Carb intake.

Options
24

Replies

  • Kst76
    Kst76 Posts: 935 Member
    Options
    What carbohydrates can i eat that keeps me full for a longer period of time?
    I love bagels but get hungry an hour after i eat one.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,994 Member
    Options
    karintalley wrote: »
    What carbohydrates can i eat that keeps me full for a longer period of time?
    I love bagels but get hungry an hour after i eat one.

    What foods are satiating is going to vary from one person to the next. I personally find higher-fiber, eaten with at least a little fat and protein, to be most satiating. Like a baked potato with a some full-fat greek yogurt.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    karintalley wrote: »
    What carbohydrates can i eat that keeps me full for a longer period of time?
    I love bagels but get hungry an hour after i eat one.

    As lynn said, it varies from person to person, so you will need to experiment. I find beans, potatoes, and white rice most filling. For snacks I find apples most filling, although many here find they make them hungrier! Shows how differently people respond to food.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Options
    karintalley wrote: »
    What carbohydrates can i eat that keeps me full for a longer period of time?
    I love bagels but get hungry an hour after i eat one.

    carbs don't really keep me full. protein and fat for me.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,478 Member
    Options
    For me it's a proper bread, a good amount of pasta or rice that keeps me full. Fats or protein doesn't work for me, plus they make me tired during daytime. Like said above: everybody is different.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    You all have good points. However, most people when they think 'high carb' their mind goes immediately to all the grain-based packaged foods, breads, pastas, dry cereals and cereal bars, that sort of thing.

    I think most people think about potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice, and pasta, and probably bread, none of which are typically eaten alone or necessarily low nutrient and as for calories what you eat with them is what matters -- a pasta meal with lots of veg, a little olive oil, and lean meat (for example, shrimp) is a different meal than pasta carbonara, and the pasta itself plays no role in the difference.
    If someone is limiting their total carb grams, they are often more likely to make those grams count with things that are more nutritious, such as the vegetables and fruits.

    My observations are that this is not always true, and focusing on nutrition is probably better for most than focusing on "carbs." (I do think some do better on lower carb diets and that getting more protein can help others. Beyond that, I'd focus on the nutrient density of an overall day, and point out that many of the most nutrient dense foods are primarily carbs.)
    I'm certainly not trying to say carbs are bad. What I am saying is that limiting carbs -can- help steer someone away from a lot of the high calorie, low nutrition convenience foods if they are having an issue with hitting their calorie goals but still being hungry or not getting enough other nutrients. When you get down to it, for the most part the high-carb nutritious foods we've talked about are relatively low in calorie density, which means that even if most or all of their calories come from carbohydrates, they still offer fewer grams of carbohydrates than a similar quantity of "junk" food.

    Most (not all) "junk" foods are half fat, half carbs, so I don't see the point of focusing on them as "carbs" or scare-mongering about carbs. You'd get the same result limiting fats, but I think focusing on that isn't a great idea either, for the same reason.

    And not everyone has 2500 calories on a deficit. At a 1500 g limit, 20% carbs would be 75 g, and I know when I did keto (as an experiment) trying to stick to about 60 total was hard just eating avocado, vegetables, and nuts, plus a bit of dairy. So 75 g would mean one additional piece of fruit or a small amount of potatoes, probably, when a healthful diet could easily include many more carbs -- oats or more fruit at breakfast, some legumes, sweet potato, plus all the veg and some nuts and dairy.

    NOT saying 20% is wrong for you, but focusing on cutting carbs vs. a nutrient-dense overall diet that is pleasurable and satisfying and sating to YOU seems to me the wrong approach. Lower carbs may be helpful for some, but certainly not all.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    karintalley wrote: »
    What carbohydrates can i eat that keeps me full for a longer period of time?
    I love bagels but get hungry an hour after i eat one.

    Like others said, depends on the person, so experiment.

    Bagels (bread in general) aren't filling for me. But most starchy carbs when eaten with protein and fat are, even if the starchy carbs make up most of the meal -- oats and potatoes and pasta (weirdly, since it's basically the same as bread) all work.

    Beyond that, fiber is filling for me, so beans and lentils are foods I find super filling, and vegetables always make a big difference (and unlike many here I find plain cooked vegetables quite filling, and same with fruit).
  • collectingblues
    collectingblues Posts: 2,541 Member
    Options
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    You all have good points. However, most people when they think 'high carb' their mind goes immediately to all the grain-based packaged foods, breads, pastas, dry cereals and cereal bars, that sort of thing. If someone is limiting their total carb grams, they are often more likely to make those grams count with things that are more nutritious, such as the vegetables and fruits.
    I'm certainly not trying to say carbs are bad. What I am saying is that limiting carbs -can- help steer someone away from a lot of the high calorie, low nutrition convenience foods if they are having an issue with hitting their calorie goals but still being hungry or not getting enough other nutrients. When you get down to it, for the most part the high-carb nutritious foods we've talked about are relatively low in calorie density, which means that even if most or all of their calories come from carbohydrates, they still offer fewer grams of carbohydrates than a similar quantity of "junk" food.
    This kind of veers into the whole "clean eating" thing. Generally speaking I consider the philosophy to be a bunch of woo, but to give credit where it is due, avoiding the packaged/convenience foods does tend to steer a person toward a diet with a higher nutritional density but lower caloric density. Limiting carbohydrate intake can have the same effect.
    Also to note, when I say limiting, I'm not talking about extremes like keto diets with 20 grams or less per day. For myself, setting my carbs at 20% gives 124 grams per day (not counting fiber) at 2500 calories. I can eat all kinds of vegetables (if I cared to) and a fair amount of most fruits without threatening that limit. I cannot, however, eat a bunch of things like white bread and mac-n-cheese. I have to be much more careful about quantity with those.

    Just because people "think" something doesn't mean that they are right.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    estherdragonbat wrote: »
    30 grams of dry cereal (Quaker Corn Squares or Life) gives me 30% of my iron RDA. I crumble a granola bar into my Greek yogurt every day for breakfast. Another 4% of my iron, as well as some fat and protein. Just had a quinoa-edamame-veggie pilaf for supper tonight. Besides the 76 grams of carbs, I got 21 grams of protein and 37% of my iron RDA. Not sure where the idea that grains and cereals aren't nutritious is coming from. Are they easy to overdo if you don't know what a portion should look like? Sure. But I don't get why they're being lumped in with "low nutrition convenience foods".

    Because, as you said, it is easy to overdo the calories and run oneself short on protein and a lot of the micro-nutrients that come in fruits and vegetables.
    But mostly because when the average person eats cold cereal it's stuff like Golden Grahms and Captain Crunch.

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    amiewalanstephen wrote: »
    Eat 1– 1.5 grams of Carbs Per Pound of Bodyweight Daily

    ● If you're a hard-preparing female, carbs ought to involve 30%– 40% of your day by day caloric admission. Holding back on sugars — a large portion of which should originate from moderate processing sources, for example, dark colored rice, grains, oats, veggies, and yams — can really make you lose muscle. Carbs shape muscle glycogen, the fuel for strenuous preparing, and when these stores are exhausted the body swings to its own fit tissue for fuel. Devour 1– 1.5 grams of carbs per pound of bodyweight; for a 125-pound lady, that is 125– 187 grams. Decrease your admission as the day advances (see No. 9) and devour the dominant part of these carbs.

    Carbs are carbs. It doesn't matter whether it's from table sugar or brown rice, the non-fiber carbohydrate portion all becomes glucose when digested.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    karintalley wrote: »
    What carbohydrates can i eat that keeps me full for a longer period of time?
    I love bagels but get hungry an hour after i eat one.

    Protein, fiber and fats are filling components but it's not the same combination for every one.

    A bagel by (itself) would not be filling to me. But if I had 1/2 bagel....then used the calorie savings for scrambled eggs with cheese, that would be filling.

    The same goes for most cereal. One with more fiber (oatmeal) helps, but I still make it with milk.....for protein.
  • rckeeper22
    rckeeper22 Posts: 103 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    @MarkusDarwath

    I completely hear where you're coming from, and agree. Carbs in and of themselves may be agnostic (WRT being 'good' or 'bad') but for some (not all) folks, focusing on them, in terms of really thinking about what carb sources are worth it or optimal, can result in healthier eating choices- especially as a starting point.

    Edit: To be clear: As others have noted, carb quantity can be whatever level fits someone's overall intake goals and allows enough nutrients to sustain healthy, functioning systems.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    NOT saying 20% is wrong for you, but focusing on cutting carbs vs. a nutrient-dense overall diet that is pleasurable and satisfying and sating to YOU seems to me the wrong approach. Lower carbs may be helpful for some, but certainly not all.

    I certainly was never claiming it was helpful for all. I was just giving the two realistic reasons why one would want to limit them. I will absolutely agree that neither reason is universally applicable. Heck, even among diabetics, a low carb diet doesn't necessarily help all of us. Many do fine with carbs as their highest percentage and it's keeping total calories in check that controls their blood sugar.

    So if you (generically speaking) are not a diabetic who responds to low carb, and limiting carb grams or percentages doesn't personally help you in making better food choices to stay under your calorie goals, then it makes no sense to restrict carb intake.

    For myself, both reasons happen to apply. If I make the more carbohydrate dense foods too big a part of my diet then I end up short on my protein goals while hitting my calorie target. Plus my blood sugar runs lower if I don't feed it as many things that directly break down into glucose.

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    collectingblues wrote: »
    Just because people "think" something doesn't mean that they are right.

    True, but when it comes to achieving goals, many find it easier to work within their existing mindset than to completely reorganize their thinking. It's not always necessary to be technically accurate in order to be effective.

  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    collectingblues wrote: »
    Just because people "think" something doesn't mean that they are right.

    True, but when it comes to achieving goals, many find it easier to work within their existing mindset than to completely reorganize their thinking. It's not always necessary to be technically accurate in order to be effective.

    Maybe this is the real source of disagreement then, because I 100% do not agree with this! Maybe this discussion would be better off in a Debate thread rather than hijacking OP's thread though. I don't think at this point we're still answering her question :lol:
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Are you basing that on actual sales figures or is that just your assumption of the cold cereal the average person is eating?

    I'm basing it on what seems to be the most prevalent in the store, which is presumably what sells the most.
    I think making blanket declarations about carbohydrates (which is where this conversation started) based on the assumption that those carbohydrates are mostly coming from Captain Crunch is unhelpful.

    I'm not making blanket statements about carbohydrates (other than they all break down to glucose in digestion). Simply saying that limiting carb intake as a motivator toward more nutritionally dense foods is a reason one might do so. It doesn't apply to everyone.
    Grains and cereals *are* nutritious. Like any category of food, their nutritional content may vary. But even Captain Crunch is going to be a rich source of iron (28% of RDA) and vitamin B-6 (30% of RDA).

    In my opinion, grain based foods tend to be low on nutrient density in comparison with caloric density. Which is not to say they are generally bad, just that some people find it easier to meet their nutritional needs within a reduced calorie diet by limiting their intake of those.

Categories