Carb intake.
Options
Replies
-
FYI
http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2016/03/07/top-10-best-selling-cereals.html
1. Honey Nut Cheerios
2. Frosted Flakes
3. Honey Bunches of Oats
4. Cheerios
5. Cinnamon Toast Crunch
6. Special K
7. Frosted Mini Wheats
8. Lucky Charms
9. Froot Loops
10. Raisin Bran
Not sure if this is entirely accurate or not.2 -
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.
Highly individual...for me personally, things like legumes, lentils, oats, potatoes and other root vegetables do the trick. I don't find bread filling at all. I eat a bagel once in a blue moon...usually an easy morning breakfast when we're camping on our pack up and go home morning and I load it up with cream cheese.0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »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.
Store placement is based on a variety of factors, including promotional agreements between retailers and manufacturers. I'd be cautious about assuming that a cereal is a top seller just because it seems the most prevalent to you. Even if your personal observations are a guide to the top selling cereals in America, there's still a lot of shelf space devoted to grains and cereals that aren't anything like Captain Crunch. In the cereal aisle of my store, I can see cereals with no sugar added, low sugar cereals, grains like oats and millet, hot cereals made from whole grains like rice. We can choose from all these options (and, in reality, many people make more than one choice and have things like Captain Crunch sometimes and oatmeal at other times).
I'm not sure how to respond to your opinion that grain-based foods are low in nutrient density in comparison to their caloric density. Is your opinion supposed to guide the food choices of others or should we use the nutritional data from the foods themselves? In reality, we can see from nutritional data that grains and cereals can be rich in vitamins and other things we need -- iron, b-vitamins, fiber, even protein. For someone in a deficit, the carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, and fiber in grains and cereals can all be used by the body.
Of course, some people do limit grains and cereals when they're in a deficit. They can do this for a variety of reasons. Maybe they prefer volume eating and grains don't fit well into that for them, maybe grains and cereals don't drive their satiety as much as other foods, maybe they simply don't find them worth the calories because they prefer other foods. These are all legitimate reasons to avoid grains. Avoiding them due to misconceptions about them being categorically "empty calories" or things best to avoid while in a deficit, those don't seem like legitimate reasons to avoid cereals and grains.
6 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »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.
I'm not going to address the diabetic thing, since that does not apply for me and I think of course you need to think about carbs when dealing with diabetes.
I tend to think the best approach when talking about nutrition or satiety is to focus on specific foods and overall diet and not whether they are characterized as carbs or not, as that kind of generalization seems to me to result in people not really understanding nutrition (or even what a carb is).
A good comparison is someone deciding that the way to eat "healthy" is to avoid "processed" foods. I've seen people asking whether canned beans are "processed" with the idea that if they are, they should avoid them. A much better approach -- and one that actually involves some learning about and understanding of nutrition -- is to think about what kinds of foods you WANT in your diet and total calories and then to make choices that way. And if you do that, some processed foods (like canned beans, especially low sodium) might be things to actively seek out (you also might want to include canned tomatoes, cottage cheese, greek yogurt, smoked salmon, tempeh, and a variety of other things technically processed). The generalization to avoid "processed" foods is not useful.
Similarly, if your concern is that you eat lots of low nutrient foods, focusing on cutting carbs seems to be a not very useful way to go about, as many carbs are nutrient dense. Why not focus directly on limiting high cal/low nutrient foods (many of which are as high in fat as carbs anyway)?
It's just a pet peeve of mine that "carb" gets used as a catch-all term for so-called junk food or as if "carbs" were inherently bad for you. How people overeat is individual, so rather than assuming that someone overeating is eating lots of sugary cereal (not that it matters, but sugary cereal is a food that for whatever reason I actively dislike, I hate all cold cereals, so I was far more likely to be overeating on cheese or nuts), why not teach them about how to construct a good nutrient-dense diet that is consistent with their preferences?
Often this means learning to balance all three macros -- for example, I love pasta, so when losing I ate lots of pasta with a ton of vegetables (since I love vegetables and think they are very important), lean meat (so it would help me meet my protein goals), and some kind of healthy fat (olive oil, pine nuts, walnuts, olives, whatever). Thinking "pasta is bad for weight loss" would have meant cutting out meals that served my goals quite well.4 -
FYI
http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2016/03/07/top-10-best-selling-cereals.html
1. Honey Nut Cheerios
2. Frosted Flakes
3. Honey Bunches of Oats
4. Cheerios
5. Cinnamon Toast Crunch
6. Special K
7. Frosted Mini Wheats
8. Lucky Charms
9. Froot Loops
10. Raisin Bran
Not sure if this is entirely accurate or not.
Yeah, the problem is most breakfast cereals aren't really that great unless you just want the calories and some basic micros that you can find pretty much everywhere. I prefer oats because I prefer not to pay for expensive sugar and flours.1 -
crabbybrianna wrote: »There are a lot of very high fat, low nutrient convenience foods. Do you also recommend people limit fats in their diet just so they don’t eat low nutrient fatty foods?
Actually, yes, if that's what they have a problem with. Again, I can use my own targets as an example. I've got my macros set for protein and carbohydrates based mainly on the number of grams per day. It just happens to work out to 30% and 20% respectively. Generally speaking, I just let the fats fall where they end up, but some days I find myself getting too many calories with not enough protein and have to start looking for things to eat with less fat in order to get back in range.
Calorie dense food that is high in both fat and carbs is especially challenging to my protein target, so I avoid them more often than not.
0 -
crabbybrianna wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »crabbybrianna wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »There are really only two reasons to limit carb intake. One is to avoid filling up your calorie target with low nutrition food, since many high carbohydrate foods contain little else but calories (potato chips, for example).
Potato chips are mostly fat, they aren’t a high carb food. Baked potatoes would be a high carb food.
You have a point. I consider them high carb because carbohydrates do make up over a third of the calories (36% for Wavy Lay's). They are an empty calorie food. Perhaps snack crackers and Hostess cakes would have been a better example.
Okay, but the word “carbs” does not mean empty calorie food or junk food. Fruits are high carb foods. Vegetables are high carb foods. Grains and beans and lentils are high carb foods. You don’t need to limit carbs just so you don’t fill your entire day with snack cakes. Some high carb foods may have little nutrients, but not most.
How many carbs you eat is up to you. Some people feel more satisfied eating lower carb, and some feel more satisfied eating higher carb.
And there are complex carbs and simple carbs.
Complex carbs slow down the blood glucose rise and insulin response because of their fiber content.
Simple carbs cause a faster rise in blood sugar, which is good when you have a low blood sugar episode.
Simple carbs in your diet are usually best consumed with complex carbs, fats, protein.
Fruits are better than most candies out there, using them for a snack or as part of your meals adds needed energy, fiber and vitamins.2 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »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.
I think the larger point is that overgeneralizing about carbs can obscure useful truths (and feed preexisting myths), and that context is important.
Here, we have an OP who comes in "eating clean" and craving carbs, and seemingly concerned that "too many" carbs might hinder weight-loss/health progress or be "unclean" or some such thing.
In this context, it's not terribly helpful to offer variations on "minimize carbs, they're mostly junk food" (I'm consciously oversimplifying, BTW).
She already thinks she needs to "eat clean"**. If we say "carbs are OK", it seems like she's really not that likely to run for a diet of only Cap'n Crunch and Oreos.
On the other hand, for some of us, unnecessarily over-restricting craved foods (bagels, Oreos, whatever) leads to giving up, or to eventually over-eating the craved things.
It's a myth that carbs (in general) are entirely bad for regular non-diabetic people, or that they universally hinder weight loss. Nonetheless, fed by the "health and fitness" click-bait-o-sphere, many people believe that they're all evil. Specific information about nutrient-dense vs. nutrient-void carb-containing foods may be helpful. Continuing to over-generalize about carbs . . . isn't. It feeds the myth monster.
** P.S. I keep putting "eating clean" in quotes because it doesn't have any clear agreed-upon definition. Therefore, I don't use the term6 -
crabbybrianna wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »crabbybrianna wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »There are really only two reasons to limit carb intake. One is to avoid filling up your calorie target with low nutrition food, since many high carbohydrate foods contain little else but calories (potato chips, for example).
Potato chips are mostly fat, they aren’t a high carb food. Baked potatoes would be a high carb food.
You have a point. I consider them high carb because carbohydrates do make up over a third of the calories (36% for Wavy Lay's). They are an empty calorie food. Perhaps snack crackers and Hostess cakes would have been a better example.
Okay, but the word “carbs” does not mean empty calorie food or junk food. Fruits are high carb foods. Vegetables are high carb foods. Grains and beans and lentils are high carb foods. You don’t need to limit carbs just so you don’t fill your entire day with snack cakes. Some high carb foods may have little nutrients, but not most.
How many carbs you eat is up to you. Some people feel more satisfied eating lower carb, and some feel more satisfied eating higher carb.
And there are complex carbs and simple carbs.
Complex carbs slow down the blood glucose rise and insulin response because of their fiber content.
Simple carbs cause a faster rise in blood sugar, which is good when you have a low blood sugar episode.
Simple carbs in your diet are usually best consumed with complex carbs, fats, protein.
Fruits are better than most candies out there, using them for a snack or as part of your meals adds needed energy, fiber and vitamins.
But fruits most often contain mostly simple carbs. Grains most often contain mostly complex carbs (and in less-processed versions, more fiber).
People don't eat carbs. People eat foods. Often they eat the foods in combinations (meals). They always eat them in some overall variety (a diet or way of eating). Nutrient balance in an overall way of eating is what really matters. Which foods source particular nutrients is less important.
In quite a few contexts, talking about "carbs" is not particularly informative.7 -
A lot of scientific and text-book information here. When I eliminated carbs I got wicked sweets cravings too, and I was never a sweets person before that. I fought through it and it passed after a couple of weeks. I guess it depends on your goals... I mean if you just want to lose weight than eat whatever you want, just less of it
If you want to eat a clean diet, there are plenty of good resources out there... do your research and start reading labels. Personally for me, I hate carbs. They make me feel like *kitten* and they make me look like *kitten*, do I avoid them mostly aside from the occasional Friday night date night dinner roll and dessert! I only eat carbs when I need a good muscle pump lol. 4 -
cushman5279 wrote: »A lot of scientific and text-book information here. When I eliminated carbs I got wicked sweets cravings too, and I was never a sweets person before that. I fought through it and it passed after a couple of weeks. I guess it depends on your goals... I mean if you just want to lose weight than eat whatever you want, just less of it If you want to eat a clean diet, there are plenty of good resources out there... do your research and start reading labels. Personally for me, I hate carbs. They make me feel like *kitten* and they make me look like *kitten*, do I avoid them mostly aside from the occasional Friday night date night dinner roll and dessert! I only eat carbs when I need a good muscle pump lol.
Carbohydrates make you feel and look bad? Like broccoli? Sweet potatoes? Millet? Garbanzo beans? Collard greens? They all make you feel equally terrible?10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not sure how to respond to your opinion that grain-based foods are low in nutrient density in comparison to their caloric density. Is your opinion supposed to guide the food choices of others or should we use the nutritional data from the foods themselves? In reality, we can see from nutritional data that grains and cereals can be rich in vitamins and other things we need -- iron, b-vitamins, fiber, even protein. For someone in a deficit, the carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, and fiber in grains and cereals can all be used by the body.
Ok, compare the nutritional data for 100 grams each of white pasta, green beans, and eggs. Which items have more, and greater variety, of micronutrients in that 100g? And which have more calories in that same 100 g?
The pasta has slightly more variety of micros than the green beans, but at more than 20 times the calories. The eggs completely blow away the other two for micros, at less than half the calories of the pasta.
That's all I'm getting at with my statement. If one is trying to maximize non-caloric nutrition within a limited calorie diet, grains are not the ideal choice. They were wonderful back in pre-industrial times when everybody had to work their butts off to live and there was no reason to limit calories. In a modern diet, they are completely optional.1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not sure how to respond to your opinion that grain-based foods are low in nutrient density in comparison to their caloric density. Is your opinion supposed to guide the food choices of others or should we use the nutritional data from the foods themselves? In reality, we can see from nutritional data that grains and cereals can be rich in vitamins and other things we need -- iron, b-vitamins, fiber, even protein. For someone in a deficit, the carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, and fiber in grains and cereals can all be used by the body.
Ok, compare the nutritional data for 100 grams each of white pasta, green beans, and eggs. Which items have more, and greater variety, of micronutrients in that 100g? And which have more calories in that same 100 g?
The pasta has slightly more variety of micros than the green beans, but at more than 20 times the calories. The eggs completely blow away the other two for micros, at less than half the calories of the pasta.
That's all I'm getting at with my statement. If one is trying to maximize non-caloric nutrition within a limited calorie diet, grains are not the ideal choice. They were wonderful back in pre-industrial times when everybody had to work their butts off to live and there was no reason to limit calories. In a modern diet, they are completely optional.
But the goal isn't to maximize our micronutrient consumption, the goal is to meet our micronutrient needs. And you can do that while eating all three foods -- pasta, green beans, and eggs (and, in fact, balancing different types of foods is a pretty decent way to describe how most traditional human diets have worked).
For me personally, if I eat just green beans, I'll be hungry again really quickly despite how nutrient-rich they are. If I have a bowl of pasta and green beans, I'll feel more satisfied -- both physically and mentally.
The point isn't that pasta is *more nutritious* than green beans, the point is that pasta can be part of a diet that meets nutritional needs. We don't need to constantly make the "ideal" choice when planning our diets, we're all making choices that allow us to meet our nutritional needs and calorie goals while also factoring in considerations like satiety and taste preferences.
Grains were great in pre-industrial times. I'm not convinced that the steel-cut oats I had for breakfast this morning after my run are less great now than they would have been for my ancestors or that the pasta with my mixed vegetables I had for lunch is worse for me because I work in an office building and not in a field.
5 -
I think the larger point is that overgeneralizing about carbs can obscure useful truths (and feed preexisting myths), and that context is important.
Here, we have an OP who comes in "eating clean" and craving carbs, and seemingly concerned that "too many" carbs might hinder weight-loss/health progress or be "unclean" or some such thing.
In this context, it's not terribly helpful to offer variations on "minimize carbs, they're mostly junk food" (I'm consciously oversimplifying, BTW).
Maybe this is where people keep misunderstanding my statements and jumping all over them. I was not offering that as a suggestion for the OP to follow. I was putting it out as a reason for one to limit carbs, which was supposed to intimate that she probably need not do so as one concerned about "eating clean" is probably not eating a bunch of junk food.
So let me reword my original comment: Unless you have a metabolic disorder, or you have a problem with filling your calorie goal on carbohydrates and crowding out your other nutrition goals, there is no reason to limit carbohydrate intake.
Does that maybe sound less controversial?
5 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »I think the larger point is that overgeneralizing about carbs can obscure useful truths (and feed preexisting myths), and that context is important.
Here, we have an OP who comes in "eating clean" and craving carbs, and seemingly concerned that "too many" carbs might hinder weight-loss/health progress or be "unclean" or some such thing.
In this context, it's not terribly helpful to offer variations on "minimize carbs, they're mostly junk food" (I'm consciously oversimplifying, BTW).
Maybe this is where people keep misunderstanding my statements and jumping all over them. I was not offering that as a suggestion for the OP to follow. I was putting it out as a reason for one to limit carbs, which was supposed to intimate that she probably need not do so as one concerned about "eating clean" is probably not eating a bunch of junk food.
So let me reword my original comment: Unless you have a metabolic disorder, or you have a problem with filling your calorie goal on carbohydrates and crowding out your other nutrition goals, there is no reason to limit carbohydrate intake.
Does that maybe sound less controversial?
It sounds reasonable to me and I think it's pretty much what many here generally recommend.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »But the goal isn't to maximize our micronutrient consumption, the goal is to meet our micronutrient needs. And you can do that while eating all three foods -- pasta, green beans, and eggs (and, in fact, balancing different types of foods is a pretty decent way to describe how most traditional human diets have worked).
For me personally, if I eat just green beans, I'll be hungry again really quickly despite how nutrient-rich they are. If I have a bowl of pasta and green beans, I'll feel more satisfied -- both physically and mentally.
The point isn't that pasta is *more nutritious* than green beans, the point is that pasta can be part of a diet that meets nutritional needs. We don't need to constantly make the "ideal" choice when planning our diets, we're all making choices that allow us to meet our nutritional needs and calorie goals while also factoring in considerations like satiety and taste preferences.
I agree, but in the overall context of the thread it is true that some people will be more inclined to load up on the pasta and crowd out the other stuff, especially when eating at a designed calorie deficit. For those people, it is best to keep a tight reign on the amount of grain foods they choose to consume.
0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »I think the larger point is that overgeneralizing about carbs can obscure useful truths (and feed preexisting myths), and that context is important.
Here, we have an OP who comes in "eating clean" and craving carbs, and seemingly concerned that "too many" carbs might hinder weight-loss/health progress or be "unclean" or some such thing.
In this context, it's not terribly helpful to offer variations on "minimize carbs, they're mostly junk food" (I'm consciously oversimplifying, BTW).
Maybe this is where people keep misunderstanding my statements and jumping all over them. I was not offering that as a suggestion for the OP to follow. I was putting it out as a reason for one to limit carbs, which was supposed to intimate that she probably need not do so as one concerned about "eating clean" is probably not eating a bunch of junk food.
So let me reword my original comment: Unless you have a metabolic disorder, or you have a problem with filling your calorie goal on carbohydrates and crowding out your other nutrition goals, there is no reason to limit carbohydrate intake.
Does that maybe sound less controversial?
But you're missing the point that carbs are not the issue here. Oils tend to be pretty poor in nutrients, and they're high calorie to boot. Do you limit all of your fat containing foods because of that? Do you single out fat, as a whole, as something you need to limit? The vast majority of foods people tend to overeat are also high fat. This narrow focus on carbs as something that, when you reduce, leads to better eating habits is as flawed as the focus on low fat foods. If telling someone to reduce fat encourages them to gorge on Captain Crunch and rice cakes, why are you so sure that telling them to reduce carbs won't throw them into a loop of fat bombs, Atkins bars, and butter coffee?
As for a nutrient crowding out the other goals, I agree, and this goes for any nutrient, and is bad planning.6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »But you're missing the point that carbs are not the issue here. Oils tend to be pretty poor in nutrients, and they're high calorie to boot. Do you limit all of your fat containing foods because of that? Do you single out fat, as a whole, as something you need to limit? The vast majority of foods people tend to overeat are also high fat. This narrow focus on carbs as something that, when you reduce, leads to better eating habits is as flawed as the focus on low fat foods. If telling someone to reduce fat encourages them to gorge on Captain Crunch and rice cakes, why are you so sure that telling them to reduce carbs won't throw them into a loop of fat bombs, Atkins bars, and butter coffee?
As for a nutrient crowding out the other goals, I agree, and this goes for any nutrient, and is bad planning.
Near as I can tell, he's saying that, for some people who may have a tendency to over-indulge in carbs to the point that it is a threatening their other nutritional needs, it may be a useful strategy to try limiting carb intake.
To your point, if someone gorges on Captain Crunch when told to reduce fat . . . then they would not be the target audience for that advice. For some people, it may help. For others, it may not.
If you've got a weakness for something that causes you to have trouble meeting your other nutrient needs or manage whatever your goals are . . . then it may be prudent to avoid that weakness. Key is the focus on *may,*; if that approach causes someone to go nuts in other areas, then it's not a useful strategy for them - but someone else may find it a viable method of approaching their goals.1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »But the goal isn't to maximize our micronutrient consumption, the goal is to meet our micronutrient needs. And you can do that while eating all three foods -- pasta, green beans, and eggs (and, in fact, balancing different types of foods is a pretty decent way to describe how most traditional human diets have worked).
For me personally, if I eat just green beans, I'll be hungry again really quickly despite how nutrient-rich they are. If I have a bowl of pasta and green beans, I'll feel more satisfied -- both physically and mentally.
The point isn't that pasta is *more nutritious* than green beans, the point is that pasta can be part of a diet that meets nutritional needs. We don't need to constantly make the "ideal" choice when planning our diets, we're all making choices that allow us to meet our nutritional needs and calorie goals while also factoring in considerations like satiety and taste preferences.
I agree, but in the overall context of the thread it is true that some people will be more inclined to load up on the pasta and crowd out the other stuff, especially when eating at a designed calorie deficit. For those people, it is best to keep a tight reign on the amount of grain foods they choose to consume.
Yes, some people find that it takes a bit of focus to meet their nutritional needs on a limited calorie diet. Some of these people are eating more pasta, some are eating more butter, some are eating more eggs, some are drinking more wine. None of those point to inherent flaws within the macronutrients those foods may be rich in, it's just something that virtually everyone has to consider in some fashion when they begin paying attention to calories.
If someone was eating too much chicken to meet their need for fiber, would we say they need a "tight rein" on chicken? Probably not (at least I wouldn't). I'd encourage them to learn more about fiber and the foods that contain it to make sure they're getting enough. My approach with pasta (or butter) is the same. Figure out what your body needs and focus on getting more of that rather than arbitrarily limiting certain foods.2 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »But the goal isn't to maximize our micronutrient consumption, the goal is to meet our micronutrient needs. And you can do that while eating all three foods -- pasta, green beans, and eggs (and, in fact, balancing different types of foods is a pretty decent way to describe how most traditional human diets have worked).
For me personally, if I eat just green beans, I'll be hungry again really quickly despite how nutrient-rich they are. If I have a bowl of pasta and green beans, I'll feel more satisfied -- both physically and mentally.
The point isn't that pasta is *more nutritious* than green beans, the point is that pasta can be part of a diet that meets nutritional needs. We don't need to constantly make the "ideal" choice when planning our diets, we're all making choices that allow us to meet our nutritional needs and calorie goals while also factoring in considerations like satiety and taste preferences.
I agree, but in the overall context of the thread it is true that some people will be more inclined to load up on the pasta and crowd out the other stuff, especially when eating at a designed calorie deficit. For those people, it is best to keep a tight reign on the amount of grain foods they choose to consume.
The context of the thread is, OP asked how many carbs she should be eating, because she has been eating clean, seemed to think that meant she should be limiting carbs, but she was craving them. She is literally struggling because she is following your advice - thinking of carbs as junk food and avoiding them. There was absolutely no reason to think telling her she doesn't need to limit carbs means she's going to run out and eat a box of Captn Crunch.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions