Carb addicts?

hiswaywardgirl wrote: »

Here's my experience. I used to be a carb-loving vegetarian who rarely ate fat or protein. I was always hungry and snacking on carbs, because I didn't pay attention to macronutrients -- I just didn't want to eat meat. I would feel hungry, irritable, and tired if I didn't eat every couple of hours.

I would have the same experience if I ate that way. That doesn't mean carbs are the "devil" or addicting (this is a distinction I made in my first post here, asking the OP if the issue was macronutrient make up or trigger foods and was told trigger foods). It means that for many people eating carbs alone is not satiating and plays games with blood sugar levels.

I used to eat a bagel for breakfast, not because I thought it was a particularly appealing breakfast, but because it was easy to buy on the way to work and seemed healthier than a cinnamon roll. That was dumb, I'd be hungry for more well before lunch. I used to eat a too carb-heavy lunch too (again, sandwiches are convenient) and then be tired and ready for a snack in the afternoon. Partly out of habit/stress, but partly because I was eating stupidly. When I fixed this, the problem went away even though I eat bread and potatoes and plenty of other carbs still (about 40%). I noticed this especially on Ash Wednesday when all of a sudden fasting was much easier than it ever had been before.

I never thought I was addicted to carbs or had trouble not continuing to eat them, I simply wasn't satiated throughout the day, so I don't think you need to connect the two the way you seem to. I do think the answer is to focus on getting adequate protein and fat (and vegetables) -- which is actually what you said you did -- and if you do that there's no real need to cut stuff out.

I don't get the fat/carb combination thing, and I would actually prefer to eat fats with carbs for health reasons because it leaves your blood sugar more stable than carbs alone.

Oh, I definitely would too. I'm just saying that for most people (not all) I don't think carbs alone are the issue at all. I really don't think it's that common to just want to chow down endlessly on plain pasta, and cultures that eat lots of rice and pasta aren't the ones with a weight problem traditionally. I think when most people talk about being unable to not overeat particular foods they are the super palatable ones that happen to involve carbs plus fat. While many focus on processed foods since they are super cheap and convenient, I don't think the issue is processing--you'd get the same reaction to a homemade pie or my mashed potato example.

I am only continuing to post because I think it's unfair to look down on a diet of traditionally healthy foods (for the life of me I don't get why preferring less-processed food is something to argue about) and limiting carbs/sugar.

This makes no sense. Who is looking down on "traditionally healthy foods"? I don't even concede that your diet is any more "traditionally healthy" than anyone else posting here.

I do happen to like foods that you'd probably consider unprocessed (although they are somewhat processed)--specifically locally grown produce when available and meat, eggs, and dairy from local farms. I just don't pretend that this makes me healthier than others or that I can't increase the health benefits of my diet by supplementing with some things that are processed. If you want to give up everything you think is "processed" that's great (although I'd love to see if you really do, because it's extremely rare), but don't claim that makes you healthier than others who may also care about nutrition but not superstitiously think that the value of yogurt goes away if it comes in a package vs. being home made.

hiswaywardgirl wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

hiswaywardgirl wrote: »

I don't see why the word "processed" is bizarre. Food in its whole form like fruit, vegetables, and meat do not go through nearly as much processing as say, a Lean Cuisine frozen meal or a slice of bread. It's a simple concept and it is well established that eating a diet of whole, unprocessed foods is inherently good for you. Whatever terminology you want to use, that is a basic nutritional fact.

It's bizarre to generalize about processed foods, because (like whole foods) it's such a diverse category that there's essentially nothing they all share in common.

For example, even ignoring the fact that anything in the supermarket (and any meat sold commercially at all) is in some sense processed, not to mention any produce out of season, processed foods include boneless, skinless chicken breast, ground beef, those Healthy Choice meals that I think Dean Ornish was involved with at one point (if I'm wrong about the brand, pick some other low sodium, low fat, generally Ornish approved type frozen meal), some organic made from whole foods type packaged meal you'd find at WF, Ezekial bread, a package of just beans and rice plus spices to make into a side or meal, frozen veggies, a bag of spinach or kale, dried pasta, a Marie Callendar pot pie, Twinkies, a million different types of yogurt, smoked salmon, frozen fish, sausages and bacon, Quest bars, baby-cut carrots, everything from organic steel cut oats to instant oatmeal, and on and on. And based on your own definition, everything made with flour or sugar, no matter where it's made. So grandma's homemade pasta with meat sauce and lots of veggies, processed.

Maybe some people react to all of these foods identically because they are all "processed," but I find that extremely hard to believe. Being "processed" doesn't make a food more prone to being overeaten or more likely to be a trigger. As I said above, I could easily overeat buttery mashed potatoes with some steak and mushrooms. I am not going to overeat some supermarket bread. It's just not appealing to me at all, and to a certain extent we are talking about taste preferences--what is hard for you to resist. (However, this doesn't mean that I stopped eating the mashed potatoes and eat the bread. I don't waste calories on foods that don't appeal to me that much and I simply make sure I eat in moderation.)

I agree that the overall diet may be more or less satiating and for many people that means maybe less emphasis on carbs (although people differ)--I said that in the first post--but the idea that it means processed vs. not ignores how varied these categories is.

Also, maybe some think that they are all less healthy and all "non-processed" foods are by definition more healthy, but that seems to me a silly belief. I tend to prefer eating mostly whole foods, but what's healthy depends on the overall diet and what a particular food adds. As I said before, it's quite reasonable for people to choose to include many processed foods FOR health reasons, as well as for taste (and many, like products made with flour and dairy and sausages are long-standing foods important in many cultures, also).

I still don't see the problem. On a spectrum of unprocessed to highly processed foods, it's easy to see which are better for you. It's better to look for the food near the unprocessed end of the spectrum. I eat sausage that has a short ingredients list with fewer preservatives and less processed ingredients, because it's healthier than something with 75 ingredients that I can't pronounce.

Serious question is serious:
Where is the line between "processing" and "cooking"?

Raw meat is worse for you than a diet consisting exclusively of potato chips and protein powder.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

hiswaywardgirl wrote: »

Here's my experience. I used to be a carb-loving vegetarian who rarely ate fat or protein. I was always hungry and snacking on carbs, because I didn't pay attention to macronutrients -- I just didn't want to eat meat. I would feel hungry, irritable, and tired if I didn't eat every couple of hours.

I would have the same experience if I ate that way. That doesn't mean carbs are the "devil" or addicting (this is a distinction I made in my first post here, asking the OP if the issue was macronutrient make up or trigger foods and was told trigger foods). It means that for many people eating carbs alone is not satiating and plays games with blood sugar levels.

I used to eat a bagel for breakfast, not because I thought it was a particularly appealing breakfast, but because it was easy to buy on the way to work and seemed healthier than a cinnamon roll. That was dumb, I'd be hungry for more well before lunch. I used to eat a too carb-heavy lunch too (again, sandwiches are convenient) and then be tired and ready for a snack in the afternoon. Partly out of habit/stress, but partly because I was eating stupidly. When I fixed this, the problem went away even though I eat bread and potatoes and plenty of other carbs still (about 40%). I noticed this especially on Ash Wednesday when all of a sudden fasting was much easier than it ever had been before.

I never thought I was addicted to carbs or had trouble not continuing to eat them, I simply wasn't satiated throughout the day, so I don't think you need to connect the two the way you seem to. I do think the answer is to focus on getting adequate protein and fat (and vegetables) -- which is actually what you said you did -- and if you do that there's no real need to cut stuff out.

I don't get the fat/carb combination thing, and I would actually prefer to eat fats with carbs for health reasons because it leaves your blood sugar more stable than carbs alone.

Oh, I definitely would too. I'm just saying that for most people (not all) I don't think carbs alone are the issue at all. I really don't think it's that common to just want to chow down endlessly on plain pasta, and cultures that eat lots of rice and pasta aren't the ones with a weight problem traditionally. I think when most people talk about being unable to not overeat particular foods they are the super palatable ones that happen to involve carbs plus fat. While many focus on processed foods since they are super cheap and convenient, I don't think the issue is processing--you'd get the same reaction to a homemade pie or my mashed potato example.

I am only continuing to post because I think it's unfair to look down on a diet of traditionally healthy foods (for the life of me I don't get why preferring less-processed food is something to argue about) and limiting carbs/sugar.

This makes no sense. Who is looking down on "traditionally healthy foods"? I don't even concede that your diet is any more "traditionally healthy" than anyone else posting here.

I do happen to like foods that you'd probably consider unprocessed (although they are somewhat processed)--specifically locally grown produce when available and meat, eggs, and dairy from local farms. I just don't pretend that this makes me healthier than others or that I can't increase the health benefits of my diet by supplementing with some things that are processed. If you want to give up everything you think is "processed" that's great (although I'd love to see if you really do, because it's extremely rare), but don't claim that makes you healthier than others who may also care about nutrition but not superstitiously think that the value of yogurt goes away if it comes in a package vs. being home made.

I think we agree more than we disagree. I was sarcastically referring to carbs being the "devil," but yes, I try consciously to avoid high carb foods and eat a moderate amount of carbs because of past experiences. Your bagel problem is similar to the problem I had, except it sounds like you weren't bingeing on bagels every day. I would literally eat a box of cereal in a day, hence the feeling of being out of control. I'm not going to go into detail because I'm sure no one cares, but it was not pretty. We had different experiences with food -- I'm guessing you had more protein and fat in your diet, and my diet was probably much "stupider" in comparison.

I don't eat only unprocessed foods, but I'm saying they're better for you, and judging by your last post, you seem to agree. I'm also not claiming to be healthier than anyone else -- I just didn't see why you disagreed with my original post. I'm here for help with my diet just like most of us.

There's nothing wrong with some carbs and some pre-packaged food. An apple is better for you than a twinkie. Even grandma's homemade fettuccini is nutritionally empty compared to her homemade baked chicken.

Serah87 wrote: »

hiswaywardgirl wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

hiswaywardgirl wrote: »

I don't see why the word "processed" is bizarre. Food in its whole form like fruit, vegetables, and meat do not go through nearly as much processing as say, a Lean Cuisine frozen meal or a slice of bread. It's a simple concept and it is well established that eating a diet of whole, unprocessed foods is inherently good for you. Whatever terminology you want to use, that is a basic nutritional fact.

It's bizarre to generalize about processed foods, because (like whole foods) it's such a diverse category that there's essentially nothing they all share in common.

For example, even ignoring the fact that anything in the supermarket (and any meat sold commercially at all) is in some sense processed, not to mention any produce out of season, processed foods include boneless, skinless chicken breast, ground beef, those Healthy Choice meals that I think Dean Ornish was involved with at one point (if I'm wrong about the brand, pick some other low sodium, low fat, generally Ornish approved type frozen meal), some organic made from whole foods type packaged meal you'd find at WF, Ezekial bread, a package of just beans and rice plus spices to make into a side or meal, frozen veggies, a bag of spinach or kale, dried pasta, a Marie Callendar pot pie, Twinkies, a million different types of yogurt, smoked salmon, frozen fish, sausages and bacon, Quest bars, baby-cut carrots, everything from organic steel cut oats to instant oatmeal, and on and on. And based on your own definition, everything made with flour or sugar, no matter where it's made. So grandma's homemade pasta with meat sauce and lots of veggies, processed.

Maybe some people react to all of these foods identically because they are all "processed," but I find that extremely hard to believe. Being "processed" doesn't make a food more prone to being overeaten or more likely to be a trigger. As I said above, I could easily overeat buttery mashed potatoes with some steak and mushrooms. I am not going to overeat some supermarket bread. It's just not appealing to me at all, and to a certain extent we are talking about taste preferences--what is hard for you to resist. (However, this doesn't mean that I stopped eating the mashed potatoes and eat the bread. I don't waste calories on foods that don't appeal to me that much and I simply make sure I eat in moderation.)

I agree that the overall diet may be more or less satiating and for many people that means maybe less emphasis on carbs (although people differ)--I said that in the first post--but the idea that it means processed vs. not ignores how varied these categories is.

Also, maybe some think that they are all less healthy and all "non-processed" foods are by definition more healthy, but that seems to me a silly belief. I tend to prefer eating mostly whole foods, but what's healthy depends on the overall diet and what a particular food adds. As I said before, it's quite reasonable for people to choose to include many processed foods FOR health reasons, as well as for taste (and many, like products made with flour and dairy and sausages are long-standing foods important in many cultures, also).

I still don't see the problem. On a spectrum of unprocessed to highly processed foods, it's easy to see which are better for you. It's better to look for the food near the unprocessed end of the spectrum. I eat sausage that has a short ingredients list with fewer preservatives and less processed ingredients, because it's healthier than something with 75 ingredients that I can't pronounce.

Perfect. LOL!

lemurcat12 wrote: »

hiswaywardgirl wrote: »

I don't eat only unprocessed foods, but I'm saying they're better for you, and judging by your last post, you seem to agree.

I think we do agree more than we don't. But on this specific statement we do disagree, because I don't think a food is healthier or not depending whether it is processed. It's healthier or not based on context--what else you are eating, what else is available, your goals.

For example, when I was extremely overweight and was eating under 100 grams of carbs and not that active I had different needs than now, when I do lots of cardio and want to fuel that. That matters for the make up of my diet and 'though I personally tend to prefer potatoes and sweet potatoes to grains usually, it might mean that a pasta dinner is precisely what I need (especially if it happens to be a nice vehicle for some chicken and veggies too).

More commonly, I often actively choose to add processed foods (yogurt, smoked salmon, a Quest bar) to my diet because I think increasing the protein is satiating and makes for a nice snack. In that context, I think all are better than, say, a potato or avocado, because they fit my macro goals better. For the same reason, although I like full fat dairy, I think in some circumstances low fat dairy is preferable. I don't care for skinless, boneless chicken breast, but not because it's processed--I just find the bone-in chicken with skin is usually worth the extra calories. IMO, if frozen veggies make veggies available in climates and for cost that they wouldn't otherwise be, processing in that case tends to promote health, not be a detriment to it.

So in all of these cases I don't see that being processed makes them unhealthy. I would not want a diet made up of highly processed foods (for example, I find even the healthiest boxed meals unappealing and not especially satiating compared to what I cook at home), but I don't think all are unhealthy (some might have ingredients that I personally have chosen to avoid, but not all of them do).

Again "processed" is just such a huge category that I don't think you can generalize about it. The pros and cons of greek yogurt are different than the pros and cons of a Twinkie are different than the pros and cons of some protein powder, etc.

See, I agree again here. These are not foods I would consider highly processed. Same for the banana posted above... lol. On a spectrum, boneless chicken is not as processed as a twinkie. Ground beef is not as processed as the box of hamburger helper it might be added to. It's still in a relatively close form to where it originally started. Out-of-season vegetables are probably not as tasty because they weren't grown in the best conditions (my out-of-season limes in the backyard are pretty shabby) and they were likely transported in from some distant place, but they're still much better for you than a food that was ground into tiny pieces, mixed with artificial colors and preservatives, and can sit packaged on a shelf for a decade without spoiling.

Yogurt, smoked salmon, and a Quest bar are fantastic. The Quest bar has some questionable ingredients, but this is on the less-processed end of the spectrum. Not at all saying not to eat these.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

cindytw wrote: »

IFor some of us it is just CARBS. Simple. IDK why those that DON'T have those problems feel the need to chime in on it really. I am not over in the low fat threads telling people they must be wrong..."Do unto others" folks!

I don't think anyone here does low fat, but the reason the rest of us are here, probably, is because we thought we could helpfully address the OP's question. In that the OP clarified that he/she does not have an issue with carbs in general, but specific trigger foods, I'm not sure why you think you are uniquely entitled to be here.

Actually I was basically saying that there are those of us who "GET' carb addiction (form is subjective) and those that DON'T but feel the need to go on every thread preaching moderation and calorie counting. It's not that simple for a lot of us. ANd I am just saying that there are a lot more people slamming alternative diets than there are people like me just trying to help people like me.

My weekness is carbs mixed with fat. Sugar, meh. Baked potato, pass unless it's slathered with butter. But things like french fries, potato chips, corn chips, corn on the cob dripping with butter, mashed potatoes laden with butter and cream, fried rice ... I have no control. I just don't go there. At least not very often.

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

do you have the same problem with vegetables..? Because you know, carbs...

Yeah, i get going on munching broccoli, I say to myself - just one floret, two at the most and before I know it I've eaten like 1800 cals of broccoli!

But then again i suppose veg has valuable micro nutrients, where bread and pasta don't!

Because you know, micro nutrients.....

I think I could binge on a soft veggie like steamed peas. Is that too starchy to count as a vegetable? Something you can shovel in (that sounds so gross, but yeah). I don't have a particular issue with carbs except they can raise my blood sugar (I just got diagnosed with diabetes)

Most populations historically have reason to eat foods that largely serve to make sure that we get enough calories. We (in the modern post industrial world, especially the US where many people drive everywhere) are mostly weird because we have tons of food available and a largely sedentary population.

People who aren't sedentary probably do well, on average, including some of the foods that serve mostly to provide energy, although we have the luxury not to have to given all else that is available, I suppose, if we don't want to. Doesn't make us healthier, though.

This content has been removed.

FredDoyle wrote: »

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus
The armies ran on bread (wheat) not gruel (oats). The emperors lived and died on the grain trade.

ok... Good for them.
Most civilizations had what their environment gave them to sustain them. And that depended on geography and the level of advancement of civilization.

I fail to see what this has to do with the thread. But knowledge of history isn't usually knowledge wasted, so whatever.

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

FunkyTobias wrote: »

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

do you have the same problem with vegetables..? Because you know, carbs...

Yeah, i get going on munching broccoli, I say to myself - just one floret, two at the most and before I know it I've eaten like 1800 cals of broccoli!

But then again i suppose veg has valuable micro nutrients, where bread and pasta don't!

Because you know, micro nutrients.....

Selenium, zinc, copper, manganese, thiamine, niacin, potassium, B6, etc. Yep, no micronutrients there.

For the calories they cost - I'm not that impressed!

But then bread, rice, past = junk food.

Don't get me wrong I like bread, pasta and rice - They just (for me) don't get same micro nutrient to calorie 'vegetable statues'

But we only need so many micronutrients and some are harmful if you get too much. Calories are also important as are macronutrients. Judging food as 'junk' based solely on micronutrient to calorie ratio doesn't make much sense to me.

Not sure why it doesn't make much sense!

It's important to get sufficient micro nutrients, if you ate all of your carb calories from just chocolate (for argument sake) it's likely you won't hit your micro nutrient target.

Therefore whats wrong with defining food into groups. I'm not saying Junk food is unhealthy because in moderation junk isn't unhealthy - but its not particularly healthy either.

Also society came up with the term junk, not me. I just happen to like using it though!

But if you ate all of your carb calories in broccoli (a food conventionally considered healthy) wouldn't you also be missing out on important micro nutrients? Does that make broccoli junk or is there some other quantifier involved?