not afraid of being wrong. I welcome challenges as hopefully they either i) reaffirm what I originally knew to be true or ii) prove my original thought process and ideology incorrect at which point I learn something. Either way it's a win-win.

    I don't research to confirm my beliefs. Quite contrarily, I research to understand whys. I research to uncover "the truth" as defined by the scientific method. I want to see all the available data for and against what I'm examining. I also want to see how researchers reached their conclusions. How many test subjects were used? Are we talking human or animal research? How were the experiments performed? What was the collection process for data? On and on it goes.

    It's important to note that "the truth" isn't set in stone, either. It's not gospel or religious rhetoric. It's a continually working model used to explain why things happen in our world. Science doesn't define our world. It explains it to the best of its current ability. This means everything the body of research points to today is up for challenge. As brighter minds enter the picture, as technology advances, as funds grow.... theories can and do change and expand. That's the beauty of the scientific method.

    The falsifiability of the theories we test and study are what make science work. It's not that we want our ideas to be wrong. It's that we want things to be as accurate as possible and that's what the scientific method assures assuming good science is applied. This process is something I can respect as it's not rooted in money or ego.

    Unfortunately this isn't how most "authorities" go about business.

    Through their "preachings" they prove time and time again their inability to avoid tripping over confirmation biases. If (and that's a huge if, by the way) they actually study the subject (by way of peer-reviewed research, journals, seminars, structured schooling, texts, etc) they do so with a biased eye. In doing so, they go into their "research" in hopes of confirming what they think they know.

    They're more interested in sounding or being right than they are about educating folks and learning themselves. Their minds are shut off to the idea that they could be wrong and they don't even realize it more often than not. Because of this, assuming they do research to begin with, they're going to be very selective in what they'll read. The science that confirms their point will count while the science that opposes it won't. Cherry picking if you will.

    Thus they're left with false conclusions backed with loads of conviction. That's not a very productive recipe!

    More often than not it's a fight not worth fighting, too. No matter how much logic or objective data you throw into the mix, it's the equivalent of blowing into the winds of a hurricane.

    I completely understand where you're coming from when you say what used to draw you in for discussion/debate is now something you avoid. Reason being: very few "authorities are actually interested in listening. They'll talk at you rather than with you. They'll use what you say as more reason to sound off about their jaded and biased beliefs. They'll repeat over and over their tired philosophy without any consideration to counter-points.

    It's the definition of a losing proposition.

    For some reason, and I'm not quite sure why, this field like no other attracts or creates zealots and sycophants by the dozen. The Dunning-Kruger effect comes to mind:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=dunning kruger

    I'm sure most stopped reading paragraphs ago... and that's fine. If you did make it this far, though... the point is...

    Practice skepticism above all else. There's too much BS floating around to do anything different. When you've got people saying "why bash someone who's here to teach" or whatever... I'd say we have real problems. Teachers aren't always right, ya know. And when said teachers refuse to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, it's time to move onto the next person who's pitching information as there's an endless supply, some worthy... many not.

    And I'm not speaking to or about anyone directly. I'm speaking about a process of thinking that hopefully gets picked up on by more people. At the very least... more "authorities."

    So thank you, and let me know if you want me to forward some to you (although it sounds like you've probably already read them), I can dig them up again if you like.

    I've probably seen them as I've researched this niche quite extensively... but thanks for the offer. Do you have easy access to full papers? I used to at university but now I rely primarily on a few doctors and students I know as well as a few research based forums I belong to.

Categories