Why Carbs Make Us Fat...
J72FIT
Posts: 6,002 Member
28
Replies
-
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
8 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
Lol!1 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
Highly doubt it..2 -
1 -
Well you set a trap and people went for it. I posted a YT video about "are artificial sweeteners bad" and got woo'd to death by everybody who didn't click through.
For the nervous clickers, an excerpt:CARBS. ARE. AWESOME.
Seriously, this is the MAIN problem with carbohydrates. It’s why cutting carbs from you diet works. It’s why paying attention to the amount of carbs you eat works and it’s why for the most part carbs ARE responsible for our obesity epidemic.
It is EASY to overeat when you are eating carbs. Heck, it’s not just easy, it’s fun. and it’s down right delicious.14 -
Good piece.
One of the reasons I've transitioned to a carnivore way if eating is because it is so much harder to overeat meat. By removing the delicious, easy to overeat carbs it has simplified my maintenance plan and for the first time in years I'm not struggling.
Eating meat and fats like butter/ghee are boring. It's not fun, it's not exciting. I don't look forward to meal time anymore, I don't look forward to snacking. Social events no longer revolve around food. I no longer get the emotional 'high' from eating, I don't make recipes or bake anymore. But for me it's worth the trade off for what I've gained in return. We each need to find our own way
5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.33 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.7 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.22 -
SarahAnne3958 wrote: »Good piece.
One of the reasons I've transitioned to a carnivore way if eating is because it is so much harder to overeat meat. By removing the delicious, easy to overeat carbs it has simplified my maintenance plan and for the first time in years I'm not struggling.
Eating meat and fats like butter/ghee are boring. It's not fun, it's not exciting. I don't look forward to meal time anymore, I don't look forward to snacking. Social events no longer revolve around food. I no longer get the emotional 'high' from eating, I don't make recipes or bake anymore. But for me it's worth the trade off for what I've gained in return. We each need to find our own way
To each their own, but to me eating a diet that I don't actually enjoy and using my lack of enjoyment of food as the main motivator behind my weight loss is a pretty sad way to live. I love food and the enjoyment good food brings and I don't think that needs to be sacrificed to lose weight, only controlled. I know that I can't eat as much of everything I love every single day anymore, but that doesn't mean I still can't lose weight with food combinations I enjoy. 40 pounds down now by eating plenty of things that make me happy.26 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...6 -
SarahAnne3958 wrote: »Good piece.
One of the reasons I've transitioned to a carnivore way if eating is because it is so much harder to overeat meat. By removing the delicious, easy to overeat carbs it has simplified my maintenance plan and for the first time in years I'm not struggling.
Eating meat and fats like butter/ghee are boring. It's not fun, it's not exciting. I don't look forward to meal time anymore, I don't look forward to snacking. Social events no longer revolve around food. I no longer get the emotional 'high' from eating, I don't make recipes or bake anymore. But for me it's worth the trade off for what I've gained in return. We each need to find our own way
To each their own, but to me eating a diet that I don't actually enjoy and using my lack of enjoyment of food as the main motivator behind my weight loss is a pretty sad way to live. I love food and the enjoyment good food brings and I don't think that needs to be sacrificed to lose weight, only controlled. I know that I can't eat as much of everything I love every single day anymore, but that doesn't mean I still can't lose weight with food combinations I enjoy. 40 pounds down now by eating plenty of things that make me happy.
I felt similarly to you, back when I was still fresh off of my weight loss phase. Now over 7 years into this process though, I see things differently based on my experiences in maintenance. I now understand why most people fail at weight loss adherence and almost ended up in that place myself, before I decided to go down a different path.
Best of luck to us both as we continue moving forward in this process 1 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
I agree. It's great that the article says carbs aren't magically evil, but it's still saying carbs are why people are fat, because they are easy to overeat. The fallacy with his 72 oz steak argument is he replaces one giant single protein with a bunch of different "carbs", and the carbs he replaces them with include a nice dose of straight up sugary beverage, and a decent amount of fat in the frap and the dessert and the mashed potatoes and probably the sandwich. Of course the varied foods full of carbs and fat are easier to overeat than a giant steak. But you could also come up with a high carb, low fat 3000 calories that would be impossible for many people to finish.
I will go to my grave saying that people lose weight by focusing on "carbs" mostly because they eliminate caloric beverages and because the carbs they do avoid take a hefty bunch of 9-calorie fat grams with them.
Calorie dense food IS cheap and easy, but it's not "carbs", it's "carbs & fat" or sometimes even "fat & carbs".
Thanks for the link OP, this has been fun to read so far! (and I didn't click disagree either, I get your point ) 18 -
IMO, as an aside, I typically look at protein and fat as minimums. When I increase or decrease my calories it usually is with carbs. Of course I understand there is a mix of all macros in foods. Carbs as far as we are used to identifying them.
I think the overall general implication he makes in the article is for the most part true. Could it be picked apart? Of course. But for the practical application, I think it makes sense..5 -
Carbs ARE awesome!
The problem is, for me, all foods I love are awesome, and I can (and did) overeat them all. While most of us (like John Candy in the “Great Outdoors”), would be unable to finish the old ‘76’er in one sitting, over days, weeks, months and years, the excess calories add up to obesity for many of us. For me, it wasn’t just from excess of carbs, it was from too much of everything, and it certainly wasn’t from food I don’t like.
I am working on all foods in moderation, and that works best for me, including carbs. All foods are readily available nowadays for most of us. Choices are abundant.4 -
SarahAnne3958 wrote: »Good piece.
One of the reasons I've transitioned to a carnivore way if eating is because it is so much harder to overeat meat. By removing the delicious, easy to overeat carbs it has simplified my maintenance plan and for the first time in years I'm not struggling.
Eating meat and fats like butter/ghee are boring. It's not fun, it's not exciting. I don't look forward to meal time anymore, I don't look forward to snacking. Social events no longer revolve around food. I no longer get the emotional 'high' from eating, I don't make recipes or bake anymore. But for me it's worth the trade off for what I've gained in return. We each need to find our own way
Curious what benefit was worth basically giving up all enjoyment of food. I know some people have specific foods they find difficult to moderate and therefore they cut those out of their diet temporarily or permanently. But usually those folks still enjoy the other foods they eat and still take pleasure in meals, just have limits to help keep things under control.
Did you have an eating disorder that you feel completely shifting your intake of food to be “fuel only, no pleasure” helped with your recovery?
I often think the extreme restrictions people make sound unsustainable and unenjoyable but usually the people who post about them on these boards claim to really enjoy what they are doing. You don’t even sound like you like the way you eat so I’m curious how sustainable you really do find this.15 -
IMO, as an aside, I typically look at protein and fat as minimums. When I increase or decrease my calories it usually is with carbs. Of course I understand there is a mix of all macros in foods. Carbs as far as we are used to identifying them.
I think the overall general implication he makes in the article is for the most part true. Could it be picked apart? Of course. But for the practical application, I think it makes sense..
If I wanted to be REALLY spicy, I could suggest that the bolded is why so many people think carbs are the problem, and why I think it's easy to pick at the article. Because the way we typically use the term is incorrect. We use it as a generic term for all the low-fiber carbs (often combined with fat), and the myriad high-fiber nutritious carbs get sullied in the process. And the practical application of that leads to people restricting their choices in ways they don't need to.9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »Good piece.
One of the reasons I've transitioned to a carnivore way if eating is because it is so much harder to overeat meat. By removing the delicious, easy to overeat carbs it has simplified my maintenance plan and for the first time in years I'm not struggling.
Eating meat and fats like butter/ghee are boring. It's not fun, it's not exciting. I don't look forward to meal time anymore, I don't look forward to snacking. Social events no longer revolve around food. I no longer get the emotional 'high' from eating, I don't make recipes or bake anymore. But for me it's worth the trade off for what I've gained in return. We each need to find our own way
Curious what benefit was worth basically giving up all enjoyment of food. I know some people have specific foods they find difficult to moderate and therefore they cut those out of their diet temporarily or permanently. But usually those folks still enjoy the other foods they eat and still take pleasure in meals, just have limits to help keep things under control.
Did you have an eating disorder that you feel completely shifting your intake of food to be “fuel only, no pleasure” helped with your recovery?
I often think the extreme restrictions people make sound unsustainable and unenjoyable but usually the people who post about them on these boards claim to really enjoy what they are doing. You don’t even sound like you like the way you eat so I’m curious how sustainable you really do find this.
just wanted to say that my doctor just chewed me out for this. i went overboard with my weight loss, and he was like "wtf are you doing. you're 45 years old and not enjoying food, but looking at it like a job. loosen up. " yet another thing i have to bring up with my counselor. sigh.
/end threadjack
16 -
WinoGelato wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »Good piece.
One of the reasons I've transitioned to a carnivore way if eating is because it is so much harder to overeat meat. By removing the delicious, easy to overeat carbs it has simplified my maintenance plan and for the first time in years I'm not struggling.
Eating meat and fats like butter/ghee are boring. It's not fun, it's not exciting. I don't look forward to meal time anymore, I don't look forward to snacking. Social events no longer revolve around food. I no longer get the emotional 'high' from eating, I don't make recipes or bake anymore. But for me it's worth the trade off for what I've gained in return. We each need to find our own way
Curious what benefit was worth basically giving up all enjoyment of food. I know some people have specific foods they find difficult to moderate and therefore they cut those out of their diet temporarily or permanently. But usually those folks still enjoy the other foods they eat and still take pleasure in meals, just have limits to help keep things under control.
Did you have an eating disorder that you feel completely shifting your intake of food to be “fuel only, no pleasure” helped with your recovery?
I often think the extreme restrictions people make sound unsustainable and unenjoyable but usually the people who post about them on these boards claim to really enjoy what they are doing. You don’t even sound like you like the way you eat so I’m curious how sustainable you really do find this.
just wanted to say that my doctor just chewed me out for this. i went overboard with my weight loss, and he was like "wtf are you doing. you're 45 years old and not enjoying food, but looking at it like a job. loosen up. " yet another thing i have to bring up with my counselor. sigh.
/end threadjack
I take my 90 day MFP report showing my daily carbs to my doctor when I visit her for Diabetes management. She sees the occasional spike well over my daily maximum and comments that she is glad to see me enjoying my food and having an occasional splurge.9 -
IMO, as an aside, I typically look at protein and fat as minimums. When I increase or decrease my calories it usually is with carbs. Of course I understand there is a mix of all macros in foods. Carbs as far as we are used to identifying them.
I think the overall general implication he makes in the article is for the most part true. Could it be picked apart? Of course. But for the practical application, I think it makes sense..
If I wanted to be REALLY spicy, I could suggest that the bolded is why so many people think carbs are the problem, and why I think it's easy to pick at the article. Because the way we typically use the term is incorrect. We use it as a generic term for all the low-fiber carbs (often combined with fat), and the myriad high-fiber nutritious carbs get sullied in the process. And the practical application of that leads to people restricting their choices in ways they don't need to.
I would not disagree with that. He could have called the article Junk Food Makes Us Fat but then that would get picked apart too. At some point I guess you just have to plant a flag and make a stand.4 -
I actually find this to be super true!!!
I know CARBS are a macronutrient. There are good and bad points in all carbs. I do not over eat on apples, carrots, onions, sweet potatoes, etc. However, I can and will overeat on refined carbs such as donuts, cakes, cookies, chips, and the like. So I get the article and I totally understand what it is saying. I believe it because I live it!!
For the longest of time I was on the band wagon of ALL CARBS ARE BAD FOR YOU AND WILL MAKE YOU GAIN WEIGHT- CARBS ARE THE PROBLEM. I have recently and finally understood that not to be true at all. I lived and breathed the idea that SUGAR in all forms (apple=donuts) was the reason I was overweight. Reality was it was the volume of calories I was consuming that was the cause of weight related issues.
Very seldom, if ever, do you hear people say they gorged out on veggies...........
However, the slogan for chips being "can't just eat one" is correct. Technically, chips would be a veggie. But its what they do to it that makes it so easy to consume in volume if you aren't mindful. Very seldom would someone eat a plain baked potato and make themselves sick for eating several. However, add butter and sour cream and cheese and bacon and all that good stuff...................it would be easy to over eat. Its not the potato that is the problem.
I am trying to adopt an attitude that all things in moderation are okay. It has been a struggle to do so. I have trigger foods and those triggers are pretty freaking strong. But that doesn't mean that donuts are bad or chips are bad..............it just means I have to be mindful when I consume them!
@J72FIT I agree!!
At 43 I am finally learning balance. Super excited about that too.3 -
QueenofCaffeine4Life wrote: »I actually find this to be super true!!!
I know CARBS are a macronutrient. There are good and bad points in all carbs. I do not over eat on apples, carrots, onions, sweet potatoes, etc. However, I can and will overeat on refined carbs such as donuts, cakes, cookies, chips, and the like. So I get the article and I totally understand what it is saying. I believe it because I live it!!
For the longest of time I was on the band wagon of ALL CARBS ARE BAD FOR YOU AND WILL MAKE YOU GAIN WEIGHT- CARBS ARE THE PROBLEM. I have recently and finally understood that not to be true at all. I lived and breathed the idea that SUGAR in all forms (apple=donuts) was the reason I was overweight. Reality was it was the volume of calories I was consuming that was the cause of weight related issues.
Very seldom, if ever, do you hear people say they gorged out on veggies...........
However, the slogan for chips being "can't just eat one" is correct. Technically, chips would be a veggie. But its what they do to it that makes it so easy to consume in volume if you aren't mindful. Very seldom would someone eat a plain baked potato and make themselves sick for eating several. However, add butter and sour cream and cheese and bacon and all that good stuff...................it would be easy to over eat. Its not the potato that is the problem.
I am trying to adopt an attitude that all things in moderation are okay. It has been a struggle to do so. I have trigger foods and those triggers are pretty freaking strong. But that doesn't mean that donuts are bad or chips are bad..............it just means I have to be mindful when I consume them!
@J72FIT I agree!!
At 43 I am finally learning balance. Super excited about that too.
The point others are making (and it is a true point), is that the foods you listed are just as much fat (sometimes more) than carbs.
I would personally go with "Junk Foods" but then that opens up a whole other can of worms...14 -
QueenofCaffeine4Life wrote: »I actually find this to be super true!!!
I know CARBS are a macronutrient. There are good and bad points in all carbs. I do not over eat on apples, carrots, onions, sweet potatoes, etc. However, I can and will overeat on refined carbs such as donuts, cakes, cookies, chips, and the like. So I get the article and I totally understand what it is saying. I believe it because I live it!!
For the longest of time I was on the band wagon of ALL CARBS ARE BAD FOR YOU AND WILL MAKE YOU GAIN WEIGHT- CARBS ARE THE PROBLEM. I have recently and finally understood that not to be true at all. I lived and breathed the idea that SUGAR in all forms (apple=donuts) was the reason I was overweight. Reality was it was the volume of calories I was consuming that was the cause of weight related issues.
Very seldom, if ever, do you hear people say they gorged out on veggies...........
However, the slogan for chips being "can't just eat one" is correct. Technically, chips would be a veggie. But its what they do to it that makes it so easy to consume in volume if you aren't mindful. Very seldom would someone eat a plain baked potato and make themselves sick for eating several. However, add butter and sour cream and cheese and bacon and all that good stuff...................it would be easy to over eat. Its not the potato that is the problem.
I am trying to adopt an attitude that all things in moderation are okay. It has been a struggle to do so. I have trigger foods and those triggers are pretty freaking strong. But that doesn't mean that donuts are bad or chips are bad..............it just means I have to be mindful when I consume them!
@J72FIT I agree!!
At 43 I am finally learning balance. Super excited about that too.
The point others are making (and it is a true point), is that the foods you listed are just as much fat (sometimes more) than carbs.
I would personally go with "Junk Foods" but then that opens up a whole other can of worms...
Yes, this is a common misconception when carbs are being demonized. Cheesecake. Carb? Well more calories from fat. Same with chips, donuts, cake and pie, most pasta sauces and on and on. It's the highly palatable combination that will get you.10 -
This kind of advice really resonates with me because it's what I grew up with.
You had to eat all of your meat (the most nutritious part of the meal), try your vegetables (they're good for you) and then you filled up on the side dishes (cheaper grains and starches). And saved room for dessert of course. If you needed to lose weight there was no question where you cut back - the desserts and sides.6 -
QueenofCaffeine4Life wrote: »I actually find this to be super true!!!
I know CARBS are a macronutrient. There are good and bad points in all carbs. I do not over eat on apples, carrots, onions, sweet potatoes, etc. However, I can and will overeat on refined carbs such as donuts, cakes, cookies, chips, and the like. So I get the article and I totally understand what it is saying. I believe it because I live it!!
For the longest of time I was on the band wagon of ALL CARBS ARE BAD FOR YOU AND WILL MAKE YOU GAIN WEIGHT- CARBS ARE THE PROBLEM. I have recently and finally understood that not to be true at all. I lived and breathed the idea that SUGAR in all forms (apple=donuts) was the reason I was overweight. Reality was it was the volume of calories I was consuming that was the cause of weight related issues.
Very seldom, if ever, do you hear people say they gorged out on veggies...........
However, the slogan for chips being "can't just eat one" is correct. Technically, chips would be a veggie. But its what they do to it that makes it so easy to consume in volume if you aren't mindful. Very seldom would someone eat a plain baked potato and make themselves sick for eating several. However, add butter and sour cream and cheese and bacon and all that good stuff...................it would be easy to over eat. Its not the potato that is the problem.
I am trying to adopt an attitude that all things in moderation are okay. It has been a struggle to do so. I have trigger foods and those triggers are pretty freaking strong. But that doesn't mean that donuts are bad or chips are bad..............it just means I have to be mindful when I consume them!
@J72FIT I agree!!
At 43 I am finally learning balance. Super excited about that too.
The point others are making (and it is a true point), is that the foods you listed are just as much fat (sometimes more) than carbs.
I would personally go with "Junk Foods" but then that opens up a whole other can of worms...
Yes, this is a common misconception when carbs are being demonized. Cheesecake. Carb? Well more calories from fat. Same with chips, donuts, cake and pie, most pasta sauces and on and on. It's the highly palatable combination that will get you.
Dunkin Donuts Chocolate Frosted Donut
15g Fat = 135 calories
31g Carbs = 124 calories
Lays Classic Potato Chips
10g Fat = 90 calories
5g Carbs = 60 calories
Chips Ahoy Cookies
8g Fat = 72 calories
22g Carbs = 88 calories 12 -
And don't discount salt in the equation. An avocado is great, but an avocado with a couple dashes of salt is even better...7
-
And don't discount salt in the equation. An avocado is great, but an avocado with a couple dashes of salt is even better...
Heck, put a good amount of salt on that 72 oz steak and despite not being a big meat-eater, I'd probably manage to work through most of it
I'm off to go write my "salty food is making you fat!" e-book, trademark 2019!11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »SarahAnne3958 wrote: »Good piece.
One of the reasons I've transitioned to a carnivore way if eating is because it is so much harder to overeat meat. By removing the delicious, easy to overeat carbs it has simplified my maintenance plan and for the first time in years I'm not struggling.
Eating meat and fats like butter/ghee are boring. It's not fun, it's not exciting. I don't look forward to meal time anymore, I don't look forward to snacking. Social events no longer revolve around food. I no longer get the emotional 'high' from eating, I don't make recipes or bake anymore. But for me it's worth the trade off for what I've gained in return. We each need to find our own way
Curious what benefit was worth basically giving up all enjoyment of food. I know some people have specific foods they find difficult to moderate and therefore they cut those out of their diet temporarily or permanently. But usually those folks still enjoy the other foods they eat and still take pleasure in meals, just have limits to help keep things under control.
Did you have an eating disorder that you feel completely shifting your intake of food to be “fuel only, no pleasure” helped with your recovery?
I often think the extreme restrictions people make sound unsustainable and unenjoyable but usually the people who post about them on these boards claim to really enjoy what they are doing. You don’t even sound like you like the way you eat so I’m curious how sustainable you really do find this.
No history of EDs, though the longer I continued on with the 'eat everything in moderation but weigh everything out, track and count everything' process, the more I felt like I was heading down that road. Here's something I posted in a thread in the maintenance section a few days ago-the thread was titled Do you accept that you'll have to log for the rest of your life(or atleast the foreseeable future)? https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759327/do-you-accept-that-youll-have-to-log-for-the-rest-of-your-life-or-atleast-the-foreseeable-future#latest
'I've been in maintenance for a long time now and I've realized that for me personally, I just couldn't keep doing the numbers game-at a certain point in the process I became completely burned out and mentally exhausted. I tracked/counted calories for years and more and more I struggled with the whole process.
So for me personally, I had to adapt and come up with a different maintenance strategy. I'm now very low carb/almost zero carb, and by having very strict parameters with what I can eat, it's taken away the need to track anything, anymore. I'm now maintaining a very lean body-weight without counting/tracking/measuring at all.
Very low carb will not appeal to most people, however its allowed me to maintain without having to stress about the numbers anymore. For me that's worth the trade-off of not being able to eat certain foods anymore.'
And then along with that-without carbs I have more energy and my digestion issues have all cleared up. My oral health has also improved and my teeth no longer ache after I eat. I also had a check-up earlier this month and it was the first time in years where I didn't have new dental issues come up. Could be a coincidence but changing mouth health is a common theme in the low carb/carnivore groups I hang out in.
So for me, there's been tangible benefits to removing carbs from my diet. These are pleasant and unexpected side-effects but my main reason is that I now can maintain very easily, which is something I struggled to do for years.
eta:edit
5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
I agree. It's great that the article says carbs aren't magically evil, but it's still saying carbs are why people are fat, because they are easy to overeat. The fallacy with his 72 oz steak argument is he replaces one giant single protein with a bunch of different "carbs", and the carbs he replaces them with include a nice dose of straight up sugary beverage, and a decent amount of fat in the frap and the dessert and the mashed potatoes and probably the sandwich. Of course the varied foods full of carbs and fat are easier to overeat than a giant steak. But you could also come up with a high carb, low fat 3000 calories that would be impossible for many people to finish.
I will go to my grave saying that people lose weight by focusing on "carbs" mostly because they eliminate caloric beverages and because the carbs they do avoid take a hefty bunch of 9-calorie fat grams with them.
Calorie dense food IS cheap and easy, but it's not "carbs", it's "carbs & fat" or sometimes even "fat & carbs".
Thanks for the link OP, this has been fun to read so far! (and I didn't click disagree either, I get your point )
Yes, this.
I could fill my diet with huge amounts of plain carbs (fruit, which I love, but wouldn't overeat given the cals, and plain bread, pasta, rice, even potatoes, heck, even sugary sweets without fat), and I'd be so bored I'd struggle to get enough cals.
But even though I find the combinations (protein/fat, protein/fat/carbs, carbs/fat, fat/salt (as in cheese)) the hardest not to overeat, I'd never cut those all out, not only because many of them are still reasonable cals, filling, and high in nutrients (roasted veg and potatoes with some skin on chicken breast, for just one of many, many examples), but because I want a diet I love and am satisfied by. (And even if I were on a just fuel kick, which wouldn't work for me, I'd never cut out carbs like veg, which I consider among the most important part of my diet.)2 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?
I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.
If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.
I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.
He also mentions...
"Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."
He takes into account the combo factor.
As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.
Not on it's own...
I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.7
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
- 426 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