Are all carbs the same?
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »Cutaway_Collar wrote: »All calories are not the same. 100 calories of chocolate are not the same as 100 calories of lentils. That is the prime reason the whole calorie counting thing can be a farce when you don't pay attention to the detail.
You can eat 1600 bad calories and not see any progress. On the other hand, you may eat 2000 good calories and see very good progress.
The biggest culprit is how quickly your insulin levels spike based on your meal. A high simple carb diet like white bread or potatoes are rapidly digestible and increase body insulin. The slower the digestibility the better. Complex carbs take longer to process and the results are much better in terms of insulin levels.
Google the relationship between carbs, the enzyme lipase and triglycerides in fat cells. And you will make wise decisions in calorie counting.
This is absolutely wrong.
How so?0 -
Is it making sense yet?
My 2-cents ... I'll never bypass having a potato ... while it is considered a starchy, or simple, carb ... it is loaded with good nutrients. It only becomes an unhealthy choice when it is fried in fat or dosed over with cheese whiz or gravy or mixed with cream and lots of butter. Just, like anything, I would not eat a potato every day, but one or two a week, especially baked and eat the skin as well ... yummm.
My diet consist of 70% saturated fat, sourced from animal fat, butter, cream, coconut oil, avocado, and the list goes on an on. My cholesterol is 163 with a 5.1-1 ratio, triglycerides are 54. Loosing weight is not simply putting yourself in a caloric deficit, it has more to do with the quality of the calories you eat and the way your body manages those calories. Everyone is different and processes their food differently.
Finding a way to put yourself in a deficit can be difficult since we dont have a means to measure tdee. But if you look at metabolic ward studies that measure EE and create a cut from that, you will see weight loss for all diets.
That is why its important to have feedback loops in their diets to get improved knowledge of their tdee. Its why i know that even with a desk job i maintain at 3000 calories with 5 to 6 hours of exercise (3 full body routines, 2 HIIT and 1 flexibility).0 -
All carbs are not the same. Their makeup is different, but in terms of dieting the most important differences IMO are satiety and absorption. Fiber, sugar alcohols and some starches are not fully absorbed by the body meaning that their calories don't count (free food!!).0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »All carbs are not the same. Their makeup is different, but in terms of dieting the most important differences IMO are satiety and absorption. Fiber, sugar alcohols and some starches are not fully absorbed by the body meaning that their calories don't count (free food!!).
Be careful of sugar alcohols though. They can have very unpleasant side effects0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »All carbs are not the same. Their makeup is different, but in terms of dieting the most important differences IMO are satiety and absorption. Fiber, sugar alcohols and some starches are not fully absorbed by the body meaning that their calories don't count (free food!!).
Be careful of sugar alcohols though. They can have very unpleasant side effects
I have heard that.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Some good indepth articles from Lyle McDonald on Dietary Carbohydrates and Nutrient Intake, Storage and Oxidation.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-dietary-carbohydrates-part-1.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-dietary-carbohydrates-part-2.html0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Cutaway_Collar wrote: »All calories are not the same. 100 calories of chocolate are not the same as 100 calories of lentils. That is the prime reason the whole calorie counting thing can be a farce when you don't pay attention to the detail.
You can eat 1600 bad calories and not see any progress. On the other hand, you may eat 2000 good calories and see very good progress.
The biggest culprit is how quickly your insulin levels spike based on your meal. A high simple carb diet like white bread or potatoes are rapidly digestible and increase body insulin. The slower the digestibility the better. Complex carbs take longer to process and the results are much better in terms of insulin levels.
Google the relationship between carbs, the enzyme lipase and triglycerides in fat cells. And you will make wise decisions in calorie counting.
This is absolutely wrong.
How so?
You will not see better results in terms of weight loss by eating "good" calories (however you define those), and even less so by eating 400 more which would all but wipe out the deficit of 90% of the people on here, resulting in NO fat loss whatsoever, no matter how "good" those calories were.
Insulin spikes have no bearing on your weight loss. There's no "calories of chocolate" vs. "calories of lentils" any more than there's "meters of lawn" vs. "meters of sidewalk".1 -
The glycemic index can basically be entirely disregarded unless you're a diabetic eating carbohydrate in isolation after an overnight fast.
Here's a great piece on insulin:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
3 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »Cutaway_Collar wrote: »All calories are not the same. 100 calories of chocolate are not the same as 100 calories of lentils. That is the prime reason the whole calorie counting thing can be a farce when you don't pay attention to the detail.
You can eat 1600 bad calories and not see any progress. On the other hand, you may eat 2000 good calories and see very good progress.
The biggest culprit is how quickly your insulin levels spike based on your meal. A high simple carb diet like white bread or potatoes are rapidly digestible and increase body insulin. The slower the digestibility the better. Complex carbs take longer to process and the results are much better in terms of insulin levels.
Google the relationship between carbs, the enzyme lipase and triglycerides in fat cells. And you will make wise decisions in calorie counting.
This is absolutely wrong.
How so?
1) Because he's attempting to demonize specific carbohydrates based on insulin.
2) The white potato is one of the best dieting foods for many people due to it's satiating effects.
3) Implying that 1600 "bad calories" are worse than 2000 "good calories" but more context is needed here since he didn't clarify whether it's weight loss we are talking about or not.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
https://www.ucsyd.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/om_uc_syddanmark/dokumenter/marianne_markers_kursus_NRO/110228_Holt et al Satiety index.pdf
Finally, dietary quality DOES matter. Nutrient content of the diet DOES matter.
Calories IN will cause changes to calories OUT, and these things need to be considered.
But changes in weight will still boil down to differences between energy coming in and energy going out.3 -
Calorie-wise, 10g of carbs from sugar will have the same calories as 10g of carbs from beans or 10g of carbs from whole wheat pasta or 10g of carbs from a peach (40kcal).
Blood sugar-wise, I see a difference in how different mono/di/polysaccharides affect my blood sugar. Pure glucose (or dextrose, a glucose-glucose disaccharide) will bring my BG up the quickest, while fructose/sucrose/lactose/galactose will be relatively slower (because any monosaccharide that isn't glucose will have to go to the liver to be processed into glucose that the body can then use for energy). I can't eat potatoes without seeing a 100mg/dL+ spike, because the glycosidic bonds in starch (starch is a long chain of glucose molecules) are very quickly broken by my digestive system, and that glucose is then absorbed into my blood really quickly (way faster than it takes for my insulin to start becoming active). Of course, what's more important than the carbohydrate composition of my food is how it's consumed relative to fiber, fat, and protein (all of which typically slow down digestion/absorption for me).0 -
Talking about carbs has become akin to debating politics. I suggest you do your own research and come to your own conclusions, OP! And once you find what works for you - just do it, and don't talk about it, or you'll tear families apart
2 -
IMO, it depends on what's accompanying it. Nutrients, other macros, etc. Potatoes are a great source of carbs. But putting sour cream, butter, and bacon on it (while extremely great), can easily exceed the calories for one meal for some, whereas consuming the potato it by itself may be just fine.
Also as demonized as sugar is, a little sugar in a marinade for meat isn't as "bad" as a banana sundae (due to calories and fat amount).
I eat all carbs. Simple and complex. Energy is important in workouts and also carbs are good for the brain.
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
0 -
Here is a fun little carbohydrate quiz:
Carbohydrates
1. Starch is a polymer made from the following monomer:
α-glucose
β-glucose
α-fructose
α-galactose
2. The type of bond that forms when a disaccharide is formed from two monosaccharides is called:
an ester bond
a glycosidic bond
a peptide bond
a carbohydrate bond
3. The products of hydrolysis of lactose are:
α-glucose and α-fructose
α-fructose and α-galactose
α-glucose and α-galactose
α-galactose and α-ribose
4. Which two monosaccharides combine to form sucrose?
α-glucose and α-fructose
α-glucose and β-glucose
α-galactose and α-fructose
α-fructose and α-ribose
5. The type of reaction that occurs when a disaccharide is formed from two monosaccharides is
condensation
hydrolysis
reduction
addition
6. Saccharides contain the following combination of elements:
carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen
carbon, hydrogen and phosphorus
carbon and hydrogen
carbon, oxygen and hydrogen
7. Aldoses are reducing sugars because in their non-cyclic form they contain:
an ester group
an hydroxyl group
a ketone group
an aldehyde group
8. Which is the most important carbohydrate fuel in human cells?
galactose
glucose
ribose
fructose
0 -
Cutaway_Collar wrote: »All calories are not the same. 100 calories of chocolate are not the same as 100 calories of lentils. That is the prime reason the whole calorie counting thing can be a farce when you don't pay attention to the detail.
You can eat 1600 bad calories and not see any progress. On the other hand, you may eat 2000 good calories and see very good progress.
The biggest culprit is how quickly your insulin levels spike based on your meal. A high simple carb diet like white bread or potatoes are rapidly digestible and increase body insulin. The slower the digestibility the better. Complex carbs take longer to process and the results are much better in terms of insulin levels.
Google the relationship between carbs, the enzyme lipase and triglycerides in fat cells. And you will make wise decisions in calorie counting.
Besides the fact that most of this is incorrect, the OP asked about if all carbs are the same, not if all calories are the same... As others have pointed out - calories as a unit of measure is a standard, so yes, all calories are equal, but that doesn't mean of course that all foods are equal from a nutritional or satiety perspective.1 -
Cutaway_Collar wrote: »All calories are not the same. 100 calories of chocolate are not the same as 100 calories of lentils. That is the prime reason the whole calorie counting thing can be a farce when you don't pay attention to the detail.
You can eat 1600 bad calories and not see any progress. On the other hand, you may eat 2000 good calories and see very good progress.
The biggest culprit is how quickly your insulin levels spike based on your meal. A high simple carb diet like white bread or potatoes are rapidly digestible and increase body insulin. The slower the digestibility the better. Complex carbs take longer to process and the results are much better in terms of insulin levels.
Google the relationship between carbs, the enzyme lipase and triglycerides in fat cells. And you will make wise decisions in calorie counting.
Nope, nope nope. I will still lose weight if I ate 1300 cals of 'junk' or 1300 cals with of nutritious foods. I gain on anything above 1800 no matter what type of diet I have. From a scientific point, a calorie is a calorie, just like an inch is an inch, or a meter is a meter. I don't just eat nutritious foods; I include food that I like and have lost almost 100lbs. Its called a balanced diet.0 -
Cutaway_Collar wrote: »I don't want to bring Harvard research papers here to prove my point. You can bloody well search the internet for it.
I stand by my statement. All carbs are not created equal. You cannot tell me that 100 calories of protein is the same as 100 calories of simple carbs is the same as 100 calories of complex carbs. If that were the case, I'd eat 1600 calories of chicken vindaloo and rice every day and be the fittest individual on earth.
Again 100 calories of chocolate is not the same as 100 calories of broccoli. The body does not treat this the same way. I would love to go into a Physics discussion involving heat and thermodynamics... but you know what... when you are hellbent on counting calories, the same marketing ploy big food provides you with... You won't be in a position to dissect the facts. The truth and the research is out there. Please find for yourself and don't shoot the messenger
My intentions were genuine. Calorie counting is not enough. The devil is in the details. Obviously I want you all to hit your goals. This isn't an internet message board argument game. But the right kind of calories.
Let me ask you, is the 3 feet of pavement different from the 3 feet of grass, or are they both 3 feet?
You're looking at this as only the satiety and nutrition of food, not the calories of food. Calorie does not equal nutrition.3 -
Cutaway_Collar wrote: »I don't want to bring Harvard research papers here to prove my point. You can bloody well search the internet for it.
I stand by my statement. All carbs are not created equal. You cannot tell me that 100 calories of protein is the same as 100 calories of simple carbs is the same as 100 calories of complex carbs. If that were the case, I'd eat 1600 calories of chicken vindaloo and rice every day and be the fittest individual on earth.
Again 100 calories of chocolate is not the same as 100 calories of broccoli. The body does not treat this the same way. I would love to go into a Physics discussion involving heat and thermodynamics... but you know what... when you are hellbent on counting calories, the same marketing ploy big food provides you with... You won't be in a position to dissect the facts. The truth and the research is out there. Please find for yourself and don't shoot the messenger
My intentions were genuine. Calorie counting is not enough. The devil is in the details. Obviously I want you all to hit your goals. This isn't an internet message board argument game. But the right kind of calories.
I've hit my goals and surpassed them knowing what you are saying is false.6 -
Call ME stupid, but what is the "OP question"? What does "OP" mean?0
-
Cutaway_Collar wrote: »Let me restate it. Numerically 100 cals of chocolate is the same as 100 cals of broccoli. But to the original question. They are not the same. They are not equal food versus food. That is what I have been saying the whole time.
But if this helps, I abdicate and hereby conclude that I am wrong. But I would urge the readers to do their own research and not count calories number by number without proper analysis of the type of calories and carb sub-families.
The original question was about carbs, not calories, and no one is saying that broccoli and chocolate are the same foods or have the same nutritional profile.
However, your claim earlier that a person can eat in an energy surplus as long as they are eating the right foods is incorrect.
Lastly, the burden of proof is on the person making the claims so I'm sure there are a lot of us who would like to see the peer reviewed Harvard studies that indicate a person can lose weight eating in a calorie surplus...
5 -
Original Poster, the person who started the thread, or alternatively, Original Post.alisonbowles wrote: »Call ME stupid, but what is the "OP question"? What does "OP" mean?
0 -
you are right! My bad, I wasn't really thinking. Despite that, I believe fruit is healthy and should be eaten a lot. Thanks for catching that!stevencloser wrote: »brichards_ wrote: »Complex carbs are great for you! Things like fruit, rice, noodles, quinoa are so good for you and fuel your body and brain! Processed sugar carbs aren't good for you
Fruit isn't actually complex carbs, they're mostly simple, even more simple than "processed" sugar.
0 -
I malabsorb certain carbs. But, I can eat other carbs. So, from that perspective they are not all the same. But, in terms of calories and weight loss for most regular people it probably doesn't matter.0
-
A carb is a carb. 1 gram of carbohydrate is 4 calories, no matter what the source.0
-
Cutaway_Collar wrote: »I don't want to bring Harvard research papers here to prove my point. You can bloody well search the internet for it.
I stand by my statement. All carbs are not created equal. You cannot tell me that 100 calories of protein is the same as 100 calories of simple carbs is the same as 100 calories of complex carbs. If that were the case, I'd eat 1600 calories of chicken vindaloo and rice every day and be the fittest individual on earth.
Again 100 calories of chocolate is not the same as 100 calories of broccoli. The body does not treat this the same way. I would love to go into a Physics discussion involving heat and thermodynamics... but you know what... when you are hellbent on counting calories, the same marketing ploy big food provides you with... You won't be in a position to dissect the facts. The truth and the research is out there. Please find for yourself and don't shoot the messenger
My intentions were genuine. Calorie counting is not enough. The devil is in the details. Obviously I want you all to hit your goals. This isn't an internet message board argument game. But the right kind of calories.
The best way to have a sophisticated scientific discussion is saying "Eh I don't feel like proving my point".1 -
And I'm just going to keep quoting the WHO on this until the deniers give their take on it.
"There was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy
body weight and ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient
distribution expressed in energy percentage (%E)." - WHO/FAO0 -
Cutaway_Collar wrote: »Again 100 calories of chocolate is not the same as 100 calories of broccoli.
Why just repeat yourself instead of engaging with the many counterpoints made? One would think you aren't actually able to argue for your position.
As I said above, there's no such thing as a "chocolate calorie" or a "broccoli calorie" -- your body does not recognize calories as such or distinguish. Pie doesn't end up going to the thighs or such nonsense, which is basically the same kind of argument.
Are FOODS different, with different benefits IN ADDITION TO calories? Of course. Might it affect the speed at which we are able to take advantage of the energy contributed by the calories in the food? Yes. Does that at all support a claim that calories are different? No, because, again, a calorie is a unit of energy.
Also, I don't know why you are going on about calories, when the question was whether carbs are different. The answer there is yes, they are, although whether that matters depends on why the person is asking (for many things it does).2 -
All food, whether it consists of carbohydrate, fat, and/or protein provides calories in the form of energy. The amount of energy in 100 calories of chocolate is the same amount of energy in 100 calories of broccoli. Both chocolate and broccoli provide energy from carbs (though not exclusively). The exact same amount of energy.
For the 100 calorie of broccoli vs chocolate example,
20g of chocolate is about 100 calories. It is a little bit of chocolate. 12g are carbs, and most of them (10g) are just sugar.
300g (about 3 cups) of broccoli is about 100 calories. It is a lot of broccoli. Out of that 300 g of broccoli, 19g are carbs with 5 of those sugar, and 8 fiber. 8g of that broccoli is protein. The rest is water.
The same amount of energy in calories. You can eat either one within your calorie goal to lose weight. It makes no difference. But choosing broccoli over chocolate provides more volume, protein, fiber, vitamins, minerals.
0 -
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions