Carbs Question

What you are eating are slow releasing carbs, so they're good.
When white bread, pasta, potatoes etc start creeping into your diet and making up a bigger percentage of your meals, this could hinder weight loss - - from experience

I'm a low carb girl, its definitely what works for me. I get the majority of my carbs from berries and veg - it would be completely unrealistic for me to cut carbs to an Atkins level though, I need my veg! I average about 50g carbs a day and I do cardio everyday. I've had slow and steady weight loss which again from experience is the only worthwhile weight loss.

Eat what fit your macros and between carbs, fat and protein, if you have to go over any, it protein, then fat and if possible never go over carbs...

My carb rules:

- No added sugar and high fructose corn syrup
- No sweetened beverages (no juice, no soda) - only water and milk
- Only fruit immediately after a workout (helps with recovery)
- Focus on complex/low glycemic index carbs (veggies and whole grains)
- Limited use of simpler carbs if you're working out (white bread, bagels, pasta) - also helps with recovery
- Zero to very little carbs of any kind at night

This works for me and I've lost 65 lbs.

All carbs are good carbs - some get absorbed faster than others and some are better eaten before or after a workout - that's all there is too it.
Regarding you going over - set your protein as fixed and then play with fat and carbs still remaining within your macros.
On heavy training days i am on 300+ gr of carbs, rest day 150+ gr of carbs - rest is all fat!

As long as they are not taking you over your calorie target for the day and you are getting adequate protein, don't worry about it.

As they are coming from fruit and veg, you will be getting your micro nutrients.

The only thing you need to do to lose weight is eat in a calorie deficit.

This, except I'd add that you should also make sure you get a reasonable amount of fat. Sometimes people end up high on carbs because they are scared of fat. If enough protein and fat, no reason to worry about your carb numbers. There are a wide range of healthy macro nutrient ratios, and the one suggested by MFP is just one option.

Also, high-glycemic index carbs do have a tendency to increase appetite later on. So there's that too.

Kind of off the OP's topic, but it depends on the person and how they are eaten. It's something to look at (among other things) if you have an issue with feeling unsatisfied. The GI thing is often overstated though, especially since if you don't eat the food alone, and so the GI of the meal is vastly different. I don't know how I'd react if I started eating plain potatoes as snacks, as I never have. (I suspect fine, but could be wrong.). My experience of including them with some meat and veg is that they add to satiation in line with their calories or more. In that context the GI of a plain potato does not matter.

Also, high-glycemic index carbs do have a tendency to increase appetite later on. So there's that too.

Kind of off the OP's topic, but it depends on the person and how they are eaten. It's something to look at (among other things) if you have an issue with feeling unsatisfied. The GI thing is often overstated though, especially since if you don't eat the food alone, and so the GI of the meal is vastly different. I don't know how I'd react if I started eating plain potatoes as snacks, as I never have. (I suspect fine, but could be wrong.). My experience of including them with some meat and veg is that they add to satiation in line with their calories or more. In that context the GI of a plain potato does not matter.

Good point about eating high-glycemic index carbs alone. I forgot to mention context matters. Eating a bagel by itself is one thing. Eating a bagel with butter, scrambled eggs and a glass of whole milk is another.

This has floated around through the forums before, but a good read is http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
The main point of the article is about insulin, but it also has highlights of information about carbs in relation to satiety (feeling full), refined carbs, etc...

One items it brings out , is it's not that refined carbs are "bad", its just they are very calorically dense compared to that of unrefined carbs. So in a nutshell, easy to overeat (refined carbs) and provides very little, if any satiety; thus in the end, it's all about the total amount of calories ingested.

Lastly, I believe carbs in the presence of any other macronutrient will cause slower absorption, so this is why I think the Glycemic Index is not appropriate for use as the way they came up with these values were testing on fasted individuals and with those particular food items in isolation. How many times will you eat a piece of white bread after having fasted for 8+ hours with nothing else to go along with it?

Actually, I think glycemic index is very helpful to think about. If the glycemic index of the entire meal is high, you're much more likely to be a lot hungrier later than if the glycemic index of the entire meal is low.

I've lost over 130lbs an not cut carbs, I have however cut calories and that is what's important at the end of the day. A calorie is a calorie, no such thing as good or bad calories, if you eat to excess you gain weight, if you eat to a deficit you lose weight, that's science.

I do feel that optimum macros can be established to help change body composition, but as far a good old weight loss is concerned it is calories in vs calories out.

Here is an excellent article by Alan Aragon on the matter........

http://www.simplyshredded.com/research-review-the-dirt-on-clean-eating-written-by-nutrition-expert-alan-aragon.html

This has floated around through the forums before, but a good read is http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
The main point of the article is about insulin, but it also has highlights of information about carbs in relation to satiety (feeling full), refined carbs, etc...

One items it brings out , is it's not that refined carbs are "bad", its just they are very calorically dense compared to that of unrefined carbs. So in a nutshell, easy to overeat (refined carbs) and provides very little, if any satiety; thus in the end, it's all about the total amount of calories ingested.

Lastly, I believe carbs in the presence of any other macronutrient will cause slower absorption, so this is why I think the Glycemic Index is not appropriate for use as the way they came up with these values were testing on fasted individuals and with those particular food items in isolation. How many times will you eat a piece of white bread after having fasted for 8+ hours with nothing else to go along with it?

Actually, I think glycemic index is very helpful to think about. If the glycemic index of the entire meal is high, you're much more likely to be a lot hungrier later than if the glycemic index of the entire meal is low.

I think that relates back to my statement from the article that the more refined carbs are calorically dense and offer very little if any satiety, thus why you tend to eat more of them to get satiated. But from an absorption standpoint, I would pose that the absorption of those refined carbs in the presence of proteins, fats, and fiber laden carbs (something consistent with a meal), would overall negate the primary use of the Glycemic Index as you now have introduced too many variables (macros) that negate the value of the index itself.

I use whole grains , couscous , quinoa , brown rice ect .. and i weigh it .. i use the correct amount for a serving.. cereal for breakfast whether it is kashi cereal or steel cut oats .. then two meals a day i have a protein, vegetable and whole grain ..i really try hard to stay away from white flour products

This has floated around through the forums before, but a good read is http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
The main point of the article is about insulin, but it also has highlights of information about carbs in relation to satiety (feeling full), refined carbs, etc...

One items it brings out , is it's not that refined carbs are "bad", its just they are very calorically dense compared to that of unrefined carbs. So in a nutshell, easy to overeat (refined carbs) and provides very little, if any satiety; thus in the end, it's all about the total amount of calories ingested.

Lastly, I believe carbs in the presence of any other macronutrient will cause slower absorption, so this is why I think the Glycemic Index is not appropriate for use as the way they came up with these values were testing on fasted individuals and with those particular food items in isolation. How many times will you eat a piece of white bread after having fasted for 8+ hours with nothing else to go along with it?

Actually, I think glycemic index is very helpful to think about. If the glycemic index of the entire meal is high, you're much more likely to be a lot hungrier later than if the glycemic index of the entire meal is low.

I think that relates back to my statement from the article that the more refined carbs are calorically dense and offer very little if any satiety, thus why you tend to eat more of them to get satiated. But from an absorption standpoint, I would pose that the absorption of those refined carbs in the presence of proteins, fats, and fiber laden carbs (something consistent with a meal), would overall negate the primary use of the Glycemic Index as you now have introduced too many variables (macros) that negate the value of the index itself.

The glycemic index and macros are not mutually exclusive. The glycemic index tells us how fast the carbohydrate in any food is converted to glucose in the bloodstream. It factors in fats and protein that might be included with the carb content.

No. Get your facts straight. Glycemic index measures carb ONLY food sources, eaten in a fasted state. It doesn't hold weight in real world meal applications, not to mention it has been deemed bunk by countless sources. Glycemic load of a meal is much more applicable, but studies are limited do the the fact that there are pretty much endless meal combinations (although it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that protein and fats ingested with carbs blunts the glycemic response).

Fructose in concentrated forms (i.e. sucrose and high fructose corn syrup) is unhealthy unless it's consumed after a workout to replenish glycogen reserves. And even post-workout, it's better to just eat some fruit which comes with plenty of fiber.

Wrong as well. Fructose is a poor choice to replenish glycogen reserves (which, by the way, will be restored in average athletes over a 12-24 hour period anyway with regular diet). Fructose is primarily delivered to and metabolized in the liver for energy, whereas glucose is delivered to the liver but then utilized by organs and muscle cells (and fat cells). Nutrient timing post workout is really only important to elite athletes with multiple training sessions within hours of each other. But if nutrient timing post workout really mattered, fructose isn't the number one choice.

Either way, anyone labeling carbs "good" or "bad" just shows a lack of understanding with nutrition and the human body.

Personally, simple carbs make me hungrier if I eat them by themselves. That's why I opt for complex containing fiber and if I do eat a simple carb, I also throw in some fat and protein with it.

^This. Micro nutrient dense, complex carbs will make you "feel" more full. Those that don't understand this are quick to bash less micro nutrient dense carbs as "bad" because those that find it hard to control intake will eat more, thereby eating more calories. It's not white bread or white pasta that makes you gain weight, or makes it harder to lose weight. Its excess calories that will.