The default of carbohydrate intake goal seems high for weight loss.
Options
Replies
-
Down 125 lbs with 50%-60% of my calories coming from carbs. No, their default is not "high for weight loss" since macro percentages are not what governs weight loss.2
-
utahmomof10 wrote: »sunfastrose wrote: »utahmomof10 wrote: »rikkejanell2014 wrote: »My mind has been programmed to think bread = fat. I find myself always taking 1 slice off if I'm eating any kind of sandwich.
Different types of carbs act differently as they are digested and metabolized. Simple carbs convert to sugar on digestion, and so too much of those (even if they are within your caloric range) can thwart weight loss efforts.
Nope. If you are eating less calories than you burn you will lose.
Technically speaking, yes. If all you're interested in is the number on the scale, then it truly doesn't matter what foods those less calories are. A person can eat nothing but 5 donuts a day and go for a 30-minute walk and lose weight, but they're not exactly going to be healthy, are they? If you're interested in overall health in addition to the number on the scale, it really is more complex than merely CICO.
It's not all or nothing. There is a middle ground between no simple carbs and all donuts all the time.
I eat 50-55% carbs most days and quite a few of those are simple carbs. All of my health indicators have improved as I've lost weight.
I'm not arguing all or nothing. I like simple carbs as much as the next person, and especially love them after a tough workout. The OP was expressing that she felt like the carb counts for the MFP formula were high because she has the idea that bread=fat. I was trying to explain that it is a false notion, and also elaborate by explaining that there is a difference between simple and complex carbs in the way our bodies metabolize them. Can you lose weight eating any type of carbs? Yes. Does that mean all carbs are equal? No. You can see my first post in this thread for some better context.
1 -
One of the main reason I avoid simple carbs is because the volume of food. Simple carbs are high calorie for a little food. A 1.5 ounce snickers bar has 215 calories while 1 cup (about 4 ounces) of apple slices has 95 calories. The apple will keep you satisfied longer due to the volume. The fiber content in the apple will slowdown the absorption of the sugers preventing a spike on insulin. The snickers will cause a spike making you hungry again.3
-
rikkejanell2014 wrote: »My mind has been programmed to think bread = fat. I find myself always taking 1 slice off if I'm eating any kind of sandwich.
Turn off your Instagram account.11 -
utahmomof10 wrote: »Simple carbs convert to sugar on digestion, and so too much of those (even if they are within your caloric range) can thwart weight loss efforts.
Just because this is a pet peeve of mine I have to take issue with it (although I agree that different foods that happen to be mostly carbs or have a high # of carbs are, of course different and I would personally explain it as "focus on more nutrient dense and higher fiber carbs as your base, add others to fill out a meal/if you need calories, and save most hyperpalatable fat/carb combination foods for treat foods, as they fit in the calories").
ALL starches and sugars end up as sugar on digestion. (Fiber is different, whether it counts as a carb or not depends on the country anyway.) Complex carbs are starches (whole grain or white), simple carbs are sugars (including the primary source of calories in fruit).
That they end up as sugar has diddly-all to do with weight loss, as that's the whole point -- your body needs glucose and runs on it (ordinarily, I don't deny one can do a super low carb diet and the body will make what it needs and run on ketones). It certainly does NOT mean that one can gain fat with a calorie deficit.
One thing that can be a problem if one eats a lot of quickly digested carbs (basically low fiber carbs on their own without protein or fat) is that they are digested quickly and so tend to leave people hungry again more quickly. This is particularly a problem if one has insulin resistance problems or is prone to hyperglycemia. It's not uniformly the case for everyone, and how even high glycemic load foods react as to satiety seems to differ a lot (plain potatoes seem to be high satiety when people are tested). I'd think a bigger issue than the GL of the foods themselves is HOW they are eaten. Plain white pasta in a meal with lean meat (protein) and vegetables (fiber) and olive oil (fat) is not going to act like plain white pasta alone (which seems a weird thing to eat), so that plain white pasta may well have a higher GL than some oatmeal cookie (fat+carbs+fiber) doesn't mean the cookie is more filling than "pasta" if you always eat pasta as part of a meal.Also, simple carbs tend to be very high in calories with minimal nutritional benefit, so they can hog up a lot of your calorie allowance without doing you any favors nutritionally. So while you can technically eat them and lose weight because you're in a caloric deficit, it's not really going to help you in the long run with your overall health.
