Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
are carbs really the enmy
Options
Replies
-
-
I know that jump starting your metabolism is bunk. I have heard that breakfast is the most important meal of the day my whole life.
Do you all know why this is such a common misconception?
Perhaps because statistically, people that eat breakfast are usually healthier with healthier weights. This, however, tends to reflect people that are organized and scheduled eaters are more likely to eat breakfast and they are more likely to be healthier with healthier weight. Intervention studies that force people who do not normally eat breakfast to do so show that it usually just leads to weight gain as the people don't reduce calories in subsequent meals to compensate.0 -
-
herbivorinator wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »herbivorinator wrote: »williamrobarge wrote: »This is a very interesting conversation/topic. We recently went low carb and while it is a challenge we are seeing some benefits to it. Along with weight loss we are eating less because we are satisfied longer. Cutting out breads and pastas along with sugars also helps prevent a lot of unhealthy snacking. We haven't cut out beer yet but that is coming soon to see what kind of impact we have.
From an energy standpoint the first two weeks were rough, but once my body got used to finding other fuel sources (fat) my energy level has come back and seems to be even better. The gym is our next step to helping with a complete life change.
Everything in moderation is exactly right as everyone has stated. We choose to stay away from "white" foods in hopes of eating healthier. I am going to stay going low carb because I do need to lose a ton of weight, but also feel it is a lifestyle change we can stick with. And once we are on maintenance we can indulge in the occasional carb loading day of tasty pasta.
Cheers everyone!
But carbs do not only encompass breads, pastas, and sugars. I feel like this mindset is way too prevalent in today's dieter. White sugar and processed bread is easy to overeat calories on. Whole-food carb sources (potatoes, rice, quinoa, legumes, etc) are a different story. Cutting out white sugars and breads isn't a bad thing, but just because the processed side of carbs don't work the best in your diet doesn't mean going low-carb and cutting whole-food carb sources out along with them is the answer.
I find it incredibly easy to overeat potatoes, rice, quinoa, and legumes. I always measure out these foods because they were some of the primary calorie sources that led to my 40+ pounds of weight gain. I still eat these foods, I just make sure to measure them properly and count the calories.
Anyone can overeat on anything. Calories will be calories regardless of their source. I think most whole foods are more filling than processed, generally speaking and that whole-food source carbs tend to be lumped in with processed carbs when people 'cut carbs' to lose weight is all I was trying to convey. Dunno if I'm coming across - I'd just prefer to see more people 'cut junk food' instead of going straight for 'cut all carbs'. Bread vs potatoes and chicken nuggets vs chicken breasts. But, yes, I agree of course that one can overeat on anything including whole food carbs.
edit: sorry for double post
I find some processed foods very filling. Seitan, tofu, canned beans, frozen vegetables, protein powders, olive oil -- I eat these processed foods frequently because -- for me -- them tasty and very filling. Some whole foods don't fill me up at all (apples are a good example). I think part of successful weight loss is figuring out what foods are satisfying and which aren't. For the majority of us, that's much more complicated that deciding that whole foods are filling and processed foods aren't.
I can eat a few whole grain pancakes (made from processed flour) with a bit of maple syrup and coconut butter (processed and processed) and be full for hours. Adding a bit of processed oil to a bowl of roasted broccoli or greens increases my satisfaction with a meal (as well as my satiety).
I am very much against the demonization of carbohydates -- I think they're some of the best foods around for happiness and weight loss. But I'm equally against dismissing processed foods. They can be great for our health and happiness. They also ensure equal access to foods -- I can eat foods that I wouldn't otherwise have access to due to season or geography because of processing. And I can get more affordable options for some foods than I otherwise would.0 -
herbivorinator wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »herbivorinator wrote: »williamrobarge wrote: »This is a very interesting conversation/topic. We recently went low carb and while it is a challenge we are seeing some benefits to it. Along with weight loss we are eating less because we are satisfied longer. Cutting out breads and pastas along with sugars also helps prevent a lot of unhealthy snacking. We haven't cut out beer yet but that is coming soon to see what kind of impact we have.
From an energy standpoint the first two weeks were rough, but once my body got used to finding other fuel sources (fat) my energy level has come back and seems to be even better. The gym is our next step to helping with a complete life change.
Everything in moderation is exactly right as everyone has stated. We choose to stay away from "white" foods in hopes of eating healthier. I am going to stay going low carb because I do need to lose a ton of weight, but also feel it is a lifestyle change we can stick with. And once we are on maintenance we can indulge in the occasional carb loading day of tasty pasta.
Cheers everyone!
But carbs do not only encompass breads, pastas, and sugars. I feel like this mindset is way too prevalent in today's dieter. White sugar and processed bread is easy to overeat calories on. Whole-food carb sources (potatoes, rice, quinoa, legumes, etc) are a different story. Cutting out white sugars and breads isn't a bad thing, but just because the processed side of carbs don't work the best in your diet doesn't mean going low-carb and cutting whole-food carb sources out along with them is the answer.
I find it incredibly easy to overeat potatoes, rice, quinoa, and legumes. I always measure out these foods because they were some of the primary calorie sources that led to my 40+ pounds of weight gain. I still eat these foods, I just make sure to measure them properly and count the calories.
Anyone can overeat on anything. Calories will be calories regardless of their source. I think most whole foods are more filling than processed, generally speaking and that whole-food source carbs tend to be lumped in with processed carbs when people 'cut carbs' to lose weight is all I was trying to convey. Dunno if I'm coming across - I'd just prefer to see more people 'cut junk food' instead of going straight for 'cut all carbs'. Bread vs potatoes and chicken nuggets vs chicken breasts. But, yes, I agree of course that one can overeat on anything including whole food carbs.
edit: sorry for double post
Although I agree with janejellyroll that it can be easy to overeat whole foods (I got fat mostly eating whole foods), I do know what you are saying and agree with you too. I find it annoying that people generalize about carbs as if all carbs were somehow "junk food" and also annoying that people call foods that are half or more fat (like fries, chips, cakes, muffins) "carbs" while ignoring the fact that fruits and veg and legumes and the like typically have a higher percentage of carbs.
I'd also note that people use "processed" in the same way, as if it equated to not nutritionally rich, and that's also not accurate, as "processed" is a huge category of foods, including canned beans, oats, whole grain bread, skinless boneless chicken breast or rotisserie chicken, frozen fish and veg, smoked salmon, greek yogurt, tofu, and on and on.0 -
herbivorinator wrote: »I know that jump starting your metabolism is bunk. I have heard that breakfast is the most important meal of the day my whole life.
Do you all know why this is such a common misconception?
I always assumed it was because of the typical American schedule. Kids go to school and adults go to work. Many don't get a break to eat until a specified lunch time. If those people skipped breakfast, you'd probably be pretty damn hungry by then (I know I would) and more likely to reach for junk.
Or maybe because it's the first food choice of the day - setting up good habits for the rest of the day?
I do think it probably relates mostly to kids, and the fact that kids who eat breakfast have been found to perform better and have more energy and pay better attention and so on. Which may well have to do with the factors that go into the average situation where kids (smaller kids, anyway) would miss breakfast.
(Disclaimer: When I was a teenager I consistently skipped breakfast and did fine, got into the college of my choice, got a decent job, so on.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »herbivorinator wrote: »I know that jump starting your metabolism is bunk. I have heard that breakfast is the most important meal of the day my whole life.
Do you all know why this is such a common misconception?
I always assumed it was because of the typical American schedule. Kids go to school and adults go to work. Many don't get a break to eat until a specified lunch time. If those people skipped breakfast, you'd probably be pretty damn hungry by then (I know I would) and more likely to reach for junk.
Or maybe because it's the first food choice of the day - setting up good habits for the rest of the day?
I do think it probably relates mostly to kids, and the fact that kids who eat breakfast have been found to perform better and have more energy and pay better attention and so on. Which may well have to do with the factors that go into the average situation where kids (smaller kids, anyway) would miss breakfast.
(Disclaimer: When I was a teenager I consistently skipped breakfast and did fine, got into the college of my choice, got a decent job, so on.)
That makes sense. Our school system serves breakfast to kids who don't have it at home. I stopped eating it as a teenager.
I am bothered by not eating breakfast because as Senecarr said above, statistics show people who do eat it, are healthier.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »herbivorinator wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »herbivorinator wrote: »williamrobarge wrote: »This is a very interesting conversation/topic. We recently went low carb and while it is a challenge we are seeing some benefits to it. Along with weight loss we are eating less because we are satisfied longer. Cutting out breads and pastas along with sugars also helps prevent a lot of unhealthy snacking. We haven't cut out beer yet but that is coming soon to see what kind of impact we have.
From an energy standpoint the first two weeks were rough, but once my body got used to finding other fuel sources (fat) my energy level has come back and seems to be even better. The gym is our next step to helping with a complete life change.
Everything in moderation is exactly right as everyone has stated. We choose to stay away from "white" foods in hopes of eating healthier. I am going to stay going low carb because I do need to lose a ton of weight, but also feel it is a lifestyle change we can stick with. And once we are on maintenance we can indulge in the occasional carb loading day of tasty pasta.
Cheers everyone!
But carbs do not only encompass breads, pastas, and sugars. I feel like this mindset is way too prevalent in today's dieter. White sugar and processed bread is easy to overeat calories on. Whole-food carb sources (potatoes, rice, quinoa, legumes, etc) are a different story. Cutting out white sugars and breads isn't a bad thing, but just because the processed side of carbs don't work the best in your diet doesn't mean going low-carb and cutting whole-food carb sources out along with them is the answer.
I find it incredibly easy to overeat potatoes, rice, quinoa, and legumes. I always measure out these foods because they were some of the primary calorie sources that led to my 40+ pounds of weight gain. I still eat these foods, I just make sure to measure them properly and count the calories.
Anyone can overeat on anything. Calories will be calories regardless of their source. I think most whole foods are more filling than processed, generally speaking and that whole-food source carbs tend to be lumped in with processed carbs when people 'cut carbs' to lose weight is all I was trying to convey. Dunno if I'm coming across - I'd just prefer to see more people 'cut junk food' instead of going straight for 'cut all carbs'. Bread vs potatoes and chicken nuggets vs chicken breasts. But, yes, I agree of course that one can overeat on anything including whole food carbs.
edit: sorry for double post
Although I agree with janejellyroll that it can be easy to overeat whole foods (I got fat mostly eating whole foods), I do know what you are saying and agree with you too. I find it annoying that people generalize about carbs as if all carbs were somehow "junk food" and also annoying that people call foods that are half or more fat (like fries, chips, cakes, muffins) "carbs" while ignoring the fact that fruits and veg and legumes and the like typically have a higher percentage of carbs.
I'd also note that people use "processed" in the same way, as if it equated to not nutritionally rich, and that's also not accurate, as "processed" is a huge category of foods, including canned beans, oats, whole grain bread, skinless boneless chicken breast or rotisserie chicken, frozen fish and veg, smoked salmon, greek yogurt, tofu, and on and on.
Thanks. You're better putting what I'm thinking into words than I am lol. I'll apologize to everyone and @janejellyroll for my poor choice of words. I'm guilty of exactly what I was trying to debate against - lumping a larger category of food under one, simpler single label. Tofu, seitan, etc are 'processed foods' along with french fries, candy, and potato chips. I should have just said junk food I suppose. Also, I practically worship tofu.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Carbs are basically broken down to sugar then converted into glucose and glycogen for the body to use. You have simple and complex carbs and the main difference is going to be the absorption time usually due to fiber content. The body doesn't distinguish "good" from "bad" carbs (there really isn't such a thing). It just breaks down to simplest form and is absorbed.I believe it is the quality of the carbs that matter. You always want to choose the healthy carbs and you want to have them earlier in the day.
However, I do know that some people opt to start their diet/workout plan by completely eliminating carbs or at least having very very little carbs. Seems to help some people. I believe that has to do with wanting to see a quick visual change (someone please correct me if I am wrong). Lack of carbs can really sap your energy.
Hope that helps!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This isn't exactly correct. Not all carbs are broken down and converted to glucose/glycogen. These carbs that we can eat without absorbing them not only provide zero calories but some have proven health benefits and help to keep us regular. IMO these are the 'good carbs'.
Actually, those good carbs are probably, in a sense, worse than "bad carbs". Pure sugar is going to be a problem to overeat, but I imagine you could eat a lot more of that on a per gram basis than you could fiber. Enough fiber and eventually you'll cause intestinal distress, distention, and possible perforation.
It depends on the type of fiber and I would imagine that's very rare. We aren't really going to label 'good' and 'bad' as too much = bad, are we? If so, I imagine we could just toss 'good' in the trash bin.
I do toss good and bad into the trash bin when it comes to health and nutrition. I can't navigate on a map by saying I have to move in good or bad directions, rather I have to say this way gets me nearer or closer to my destination and I can only say that knowing where I am.
Bad direction = interstate, good direction = back roads. At least IMO.
0 -
Having once made a rather poor decision to take the scenic route (the back roads) when travelling through Turkey, I cannot 100% agree.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Having once made a rather poor decision to take the scenic route (the back roads) when travelling through Turkey, I cannot 100% agree.
good/bad is rarely 100%0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Having once made a rather poor decision to take the scenic route (the back roads) when travelling through Turkey, I cannot 100% agree.
good/bad is rarely 100%
It requires context.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Having once made a rather poor decision to take the scenic route (the back roads) when travelling through Turkey, I cannot 100% agree.
good/bad is rarely 100%
So it is like how OkCupid rates matches?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Having once made a rather poor decision to take the scenic route (the back roads) when travelling through Turkey, I cannot 100% agree.
good/bad is rarely 100%
So it is like how OkCupid rates matches?
I had to google what that is. Apparently it's the best dating site on Earth. Not sure about their rating system but I'm now wondering about dating sites not on Earth.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Having once made a rather poor decision to take the scenic route (the back roads) when travelling through Turkey, I cannot 100% agree.
good/bad is rarely 100%
So it is like how OkCupid rates matches?
I had to google what that is. Apparently it's the best dating site on Earth. Not sure about their rating system but I'm now wondering about dating sites not on Earth.
I've found for those my carbon and other histoprotein complex compatibility really trumped compatibility about whether I liked being a big or little spoon.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Having once made a rather poor decision to take the scenic route (the back roads) when travelling through Turkey, I cannot 100% agree.
good/bad is rarely 100%
So it is like how OkCupid rates matches?
I had to google what that is. Apparently it's the best dating site on Earth. Not sure about their rating system but I'm now wondering about dating sites not on Earth.
I've found for those my carbon and other histoprotein complex compatibility really trumped compatibility about whether I liked being a big or little spoon.
:laugh: Word-1 -
...I am bothered by not eating breakfast because as Senecarr said above, statistics show people who do eat it, are healthier.
The first mistake would be confusing correlation with causation.
"Many people who exercise are fat. Therefore, exercising makes you fat."
See how that works?0 -
Yeah, kind of my whole point is that thinking breakfast improves health comes from a confounding factor. People that are very good at organization and regimentation are more likely to wake on a regular schedule and eat breakfast, and those same people are more likely to have better health habits overall. This is what makes eating breakfast appear healthier. Independently forcing someone to eat breakfast who doesn't do so leads to weight increases.0 -
Yep! They are!!! 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions