are carbs really that terrible?
Replies
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »The craving argument being used in this discussion seems a bit spurious (not as pertains to the people making them, but rather in a universal sense). It's a popular line that carbs lead to more carb cravings, but I think it's more appropriate to say that tasty food is more-ish.
If I'm not mistaken, the results of the Yale Food Addiction survey point to pizza as the most often craved/more-ish food cited by respondents. A perfect combination of savory carb/protein/fat goodness.
The how and why of craving is probably quite complex. Right now, I'm sitting here craving a poached egg on toast. I'm hungry, so I'll go make it as soon as I'm done typing this
My reason for craving it could be tied to good memories of having eaten it in the past, the fact that it's tasty, the fact that my stomach isn't quite settled and I associate it with my mother making it when I was feeling poorly as a child -- all sorts of things.
I have, at another time in my life, been simply mad for egg salad. And yes, eating it made me want more. The combination of the taste and texture? I kept wanting to experience it.
I always give anecdotes because I'm not of the belief that my experiences are unique. While I realize I'm just one person, I also realize that... I'm not super special or weirdly out of sync in how my body is. I'm going to assume that other people like me exist out there. I'm also going to assume that other people different from me exist out there. Which brings me back to my point:
The argument for cravings isn't, imo, a good one, because cravings following the ingestion of just carbs isn't a universal phenomenon AND because I'm not convinced that cravings are purely a biological construct.
I only speak for myself and my own experience. And to be clear: if I have dominos pizza for breakfast, it doesn't mean I necessarily keep craving pizza, I may crave nachos, cap'n crunch etc. If I have avocado and eggs for breakfast, the cap'n doesn't call so much.
Again, just little ole me. And since it's no big deal, if I stick to the plan, to not eat heavily refined, highly palatable foods, its a great approach for me.
And you have 14 years of experience with eating your way, so that is clearly optimum
I was just trying to bring some clarity to the point, because sometimes the "carbs = cravings" mantra is stated as a universal cause/effect rather than an individual occurrence.
Thanks for clarifying where you're coming from.
cheers0 -
I did not say either was good or bad at the glucose metabolism cycle. I said they worked differently. I know they work. I am diabetic, I know I lose fat quicker with the fat burning than the sugar processing because I do not have enough insulin. So this is why Carb = bad to me and not others and Fat=Good to me because it doesnt damage the rest of the body with the sugar crystals. So to answer the op question yes Carbs are bad to some people and not others. They are 2 different answers to the question are Carbs bad then yes to diabetics and no to healthy people. With the increasing population of type 2 diabetic it will not be long before the rest of the healthy populations who are eatting processed foods become more insulin resistant as alot of researcher are saying more and more people who are eatting processed foods are getting the insulin resistance. There is research that it has nothing to do with Calories. Artificial sweeteners are causing insulin resistance ie more diabetics for zero calories.@Katekyi - I'm backing @senecarr and @PeachyCarol here. Folks on the MFP forum have graciously described the entire glucose metabolism cycle and I promise you carbs and fats are both macros. With different cycles to transform them in to glycogen.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »The craving argument being used in this discussion seems a bit spurious (not as pertains to the people making them, but rather in a universal sense). It's a popular line that carbs lead to more carb cravings, but I think it's more appropriate to say that tasty food is more-ish.
If I'm not mistaken, the results of the Yale Food Addiction survey point to pizza as the most often craved/more-ish food cited by respondents. A perfect combination of savory carb/protein/fat goodness.
The how and why of craving is probably quite complex. Right now, I'm sitting here craving a poached egg on toast. I'm hungry, so I'll go make it as soon as I'm done typing this My reason for craving it could be tied to good memories of having eaten it in the past, the fact that it's tasty, the fact that my stomach isn't quite settled and I associate it with my mother making it when I was feeling poorly as a child -- all sorts of things.
I have, at another time in my life, been simply mad for egg salad. And yes, eating it made me want more. The combination of the taste and texture? I kept wanting to experience it.
I always give anecdotes because I'm not of the belief that my experiences are unique. While I realize I'm just one person, I also realize that... I'm not super special or weirdly out of sync in how my body is. I'm going to assume that other people like me exist out there. I'm also going to assume that other people different from me exist out there. Which brings me back to my point:
The argument for cravings isn't, imo, a good one, because cravings following the ingestion of just carbs isn't a universal phenomenon AND because I'm not convinced that cravings are purely a biological construct.
I only speak for myself and my own experience. And to be clear: if I have dominos pizza for breakfast, it doesn't mean I necessarily keep craving pizza, I may crave nachos, cap'n crunch etc. If I have avocado and eggs for breakfast, the cap'n doesn't call so much.
Again, just little ole me. And since it's no big deal, if I stick to the plan, to not eat heavily refined, highly palatable foods, its a great approach for me.
And you have 14 years of experience with eating your way, so that is clearly optimum
I was just trying to bring some clarity to the point, because sometimes the "carbs = cravings" mantra is stated as a universal cause/effect rather than an individual occurrence.
Thanks for clarifying where you're coming from.
Yes, exactly. People are different and I don't doubt that works for Sabine (and I appreciate that Sabine distinguishes between heavily refined and other carbs vs. saying it's "carbs" in general that are the issue for her).
The only reason I jump into these arguments is because it's so often phrased not as an individual thing, but as a general rule.
Well, and because I get tired of people generalizing about "carbs" as if they were all Oreos and potato chips and ignoring the fact that most "junk foods" are really carbs+fat (just like Oreos and potato chips).
Personally, I have a hard time eating large amounts of just carbs.
And I think it's great when we take the time to educate new posters about the difference between heavily refined carbs and vegetables and fruits (and legumes) for example.
And yes, carbs and fats, and there really great foods with lots of fat. And then there are junk foods with lots of fat.
Yes, there are junk foods.0 -
I prefer to think of them as foods I'd choose to eat less often (and in some cases, never eat simply out of personal preference).
I got this thinking from, of all places, Sesame Street. "Always" foods, and "sometimes" foods. For some people, there are "never" foods too.
I guess this can apply to carbs. Veggies and berries? "Always". Potato chips? "Sometimes".
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I prefer to think of them as foods I'd choose to eat less often (and in some cases, never eat simply out of personal preference).
I got this thinking from, of all places, Sesame Street. "Always" foods, and "sometimes" foods. For some people, there are "never" foods too.
I guess this can apply to carbs. Veggies and berries? "Always". Potato chips? "Sometimes".
Whatever works for you.
I respect that you don't jump in to justify eating any given food simply because it helps you meet the carb macro (like that's hard to do). Some posters on here do.0 -
Well, I admit to eating ice cream to up my fat consumption. Guilty on that front
I will also admit to having used the "always" and "sometimes" metric with my kids. Stuff you use with your kids has a tendency to stick. Sometimes much to my chagrin. I sometimes still excuse myself "to go potty".0 -
Me being over weight does have everything to do with low Niacin0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »Well, I admit to eating ice cream to up my fat consumption. Guilty on that front
I will also admit to having used the "always" and "sometimes" metric with my kids. Stuff you use with your kids has a tendency to stick. Sometimes much to my chagrin. I sometimes still excuse myself "to go potty".
LOL! There's no shame in "going potty"!
And nothing wrong with calling foods always and sometimes foods. None at all.
I'd have a few never foods, if I had kids too... a few of those things aimed at kids don't even seem like food!0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
Oh dear.
Fat doesn't get stored permanently in a caloric deficit.
I'm going to leave my comments to that.
Carbs are fat in disguise?Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
That is like the worst possible Transformers spin-off imaginable.
You both obviously have no idea of how the micro nutrients work with the liver function into producing energy and what it does with excess energy
What moves weight, is necessity. If your body needs energy and doesn't have glucose available, it will burn fats. If your body could actually have a micronutrient deficiency so easily limit energy release from storage, we'd all be dead. Burning fat is a necessity.
I'll offer you some insight. You probably think being thin or normal weight is an outcome the body actively tries to maintain and that becoming fat is a completely unnatural problem. Therefore, it makes sense to you that a deficiency, an imbalance, is the cause of being fat. It is giving too much intention and goal directed behavior to your body to think of it that way.
The truth is that being deficient in nutrients is going to, if anything, increase calorie burn as your body will have to spend more energy recycling the necessary components to produce metabolic reactions.
Being overweight is not a micronutrient deficiency. At the simplest level, it is about energy input and output. The higher output is to input, the more fat stores have to burn, and thus the faster weight is loss. That's about it.
This statement is factually incorrect. You can be overweight and nutrient deficient. You can be over weight obese and still be malnurished. If you do not make enough fatty acids in your diet you will not be able to burn calories.
Your statements are not a counter to my statement. My statement was not that "You cannot be overweight and micronutrient deficient." My statement is that being overweight is not a symptom of a micro-nutrient deficiency. I literally mean that your words sound like you're claiming becoming overweight has to do with lacking a micronutrient. It doesn't.
And I don't know what you mean by make enough fatty acids. Your body usually does not make much, if any fatty acids, even in an overfed state. The typical metabolic pathways are to use carbohydrates to avoid burning stored fats and dietary fats, so that they can be directly used as fats. Your body will never not use calories because it lacks a nutrient. That would mean you're dying.
Hate to break it to you but everyone is dying. I do not process carbohydrates because I lack micro nutrients therefore I gain weight and am over weight for under eatting ie calories in are not being burnt up but are being stored as fat. I have no energy unless I have balanced nutrients. Since cutting out carbohydrates and maintaining my nutrients I am losing weight on a 2000 cal diet where I was eating 1300 calories high carb diet I didnt lose weight. I am doing the same exercise for both diets.0 -
If you don't process them, can't you eat as many as you want without gaining any weight?PeachyCarol wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
Oh dear.
Fat doesn't get stored permanently in a caloric deficit.
I'm going to leave my comments to that.
Carbs are fat in disguise?Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
That is like the worst possible Transformers spin-off imaginable.
You both obviously have no idea of how the micro nutrients work with the liver function into producing energy and what it does with excess energy
What moves weight, is necessity. If your body needs energy and doesn't have glucose available, it will burn fats. If your body could actually have a micronutrient deficiency so easily limit energy release from storage, we'd all be dead. Burning fat is a necessity.
I'll offer you some insight. You probably think being thin or normal weight is an outcome the body actively tries to maintain and that becoming fat is a completely unnatural problem. Therefore, it makes sense to you that a deficiency, an imbalance, is the cause of being fat. It is giving too much intention and goal directed behavior to your body to think of it that way.
The truth is that being deficient in nutrients is going to, if anything, increase calorie burn as your body will have to spend more energy recycling the necessary components to produce metabolic reactions.
Being overweight is not a micronutrient deficiency. At the simplest level, it is about energy input and output. The higher output is to input, the more fat stores have to burn, and thus the faster weight is loss. That's about it.
This statement is factually incorrect. You can be overweight and nutrient deficient. You can be over weight obese and still be malnurished. If you do not make enough fatty acids in your diet you will not be able to burn calories.
Your statements are not a counter to my statement. My statement was not that "You cannot be overweight and micronutrient deficient." My statement is that being overweight is not a symptom of a micro-nutrient deficiency. I literally mean that your words sound like you're claiming becoming overweight has to do with lacking a micronutrient. It doesn't.
And I don't know what you mean by make enough fatty acids. Your body usually does not make much, if any fatty acids, even in an overfed state. The typical metabolic pathways are to use carbohydrates to avoid burning stored fats and dietary fats, so that they can be directly used as fats. Your body will never not use calories because it lacks a nutrient. That would mean you're dying.
Hate to break it to you but everyone is dying. I do not process carbohydrates because I lack micro nutrients therefore I gain weight and am over weight for under eatting ie calories in are not being burnt up but are being stored as fat
0 -
Certainly not. Micro nutrients are not just vitamins and you should be eating whole foods not manufactured processed garbage.PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
Oh dear.
Fat doesn't get stored permanently in a caloric deficit.
I'm going to leave my comments to that.
Carbs are fat in disguise?Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
That is like the worst possible Transformers spin-off imaginable.
You both obviously have no idea of how the micro nutrients work with the liver function into producing energy and what it does with excess energy. I did not say either system was good or bad, just said which was faster.
Oh dear.
Are you asserting that the overweight/obese can fix their problems with a multi-vitamin?
0 -
Hate to break it to you but everyone is dying. I do not process carbohydrates because I lack micro nutrients therefore I gain weight and am over weight for under eatting ie calories in are not being burnt up but are being stored as fat[/quote]If you don't process them, can't you eat as many as you want without gaining any weight?
[/quote]
Nope because its the carb to fat process that works not the carb to energy.
0 -
Manufactured processed garbage like, say, 0% fat Greek yogurt?
Certainly not. Micro nutrients are not just vitamins and you should be eating whole foods not manufactured processed garbage.PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
Oh dear.
Fat doesn't get stored permanently in a caloric deficit.
I'm going to leave my comments to that.
Carbs are fat in disguise?Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
That is like the worst possible Transformers spin-off imaginable.
You both obviously have no idea of how the micro nutrients work with the liver function into producing energy and what it does with excess energy. I did not say either system was good or bad, just said which was faster.
Oh dear.
Are you asserting that the overweight/obese can fix their problems with a multi-vitamin?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Niacin is one of the fat burners but you can not just take a vitamin with niacin in you have to balance the whole micro nutrients for it to be absorbed properly0
-
Yes, yes, "in the Tibetan Philosophy, Sylvia Plath sense of the word, we're all dying." I mean dying as in immeninent. If you're out of nutrients to perform metabolic pathways, you become unable to move or expend energy. You don't just not burn fat and suddenly defy the laws of thermodynamics. If it worked that way, no one would lose weight while starving to death because having used up the micro-nutrient stores first, we wouldn't even reach low body fat during starvation.PeachyCarol wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
Oh dear.
Fat doesn't get stored permanently in a caloric deficit.
I'm going to leave my comments to that.
Carbs are fat in disguise?Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
That is like the worst possible Transformers spin-off imaginable.
You both obviously have no idea of how the micro nutrients work with the liver function into producing energy and what it does with excess energy
What moves weight, is necessity. If your body needs energy and doesn't have glucose available, it will burn fats. If your body could actually have a micronutrient deficiency so easily limit energy release from storage, we'd all be dead. Burning fat is a necessity.
I'll offer you some insight. You probably think being thin or normal weight is an outcome the body actively tries to maintain and that becoming fat is a completely unnatural problem. Therefore, it makes sense to you that a deficiency, an imbalance, is the cause of being fat. It is giving too much intention and goal directed behavior to your body to think of it that way.
The truth is that being deficient in nutrients is going to, if anything, increase calorie burn as your body will have to spend more energy recycling the necessary components to produce metabolic reactions.
Being overweight is not a micronutrient deficiency. At the simplest level, it is about energy input and output. The higher output is to input, the more fat stores have to burn, and thus the faster weight is loss. That's about it.
This statement is factually incorrect. You can be overweight and nutrient deficient. You can be over weight obese and still be malnurished. If you do not make enough fatty acids in your diet you will not be able to burn calories.
Your statements are not a counter to my statement. My statement was not that "You cannot be overweight and micronutrient deficient." My statement is that being overweight is not a symptom of a micro-nutrient deficiency. I literally mean that your words sound like you're claiming becoming overweight has to do with lacking a micronutrient. It doesn't.
And I don't know what you mean by make enough fatty acids. Your body usually does not make much, if any fatty acids, even in an overfed state. The typical metabolic pathways are to use carbohydrates to avoid burning stored fats and dietary fats, so that they can be directly used as fats. Your body will never not use calories because it lacks a nutrient. That would mean you're dying.
Hate to break it to you but everyone is dying. I do not process carbohydrates because I lack micro nutrients therefore I gain weight and am over weight for under eatting ie calories in are not being burnt up but are being stored as fat
Being diabetic won't prevent you from metabolizing glucose. It won't even prevent you from breaking down other carbohydrates into glucose.0 -
. MFP gave me an error and caused a double post. Ignore.0
-
[/quote]Manufactured processed garbage like, say, 0% fat Greek yogurt? [/quote]
Do you have shares in Greek yogurt or something because you seem obsessed by it. Its a food, eat it if you want. Personally Id chose not to because it doesnt have fat in and has more sugars It has 9gs of sugar and when you only have 30gs a day thats a third lol. I get more nutrients out of a green leaf than that for the same calories.
0 -
Manufactured processed garbage like, say, 0% fat Greek yogurt? [/quote]
Do you have shares in Greek yogurt or something because you seem obsessed by it. Its a food, eat it if you want.
[/quote]
He's one of the banks Greece owes money to, and he's hoping Greek Yogurt will fix their fiscal issues.0 -
No, I'm just waiting for one of the people who keep telling me to avoid processed food why I should avoid it. Sill waiting.Do you have shares in Greek yogurt or something because you seem obsessed by it. Its a food, eat it if you want. Personally Id chose not to because it doesnt have fat in and has more sugars
See, it doesn't have fat for a reason. What if I want want to eat something else fatty that day while staying close to a target for fat grams? The lack of fat in the yogurt becomes a benefit, not a problem. See how that works?
More calories than what? It has 7g of sugars per cup. Is that a lot to you?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »The craving argument being used in this discussion seems a bit spurious (not as pertains to the people making them, but rather in a universal sense). It's a popular line that carbs lead to more carb cravings, but I think it's more appropriate to say that tasty food is more-ish.
If I'm not mistaken, the results of the Yale Food Addiction survey point to pizza as the most often craved/more-ish food cited by respondents. A perfect combination of savory carb/protein/fat goodness.
The how and why of craving is probably quite complex. Right now, I'm sitting here craving a poached egg on toast. I'm hungry, so I'll go make it as soon as I'm done typing this My reason for craving it could be tied to good memories of having eaten it in the past, the fact that it's tasty, the fact that my stomach isn't quite settled and I associate it with my mother making it when I was feeling poorly as a child -- all sorts of things.
I have, at another time in my life, been simply mad for egg salad. And yes, eating it made me want more. The combination of the taste and texture? I kept wanting to experience it.
I always give anecdotes because I'm not of the belief that my experiences are unique. While I realize I'm just one person, I also realize that... I'm not super special or weirdly out of sync in how my body is. I'm going to assume that other people like me exist out there. I'm also going to assume that other people different from me exist out there. Which brings me back to my point:
The argument for cravings isn't, imo, a good one, because cravings following the ingestion of just carbs isn't a universal phenomenon AND because I'm not convinced that cravings are purely a biological construct.
I only speak for myself and my own experience. And to be clear: if I have dominos pizza for breakfast, it doesn't mean I necessarily keep craving pizza, I may crave nachos, cap'n crunch etc. If I have avocado and eggs for breakfast, the cap'n doesn't call so much.
Again, just little ole me. And since it's no big deal, if I stick to the plan, to not eat heavily refined, highly palatable foods, its a great approach for me.
And you have 14 years of experience with eating your way, so that is clearly optimum
I was just trying to bring some clarity to the point, because sometimes the "carbs = cravings" mantra is stated as a universal cause/effect rather than an individual occurrence.
Thanks for clarifying where you're coming from.
Yes, exactly. People are different and I don't doubt that works for Sabine (and I appreciate that Sabine distinguishes between heavily refined and other carbs vs. saying it's "carbs" in general that are the issue for her).
The only reason I jump into these arguments is because it's so often phrased not as an individual thing, but as a general rule.
Well, and because I get tired of people generalizing about "carbs" as if they were all Oreos and potato chips and ignoring the fact that most "junk foods" are really carbs+fat (just like Oreos and potato chips).
Personally, I have a hard time eating large amounts of just carbs.
And I think it's great when we take the time to educate new posters about the difference between heavily refined carbs and vegetables and fruits (and legumes) for example.
And yes, carbs and fats, and there really great foods with lots of fat. And then there are junk foods with lots of fat.
Yes, there are junk foods.
I don't mind the term junk food, although I get why some do, which is why I use the quotes on MFP. But IMO, it just means high cal, low nutrient, although there are a variety of competing definitions, and what I think of as junk food (which I might eat happily on occasion) won't be identical to what others do, but eh, it's a pretty longstanding commonplace term.
Agree with the rest.0 -
So taking a vitamin means you are eating "manufactured processed garbage"? Hmm. My doctor recommended that I take Vit D in the winter, although it wasn't for weight loss.0
-
Yes, yes, "in the Tibetan Philosophy, Sylvia Plath sense of the word, we're all dying." I mean dying as in immeninent. If you're out of nutrients to perform metabolic pathways, you become unable to move or expend energy. You don't just not burn fat and suddenly defy the laws of thermodynamics. If it worked that way, no one would lose weight while starving to death because having used up the micro-nutrient stores first, we wouldn't even reach low body fat during starvation.PeachyCarol wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
Oh dear.
Fat doesn't get stored permanently in a caloric deficit.
I'm going to leave my comments to that.
Carbs are fat in disguise?Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
That is like the worst possible Transformers spin-off imaginable.
You both obviously have no idea of how the micro nutrients work with the liver function into producing energy and what it does with excess energy
What moves weight, is necessity. If your body needs energy and doesn't have glucose available, it will burn fats. If your body could actually have a micronutrient deficiency so easily limit energy release from storage, we'd all be dead. Burning fat is a necessity.
I'll offer you some insight. You probably think being thin or normal weight is an outcome the body actively tries to maintain and that becoming fat is a completely unnatural problem. Therefore, it makes sense to you that a deficiency, an imbalance, is the cause of being fat. It is giving too much intention and goal directed behavior to your body to think of it that way.
The truth is that being deficient in nutrients is going to, if anything, increase calorie burn as your body will have to spend more energy recycling the necessary components to produce metabolic reactions.
Being overweight is not a micronutrient deficiency. At the simplest level, it is about energy input and output. The higher output is to input, the more fat stores have to burn, and thus the faster weight is loss. That's about it.
This statement is factually incorrect. You can be overweight and nutrient deficient. You can be over weight obese and still be malnurished. If you do not make enough fatty acids in your diet you will not be able to burn calories.
Your statements are not a counter to my statement. My statement was not that "You cannot be overweight and micronutrient deficient." My statement is that being overweight is not a symptom of a micro-nutrient deficiency. I literally mean that your words sound like you're claiming becoming overweight has to do with lacking a micronutrient. It doesn't.
And I don't know what you mean by make enough fatty acids. Your body usually does not make much, if any fatty acids, even in an overfed state. The typical metabolic pathways are to use carbohydrates to avoid burning stored fats and dietary fats, so that they can be directly used as fats. Your body will never not use calories because it lacks a nutrient. That would mean you're dying.
Hate to break it to you but everyone is dying. I do not process carbohydrates because I lack micro nutrients therefore I gain weight and am over weight for under eatting ie calories in are not being burnt up but are being stored as fat
Being diabetic won't prevent you from metabolizing glucose. It won't even prevent you from breaking down other carbohydrates into glucose.
Ok so how do you explain 1300 calories = weight gains and 2000 calories = weight loss. The only difference in diet is high carbs 1300 and high fat no carbs 20000 -
How do you explain 3 being greater than 4?
Yes, yes, "in the Tibetan Philosophy, Sylvia Plath sense of the word, we're all dying." I mean dying as in immeninent. If you're out of nutrients to perform metabolic pathways, you become unable to move or expend energy. You don't just not burn fat and suddenly defy the laws of thermodynamics. If it worked that way, no one would lose weight while starving to death because having used up the micro-nutrient stores first, we wouldn't even reach low body fat during starvation.PeachyCarol wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
Oh dear.
Fat doesn't get stored permanently in a caloric deficit.
I'm going to leave my comments to that.
Carbs are fat in disguise?Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
That is like the worst possible Transformers spin-off imaginable.
You both obviously have no idea of how the micro nutrients work with the liver function into producing energy and what it does with excess energy
What moves weight, is necessity. If your body needs energy and doesn't have glucose available, it will burn fats. If your body could actually have a micronutrient deficiency so easily limit energy release from storage, we'd all be dead. Burning fat is a necessity.
I'll offer you some insight. You probably think being thin or normal weight is an outcome the body actively tries to maintain and that becoming fat is a completely unnatural problem. Therefore, it makes sense to you that a deficiency, an imbalance, is the cause of being fat. It is giving too much intention and goal directed behavior to your body to think of it that way.
The truth is that being deficient in nutrients is going to, if anything, increase calorie burn as your body will have to spend more energy recycling the necessary components to produce metabolic reactions.
Being overweight is not a micronutrient deficiency. At the simplest level, it is about energy input and output. The higher output is to input, the more fat stores have to burn, and thus the faster weight is loss. That's about it.
This statement is factually incorrect. You can be overweight and nutrient deficient. You can be over weight obese and still be malnurished. If you do not make enough fatty acids in your diet you will not be able to burn calories.
Your statements are not a counter to my statement. My statement was not that "You cannot be overweight and micronutrient deficient." My statement is that being overweight is not a symptom of a micro-nutrient deficiency. I literally mean that your words sound like you're claiming becoming overweight has to do with lacking a micronutrient. It doesn't.
And I don't know what you mean by make enough fatty acids. Your body usually does not make much, if any fatty acids, even in an overfed state. The typical metabolic pathways are to use carbohydrates to avoid burning stored fats and dietary fats, so that they can be directly used as fats. Your body will never not use calories because it lacks a nutrient. That would mean you're dying.
Hate to break it to you but everyone is dying. I do not process carbohydrates because I lack micro nutrients therefore I gain weight and am over weight for under eatting ie calories in are not being burnt up but are being stored as fat
Being diabetic won't prevent you from metabolizing glucose. It won't even prevent you from breaking down other carbohydrates into glucose.
Ok so how do you explain 1300 calories = weight gains and 2000 calories = weight loss. The only difference in diet is high carbs 1300 and high fat no carbs 2000
0 -
Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise.
What does it mean to be fat in disguise? Carbs don't give you everything fat does, although I do agree that for most people it makes little difference what the percentage of carbs vs. fat is in the diet.
Also, of course, carbs are one of the best ways to get in your micros, so cutting them might not be the best idea, at least assuming you eat largely nutrient-dense carbs.
0 -
Oh dear, this has really gotten into some interesting debate topics today.
Pass the popcorn.
Also LOL and some of the nonsensical posts.0 -
Yes, yes, "in the Tibetan Philosophy, Sylvia Plath sense of the word, we're all dying." I mean dying as in immeninent. If you're out of nutrients to perform metabolic pathways, you become unable to move or expend energy. You don't just not burn fat and suddenly defy the laws of thermodynamics. If it worked that way, no one would lose weight while starving to death because having used up the micro-nutrient stores first, we wouldn't even reach low body fat during starvation.PeachyCarol wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
Oh dear.
Fat doesn't get stored permanently in a caloric deficit.
I'm going to leave my comments to that.
Carbs are fat in disguise?Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
That is like the worst possible Transformers spin-off imaginable.
You both obviously have no idea of how the micro nutrients work with the liver function into producing energy and what it does with excess energy
What moves weight, is necessity. If your body needs energy and doesn't have glucose available, it will burn fats. If your body could actually have a micronutrient deficiency so easily limit energy release from storage, we'd all be dead. Burning fat is a necessity.
I'll offer you some insight. You probably think being thin or normal weight is an outcome the body actively tries to maintain and that becoming fat is a completely unnatural problem. Therefore, it makes sense to you that a deficiency, an imbalance, is the cause of being fat. It is giving too much intention and goal directed behavior to your body to think of it that way.
The truth is that being deficient in nutrients is going to, if anything, increase calorie burn as your body will have to spend more energy recycling the necessary components to produce metabolic reactions.
Being overweight is not a micronutrient deficiency. At the simplest level, it is about energy input and output. The higher output is to input, the more fat stores have to burn, and thus the faster weight is loss. That's about it.
This statement is factually incorrect. You can be overweight and nutrient deficient. You can be over weight obese and still be malnurished. If you do not make enough fatty acids in your diet you will not be able to burn calories.
Your statements are not a counter to my statement. My statement was not that "You cannot be overweight and micronutrient deficient." My statement is that being overweight is not a symptom of a micro-nutrient deficiency. I literally mean that your words sound like you're claiming becoming overweight has to do with lacking a micronutrient. It doesn't.
And I don't know what you mean by make enough fatty acids. Your body usually does not make much, if any fatty acids, even in an overfed state. The typical metabolic pathways are to use carbohydrates to avoid burning stored fats and dietary fats, so that they can be directly used as fats. Your body will never not use calories because it lacks a nutrient. That would mean you're dying.
Hate to break it to you but everyone is dying. I do not process carbohydrates because I lack micro nutrients therefore I gain weight and am over weight for under eatting ie calories in are not being burnt up but are being stored as fat
Being diabetic won't prevent you from metabolizing glucose. It won't even prevent you from breaking down other carbohydrates into glucose.
Ok so how do you explain 1300 calories = weight gains and 2000 calories = weight loss. The only difference in diet is high carbs 1300 and high fat no carbs 2000
Honestly? Assuming this is you, probably that you don't know how to count calories, and you do worse when it comes to counting the ones in carbs, while over counting ones in fatty / protein foods.
If you have someone doing this under metabolic ward conditions, I'd be all eyes to read the study.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How do you explain 3 being greater than 4?
Yes, yes, "in the Tibetan Philosophy, Sylvia Plath sense of the word, we're all dying." I mean dying as in immeninent. If you're out of nutrients to perform metabolic pathways, you become unable to move or expend energy. You don't just not burn fat and suddenly defy the laws of thermodynamics. If it worked that way, no one would lose weight while starving to death because having used up the micro-nutrient stores first, we wouldn't even reach low body fat during starvation.PeachyCarol wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
Oh dear.
Fat doesn't get stored permanently in a caloric deficit.
I'm going to leave my comments to that.
Carbs are fat in disguise?Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
That is like the worst possible Transformers spin-off imaginable.
You both obviously have no idea of how the micro nutrients work with the liver function into producing energy and what it does with excess energy
What moves weight, is necessity. If your body needs energy and doesn't have glucose available, it will burn fats. If your body could actually have a micronutrient deficiency so easily limit energy release from storage, we'd all be dead. Burning fat is a necessity.
I'll offer you some insight. You probably think being thin or normal weight is an outcome the body actively tries to maintain and that becoming fat is a completely unnatural problem. Therefore, it makes sense to you that a deficiency, an imbalance, is the cause of being fat. It is giving too much intention and goal directed behavior to your body to think of it that way.
The truth is that being deficient in nutrients is going to, if anything, increase calorie burn as your body will have to spend more energy recycling the necessary components to produce metabolic reactions.
Being overweight is not a micronutrient deficiency. At the simplest level, it is about energy input and output. The higher output is to input, the more fat stores have to burn, and thus the faster weight is loss. That's about it.
This statement is factually incorrect. You can be overweight and nutrient deficient. You can be over weight obese and still be malnurished. If you do not make enough fatty acids in your diet you will not be able to burn calories.
Your statements are not a counter to my statement. My statement was not that "You cannot be overweight and micronutrient deficient." My statement is that being overweight is not a symptom of a micro-nutrient deficiency. I literally mean that your words sound like you're claiming becoming overweight has to do with lacking a micronutrient. It doesn't.
And I don't know what you mean by make enough fatty acids. Your body usually does not make much, if any fatty acids, even in an overfed state. The typical metabolic pathways are to use carbohydrates to avoid burning stored fats and dietary fats, so that they can be directly used as fats. Your body will never not use calories because it lacks a nutrient. That would mean you're dying.
Hate to break it to you but everyone is dying. I do not process carbohydrates because I lack micro nutrients therefore I gain weight and am over weight for under eatting ie calories in are not being burnt up but are being stored as fat
Being diabetic won't prevent you from metabolizing glucose. It won't even prevent you from breaking down other carbohydrates into glucose.
Ok so how do you explain 1300 calories = weight gains and 2000 calories = weight loss. The only difference in diet is high carbs 1300 and high fat no carbs 2000
You dont but I am being told that to lose weight you have to lose calories Calories In and Calories out. But its not true in my case. Carbs out Fat in = lose weight for me
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise.
What does it mean to be fat in disguise? Carbs don't give you everything fat does, although I do agree that for most people it makes little difference what the percentage of carbs vs. fat is in the diet.
Also, of course, carbs are one of the best ways to get in your micros, so cutting them might not be the best idea, at least assuming you eat largely nutrient-dense carbs.
I am not cutting the micronutrients I am just getting them differently. If you read the rest of the quote about Carbs you saw it was more to do with converting Carbs being stored as fat. Hence Carbs disguised as fat.0 -
Then you have a medical condition which is skewing the apparent calories in and out.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How do you explain 3 being greater than 4?
Yes, yes, "in the Tibetan Philosophy, Sylvia Plath sense of the word, we're all dying." I mean dying as in immeninent. If you're out of nutrients to perform metabolic pathways, you become unable to move or expend energy. You don't just not burn fat and suddenly defy the laws of thermodynamics. If it worked that way, no one would lose weight while starving to death because having used up the micro-nutrient stores first, we wouldn't even reach low body fat during starvation.PeachyCarol wrote: »Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
Oh dear.
Fat doesn't get stored permanently in a caloric deficit.
I'm going to leave my comments to that.
Carbs are fat in disguise?Got to look at your micro nutrients and vitamins. These are the essential building blocks of moving weight. The better levels they are at, the faster the weight will move. Carbs are fat in disguise. When you eat too many Carbs they turn into fat, provided that the liver and pancreas are working. Too much fat in your blood stream can cause blockages in the liver and too few micronutrients stop the pancreas working. So the reason why LCHF diets work imo is that the micro nutrients get to burn the fat from the cells in the liver and the liver sends the micro nutrients to the pancreas which produce the enzymes to burn more fat. Stopping the carbohydrates forces the body to use its fuel cells to burn fat instead of using the cells to convert carbohydrates into fat. Limiting your diet will limit your nutrients in order for the liver and pancreas to work properly. This of course assumes you have normal functioning liver and pancreas to start with. Eat less carbs and more veg and fats. You will feel fuller and have fat burning system not a fat storing system.
That is like the worst possible Transformers spin-off imaginable.
You both obviously have no idea of how the micro nutrients work with the liver function into producing energy and what it does with excess energy
What moves weight, is necessity. If your body needs energy and doesn't have glucose available, it will burn fats. If your body could actually have a micronutrient deficiency so easily limit energy release from storage, we'd all be dead. Burning fat is a necessity.
I'll offer you some insight. You probably think being thin or normal weight is an outcome the body actively tries to maintain and that becoming fat is a completely unnatural problem. Therefore, it makes sense to you that a deficiency, an imbalance, is the cause of being fat. It is giving too much intention and goal directed behavior to your body to think of it that way.
The truth is that being deficient in nutrients is going to, if anything, increase calorie burn as your body will have to spend more energy recycling the necessary components to produce metabolic reactions.
Being overweight is not a micronutrient deficiency. At the simplest level, it is about energy input and output. The higher output is to input, the more fat stores have to burn, and thus the faster weight is loss. That's about it.
This statement is factually incorrect. You can be overweight and nutrient deficient. You can be over weight obese and still be malnurished. If you do not make enough fatty acids in your diet you will not be able to burn calories.
Your statements are not a counter to my statement. My statement was not that "You cannot be overweight and micronutrient deficient." My statement is that being overweight is not a symptom of a micro-nutrient deficiency. I literally mean that your words sound like you're claiming becoming overweight has to do with lacking a micronutrient. It doesn't.
And I don't know what you mean by make enough fatty acids. Your body usually does not make much, if any fatty acids, even in an overfed state. The typical metabolic pathways are to use carbohydrates to avoid burning stored fats and dietary fats, so that they can be directly used as fats. Your body will never not use calories because it lacks a nutrient. That would mean you're dying.
Hate to break it to you but everyone is dying. I do not process carbohydrates because I lack micro nutrients therefore I gain weight and am over weight for under eatting ie calories in are not being burnt up but are being stored as fat
Being diabetic won't prevent you from metabolizing glucose. It won't even prevent you from breaking down other carbohydrates into glucose.
Ok so how do you explain 1300 calories = weight gains and 2000 calories = weight loss. The only difference in diet is high carbs 1300 and high fat no carbs 2000
You dont but I am being told that to lose weight you have to lose calories Calories In and Calories out. But its not true in my case. Carbs out Fat in = lose weight for me
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
- 232.5K 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