Not at all true -- fruit is a classic simple carb. Even if white rice/bread/pasta/potatoes were such a thing (which they are not, they are starches so complex carbs), they aren't particularly high cal per gram.
What often IS high cal and contains carbs are so called junk foods like cookies, cake, brownies, potato chips, fries. However, those foods are about half fat (by calorie), and that's why they tend to be high cal per volume. Compare a french fry to the same amount of plain roasted potato, for example.
10 -
rikkejanell2014 wrote: »Michael190lbs wrote: »NOT possible weight loss is about Calorie deficit NOT a specific Macro.
So then what's the point of the goals and mfp notifying when you go over?
Calories for weight loss
Macros for satiety, possibly health, some fitness goals
Micros for health
Exercise for health & fitness
There are people here with lots of different goals - tracking is available for all the possible goals people might come here for.
This.2 -
utahmomof10 wrote: »rikkejanell2014 wrote: »My mind has been programmed to think bread = fat. I find myself always taking 1 slice off if I'm eating any kind of sandwich.
Different types of carbs act differently as they are digested and metabolized. Simple carbs convert to sugar on digestion, and so too much of those (even if they are within your caloric range) can thwart weight loss efforts. However, complex carbs found in whole grains like brown rice and quinoa, as well as in low-glycemic veggies like broccoli and yams/sweet potatoes do not convert as readily to sugar and have significantly more fiber to offset the sugars that are there.
Also, simple carbs tend to be very high in calories with minimal nutritional benefit, so they can hog up a lot of your calorie allowance without doing you any favors nutritionally. So while you can technically eat them and lose weight because you're in a caloric deficit, it's not really going to help you in the long run with your overall health.
Low-carb diets work for some (I personally think they are a bad idea, but that's just my opinion based on personal experience), but for the most part you don't want to skimp on them too much if you want to perform well at the gym (especially if you do much cardio). Carbs are a quick and easy form of energy - you just want to favor complex carbs over simple carbs.
Carbs metabolize at different speeds and in the case of fructose, in the liver vs intensities/stomach, but they all convert to sugar; more specifically, glucose. Glucose is so important to the body, that you do not eat enough, your body can create glucose out of amino acids and fatty acids through glucenogensis. The GI is not a very effective tool, for many, to use. It's based on a rating system when done fasted and done in isolation. This is rarely how person eats. Having said that, people should definitely eat a variety of foods, specially ones that will allow an themselves to be full, which is highly individualized. For me, fats do not fill me up, but what does is carbs; both simple (an apple), starches (potatoes <-- this actually is the most filling thing to me outside of protein) and complex (whole grain breads). Overall, diets are about context. If you are doing endurance work, than simple sugars are going to be the most effective. For general satiety, a variety of carbs mixed with other nutrient is ideal because fats, fiber and protein slow down the absorption; side note, different types of proteins have different absorption rates too. Egg protein takes a lot longer than whey.4 -
I did a low carb diet and lost 60 pounds. I am on a fairly regular diet now, and still losing weight. As long as you stay under your calorie limit, you will continue to lose.0
-
Cashgrinder wrote: »One of the main reason I avoid simple carbs is because the volume of food. Simple carbs are high calorie for a little food. A 1.5 ounce snickers bar has 215 calories while 1 cup (about 4 ounces) of apple slices has 95 calories. The apple will keep you satisfied longer due to the volume. The fiber content in the apple will slowdown the absorption of the sugers preventing a spike on insulin. The snickers will cause a spike making you hungry again.
Your example really has nothing to do with simple carbs vs. complex carbs especially if we're simply talking calories. A Snickers bar has 11 grams of fat and an apple has less than a half gram which accounts for most of the calorie difference; fat has more than twice the calories of sugar (9 grams vs. 4 grams). I'm not sure the rest of your conclusion is entirely valid.
For starters, a 1.56 ounce (44 grams) Snickers bar has that 11 grams of fat plus 3 grams of protein and 28 total grams of carbohydrates, of which 20 grams is sugar and .8 grams is fiber.
By comparison, a cup of apple slices has 0.2 grams of fat and .3 grams of protein. There are 15 grams of carbohydrates of which 11 grams is fructose (a simple sugar) and 3 grams are fiber. In fact, if you subtract the grams of everything else from the total 165 grams in that cup of apple slices, you'll see that it is mostly water.
While the larger volume of the apple will certainly fill you up more than the Snickers bar at first, the protein and fat in the Snickers bar will take longer to process than the fructose, water and small amount of fiber in the apple slices. I'm betting that whichever keeps you feeling full longer may very well come down to a wash or simple first-person perception.3 -
For me, fats do not fill me up, but what does is carbs; both simple (an apple), starches (potatoes <-- this actually is the most filling thing to me outside of protein) and complex (whole grain breads). Overall, diets are about context. If you are doing endurance work, than simple sugars are going to be the most effective.
I'd like to echo all of this. Protein normally does the most to blunt my hunger, carbs are pretty filling too, and fats are just yummy but not filling at all. For me personally.
When I plan to spent more than three hours on the bike, I bring a pack of M&Ms with me.0 -
Cashgrinder wrote: »One of the main reason I avoid simple carbs is because the volume of food. Simple carbs are high calorie for a little food. A 1.5 ounce snickers bar has 215 calories while 1 cup (about 4 ounces) of apple slices has 95 calories. The apple will keep you satisfied longer due to the volume. The fiber content in the apple will slowdown the absorption of the sugers preventing a spike on insulin. The snickers will cause a spike making you hungry again.
Your example really has nothing to do with simple carbs vs. complex carbs especially if we're simply talking calories. A Snickers bar has 11 grams of fat and an apple has less than a half gram which accounts for most of the calorie difference; fat has more than twice the calories of sugar (9 grams vs. 4 grams). I'm not sure the rest of your conclusion is entirely valid.
For starters, a 1.56 ounce (44 grams) Snickers bar has that 11 grams of fat plus 3 grams of protein and 28 total grams of carbohydrates, of which 20 grams is sugar and .8 grams is fiber.
By comparison, a cup of apple slices has 0.2 grams of fat and .3 grams of protein. There are 15 grams of carbohydrates of which 11 grams is fructose (a simple sugar) and 3 grams are fiber. In fact, if you subtract the grams of everything else from the total 165 grams in that cup of apple slices, you'll see that it is mostly water.
While the larger volume of the apple will certainly fill you up more than the Snickers bar at first, the protein and fat in the Snickers bar will take longer to process than the fructose, water and small amount of fiber in the apple slices. I'm betting that whichever keeps you feeling full longer may very well come down to a wash or simple first-person perception.
^^ This. So much this. The original snickers to apple comparison lacked any acknowledgment of the difference in water content.
I had drafted a similar response, but did not bother posting it a while back. I'm glad I didn't post it, because mine would not have been half as thoroughly and eloquently stated as @SueInAz has provided in this post.
If I ate a 16g mini snickers bar (80 Cals) and drank 4.5 ounces of water to quiet a bit of hunger, I would feel just as satiated, and most likely for just as long a time, as eating a 149g small apple (which contains 4.5 ounces of water and 77 Cals).
Satiety is different for different people.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions