Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What a lot of us here already know: "Fast" carbs don't make you fat!
Options
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Most likely because their diet is becoming more similar to that in the US in many ways, not the fact that the traditional diet contains lots of carbs.
Are you saying that whole foods are less likely to cause obesity than refined, or is it that people like the taste better and they're eating more? BTW I agree with your assessment.
I think people tend to naturally eat less, on average, when eating/cooking with whole foods. Probably a combination of the foods being on average more satiating (there's a study that backed that up that has been discussed here), it requiring more work to actually access them (if you have to cook what you eat other than, say, raw fruit and veg, it's harder to snack a bunch at unplanned times or just for pleasure, not hunger), and for many people certain types of what are often called "ultra palatable foods" may override hunger/satiety cues even if they don't actually taste better to many of us.
At one level, this is silly (what I'm about to type), and slightly digressive, but I suspect there's maybe a tiny bit of something in it.
In a cognitive space where people chase at best tiny caloric advantages via things like ice water, hot peppers, ACV, TEF, maybe even modest ones like EPOC differences between exercise modes, I think the actual act of cooking is underappreciated.
IIRC, it takes something like 200 excess calories per person per day (on average across the population) to explain the "obesity crisis", which is a slow upward creep in average weight over many years.
Cooking dinner takes maybe 20 minutes to half an hour? (Can be less, but that 20-30 isn't extreme, I think.) The Compendium of Physical Activities** says "cooking or food preparation, moderate effort" is a 3.5 MET activity (based on published research). Other things that are 3.5 METS, or close: Light calisthenics, slow ballroom dancing, some types of yoga, etc. Waiting in the car at a drive through is maybe 1.3-1.8 METS (sitting in car, with or without fidgeting), actively driving more like 2.5.
For a mid-small older person like me, net of BMR, cooking one meal would be around 25-50 calories burned, in 20-30 minutes. Tiny, but 10-25% chunk of that theoretical 200 calories.
Yeah, this is a digression from fast carbs, but we were heading down that road of "why do people seem to gain more weight eating modern-style refined/processed foods vs. whole foods". The effort differential is maybe in there even beyond its effect on motivations. Also, there are tiny hints that TEF of whole foods may be a little higher, and I don't think that's calculated into calorie label values.
Little stuff adds up. 😉
**https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/
Yes, I have too much time on my hands right now.
In addition to what you’re saying here, I find the process of food preparation of whole foods to be emotionally satisfying in a way which causes me to eat less and have fewer cravings. Touching and handling brightly colored fresh produce feels like it fulfills a deep need, which seems to be to be closely related to the need I’m trying to fill when I binge eat a bag of skittles. I don’t know if anyone else feels the same, but this is my personal experience, and it makes sense to me that humans have evolved to enjoy preparing and choosing nutritious foods.10 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Met with a trainer once who told me to avoid eating fruit on its own because "any excess calories that aren't burned in the next thirty minutes are stored as fat." I did not schedule a second appointment.Some fruits are fast carbs, I don't think anyone would say that fruits are unhealthy because they are fast carbs.
If your glycogen is maxed out where do you think those calories go?
If you are in a deficit your glycogen is unlikely to be maxed out.
As Ann said, net is what matters, and IF we were regularly storing carbs as fat and then unstoring it throughout the day, our calorie burn would likely be higher, as the transaction burns some cals. It's cheaper, calorie-wise to store fat as fat, which is why we are likely to burn more of the carbs and store more of the fat when in a surplus.
The main reason what the trainer said is wrong is because it's irrelevant and he was saying it's a reason to avoid fruit.
I agree 100% and why I sited Ann. Glycogen doesn't even have to be maxed out it was just an easy question to ask. I'll give you my thoughts on this. When we eat protein it's broken down in AA's fat into fatty acids and carbs into glucose which then end up in our blood stream. Insulin is activated after a meal to help shuttle these nutrients into our cells. Insulin receptors unlocks our cells and these nutrients get absorbed into our cells for function and when they're absorbed insulin comes back to base line. Happens every time we eat as I'm sure most know. Here's the confusion. When insulin is elevated it inhibits the breakdown of fat cells and promotes fatty acids and glucose to be stored into fat cells. This is the bases of the argument that carbs make you fat and if insulin is low like in low carb then your not storing fat and staying thin. Of course this is totally false. What makes us fat or slim is our overall energy balance. We burn glycogen and store fat all day long and like I said over time it's energy balance that dictates where more of one will go.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Most likely because their diet is becoming more similar to that in the US in many ways, not the fact that the traditional diet contains lots of carbs.
Are you saying that whole foods are less likely to cause obesity than refined, or is it that people like the taste better and they're eating more? BTW I agree with your assessment.
I think people tend to naturally eat less, on average, when eating/cooking with whole foods. Probably a combination of the foods being on average more satiating (there's a study that backed that up that has been discussed here), it requiring more work to actually access them (if you have to cook what you eat other than, say, raw fruit and veg, it's harder to snack a bunch at unplanned times or just for pleasure, not hunger), and for many people certain types of what are often called "ultra palatable foods" may override hunger/satiety cues even if they don't actually taste better to many of us.
At one level, this is silly (what I'm about to type), and slightly digressive, but I suspect there's maybe a tiny bit of something in it.
In a cognitive space where people chase at best tiny caloric advantages via things like ice water, hot peppers, ACV, TEF, maybe even modest ones like EPOC differences between exercise modes, I think the actual act of cooking is underappreciated.
IIRC, it takes something like 200 excess calories per person per day (on average across the population) to explain the "obesity crisis", which is a slow upward creep in average weight over many years.
Cooking dinner takes maybe 20 minutes to half an hour? (Can be less, but that 20-30 isn't extreme, I think.) The Compendium of Physical Activities** says "cooking or food preparation, moderate effort" is a 3.5 MET activity (based on published research). Other things that are 3.5 METS, or close: Light calisthenics, slow ballroom dancing, some types of yoga, etc. Waiting in the car at a drive through is maybe 1.3-1.8 METS (sitting in car, with or without fidgeting), actively driving more like 2.5.
For a mid-small older person like me, net of BMR, cooking one meal would be around 25-50 calories burned, in 20-30 minutes. Tiny, but 10-25% chunk of that theoretical 200 calories.
Yeah, this is a digression from fast carbs, but we were heading down that road of "why do people seem to gain more weight eating modern-style refined/processed foods vs. whole foods". The effort differential is maybe in there even beyond its effect on motivations. Also, there are tiny hints that TEF of whole foods may be a little higher, and I don't think that's calculated into calorie label values.
Little stuff adds up. 😉
**https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/
Yes, I have too much time on my hands right now.
In addition to what you’re saying here, I find the process of food preparation of whole foods to be emotionally satisfying in a way which causes me to eat less and have fewer cravings. Touching and handling brightly colored fresh produce feels like it fulfills a deep need, which seems to be to be closely related to the need I’m trying to fill when I binge eat a bag of skittles. I don’t know if anyone else feels the same, but this is my personal experience, and it makes sense to me that humans have evolved to enjoy preparing and choosing nutritious foods.
I'm the same. To a large extent planning how to make a tasty dish and the process of cooking for me is relaxing and fulfilling and a good way to channel thoughts about food too.5 -
Let's clear up some NONSENSE.
1. "Fast carbs" should ALWAYS be avoided. Just like "fast cocaine". Both are harmful.
2. You can simultaneosly be FIT as heaven and SICK as hell. Fitness does NOT mean health. Many of my patients fit into this category.
3. Fast carbs mean SUGAR. Sugar = 1 molecule of FRUCTOSE + 1 glucose. FRUCTOSE is a LIVER poision. Just like eythyl alcohol and acetominofen.
If the amount of FRUCTOSE / eythyl alcohol / tylenol is small the liver can handle it. If larger it JUST can't.
Just stop the nonsense already...15 -
I get Ann's point ( I hope I have understood it correctly)
Summary - the amount of calories burned preparing/cooking one's own meal is underestimated as an advantage of eating whole foods
My personal observation - of snacking on non-wholefoods -ie packet of crisps, cookies etc - in my laziness, at night or couch potato weekend - I would do that.
However something else I really enjoy eating, say, a vegetable fritter, cooked myself after grating the carrot, zucchini, pumpkin and then mixing the ingredients - too lazy to bother doing for a TV snack
so if I am not really hungry I don't bother having a snack it it is too much effort ( meaning any much effort)
so if I only had whole foods in the house, I would probably forgo having a snack I don't really need - or perhaps have a relatively low calorie one ( compared to a packet of crisps) like a banana
Not sure if that makes sense or is relevant
3 -
Here is my take on it: Fast carbs are the same as slow carbs from a standpoint of weight loss - CICO. However they are NOT the same from the standpoint of health. Fast carbs have almost no nutrition, no fiber, and a much higher glycemic index than slow carbs. For those who point out that many Asian cultures seem to do well with white rice: Yes, but they also have very little obesity, and much less sugar than American diets. Westerners and/or overweight people are much more likely to have to worry about diabetes that traditional Asian cultures. Also, if you are limiting calories and still trying to get good nutrition, the empty calories of fast carbs really are not your friend.1
-
paperpudding wrote: »I get Ann's point ( I hope I have understood it correctly)
Summary - the amount of calories burned preparing/cooking one's own meal is underestimated as an advantage of eating whole foods
My personal observation - of snacking on non-wholefoods -ie packet of crisps, cookies etc - in my laziness, at night or couch potato weekend - I would do that.
However something else I really enjoy eating, say, a vegetable fritter, cooked myself after grating the carrot, zucchini, pumpkin and then mixing the ingredients - too lazy to bother doing for a TV snack
so if I am not really hungry I don't bother having a snack it it is too much effort ( meaning any much effort)
so if I only had whole foods in the house, I would probably forgo having a snack I don't really need - or perhaps have a relatively low calorie one ( compared to a packet of crisps) like a banana
Not sure if that makes sense or is relevant
I think it's totally relevant. Here is my argument from upthread:
"I think people tend to naturally eat less, on average, when eating/cooking with whole foods. Probably a combination of the foods being on average more satiating (there's a study that backed that up that has been discussed here), it requiring more work to actually access them (if you have to cook what you eat other than, say, raw fruit and veg, it's harder to snack a bunch at unplanned times or just for pleasure, not hunger), and for many people certain types of what are often called "ultra palatable foods" may override hunger/satiety cues even if they don't actually taste better to many of us."
The bolded part is what is most significant for me.1 -
Here is my take on it: Fast carbs are the same as slow carbs from a standpoint of weight loss - CICO. However they are NOT the same from the standpoint of health. Fast carbs have almost no nutrition, no fiber, and a much higher glycemic index than slow carbs. For those who point out that many Asian cultures seem to do well with white rice: Yes, but they also have very little obesity, and much less sugar than American diets. Westerners and/or overweight people are much more likely to have to worry about diabetes that traditional Asian cultures. Also, if you are limiting calories and still trying to get good nutrition, the empty calories of fast carbs really are not your friend.
Not all fast carbs, if we mean high GI foods, are void of nutrition: Watermelon, baked potato, parsnips, dates?
Further, even endurance athletes calorie count and try to lose weight, get good nutrition - but there are times when fast carbs, even pure sugar, are very much their friend.13 -
Here is my take on it: Fast carbs are the same as slow carbs from a standpoint of weight loss - CICO. However they are NOT the same from the standpoint of health. Fast carbs have almost no nutrition, no fiber, and a much higher glycemic index than slow carbs. For those who point out that many Asian cultures seem to do well with white rice: Yes, but they also have very little obesity, and much less sugar than American diets. Westerners and/or overweight people are much more likely to have to worry about diabetes that traditional Asian cultures. Also, if you are limiting calories and still trying to get good nutrition, the empty calories of fast carbs really are not your friend.
Fruits have lots of nutrition and are considered by many to be fast carbs. In fact, they are some of the healthiest foods on the planet.10 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
And it's not just random people who diss fruits - published authors like Gary Taubes do as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28zuger.html
"...In the opposite corner we have Gary Taubes, the science journalist who has thrown in his lot with the high-fat, high-protein crowd, arguing in his new book that the overweight should just put down their apples and walk away: “If we’re predisposed to put on fat, it’s a good bet that most fruit will make the problem worse, not better.”"
Dr Jason Fung is somewhat more balanced, but is certainly not recommending fruit.4 -
It’s all context. As a type 2, there’s no real difference between dates and candy in how they affect my glucose, but when running a half marathon I eat candy and I need to!Here is my take on it: Fast carbs are the same as slow carbs from a standpoint of weight loss - CICO. However they are NOT the same from the standpoint of health. Fast carbs have almost no nutrition, no fiber, and a much higher glycemic index than slow carbs. For those who point out that many Asian cultures seem to do well with white rice: Yes, but they also have very little obesity, and much less sugar than American diets. Westerners and/or overweight people are much more likely to have to worry about diabetes that traditional Asian cultures. Also, if you are limiting calories and still trying to get good nutrition, the empty calories of fast carbs really are not your friend.
Not all fast carbs, if we mean high GI foods, are void of nutrition: Watermelon, baked potato, parsnips, dates?
Further, even endurance athletes calorie count and try to lose weight, get good nutrition - but there are times when fast carbs, even pure sugar, are very much their friend.
Incidentally, I can eat potatoes until they come out my ears without a spike, and some diabetics have a real problem with them. Since each diabetic has a unique response, unless you test your blood you are just guessing. Weirdly I have a problem with onions spiking me, but the parsnips you mentioned wouldn’t. On paper they look pretty similar in terms of carbs and fiber, but they aren’t in my body.
2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
It’s all context. As a type 2, there’s no real difference between dates and candy in how they affect my glucose, but when running a half marathon I eat candy and I need to!Here is my take on it: Fast carbs are the same as slow carbs from a standpoint of weight loss - CICO. However they are NOT the same from the standpoint of health. Fast carbs have almost no nutrition, no fiber, and a much higher glycemic index than slow carbs. For those who point out that many Asian cultures seem to do well with white rice: Yes, but they also have very little obesity, and much less sugar than American diets. Westerners and/or overweight people are much more likely to have to worry about diabetes that traditional Asian cultures. Also, if you are limiting calories and still trying to get good nutrition, the empty calories of fast carbs really are not your friend.
Not all fast carbs, if we mean high GI foods, are void of nutrition: Watermelon, baked potato, parsnips, dates?
Further, even endurance athletes calorie count and try to lose weight, get good nutrition - but there are times when fast carbs, even pure sugar, are very much their friend.
Incidentally, I can eat potatoes until they come out my ears without a spike, and some diabetics have a real problem with them. Since each diabetic has a unique response, unless you test your blood you are just guessing. Weirdly I have a problem with onions spiking me, but the parsnips you mentioned wouldn’t. On paper they look pretty similar in terms of carbs and fiber, but they aren’t in my body.
My husband either reacts typically to potatoes (as in we dose his insulin based on the carbs in the meal and everything goes along as normal) or gets a low after eating them. It’s very weird and we haven’t figured it out yet.
We have, however, stopped eating potatoes as often.
Rice doesn’t spike him, either.
It spikes me something awful.
We both tolerate a moderate serving of fruit very well. No spikes.
2 -
Are you Asian? I am and can tell you my relatives eat sugar like I do and are slim. They eat treats whenever they can get them. They just DON'T OVERCONSUME. That's the issue with American culture. A serving of just about anything you get in a restaurant is usually double of what most people eat OUTSIDE of the US. It's not rocket science. Just basic math that keeps them from getting obese.Here is my take on it: Fast carbs are the same as slow carbs from a standpoint of weight loss - CICO. However they are NOT the same from the standpoint of health. Fast carbs have almost no nutrition, no fiber, and a much higher glycemic index than slow carbs. For those who point out that many Asian cultures seem to do well with white rice: Yes, but they also have very little obesity, and much less sugar than American diets. Westerners and/or overweight people are much more likely to have to worry about diabetes that traditional Asian cultures. Also, if you are limiting calories and still trying to get good nutrition, the empty calories of fast carbs really are not your friend.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
Lol, VSHRED disseminates fruits and vegetables claims it as the reason why many Americans are fat.kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
And it's not just random people who diss fruits - published authors like Gary Taubes do as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28zuger.html
"...In the opposite corner we have Gary Taubes, the science journalist who has thrown in his lot with the high-fat, high-protein crowd, arguing in his new book that the overweight should just put down their apples and walk away: “If we’re predisposed to put on fat, it’s a good bet that most fruit will make the problem worse, not better.”"
Dr Jason Fung is somewhat more balanced, but is certainly not recommending fruit.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Are you Asian? I am and can tell you my relatives eat sugar like I do and are slim. They eat treats whenever they can get them. They just DON'T OVERCONSUME. That's the issue with American culture. A serving of just about anything you get in a restaurant is usually double of what most people eat OUTSIDE of the US. It's not rocket science. Just basic math that keeps them from getting obese.Here is my take on it: Fast carbs are the same as slow carbs from a standpoint of weight loss - CICO. However they are NOT the same from the standpoint of health. Fast carbs have almost no nutrition, no fiber, and a much higher glycemic index than slow carbs. For those who point out that many Asian cultures seem to do well with white rice: Yes, but they also have very little obesity, and much less sugar than American diets. Westerners and/or overweight people are much more likely to have to worry about diabetes that traditional Asian cultures. Also, if you are limiting calories and still trying to get good nutrition, the empty calories of fast carbs really are not your friend.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes, in my Thai cookbook written by a native Thai woman the entrée portions are small and the dessert section large.
The last two times I got takeout was from a Mexican and an Italian restaurant and I got 3-4 servings out of what is supposed to be a single meal.2 -
Are you Asian? I am and can tell you my relatives eat sugar like I do and are slim. They eat treats whenever they can get them. They just DON'T OVERCONSUME. That's the issue with American culture. A serving of just about anything you get in a restaurant is usually double of what most people eat OUTSIDE of the US. It's not rocket science. Just basic math that keeps them from getting obese.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is it in a nutshell for me. Overconsumption is the issue.
During training and competing in endurance sports, I consume a LOT of carbs, mostly liquid fuels, gels, waffles and the like. Fueling with carbs allows me to continue performing in multiple hour events. It is not unusual for me to consume 1200-1800 calories in carbs during a long session.
With that said, I've also worked with a registered dietician and learned how much overconsumption I'm prone to doing if I don't follow a fairly regimented approach to eating. Outside of my training sessions, I must monitor carefully or I'll consume too much food, especially carbs.3 -
Here's the problem with quickly digested carbs. They spike your blood sugar, and cause a huge Insulin release.. and the glucose created gets stored as glycogen.. not a problem yet, because then you burn that glycogen. In a healthy person, this is how it is supposed to work.
The problem is not the science. It is that in REAL life, what happens is, the Insulin stores the glucose, blood sugar drops, and with lower blood sugar, your body says.. eat more. As a kid, we used to burn so much, it didn't affect us until we were older, but now, kids don't do much exercise, so we see kids who are obese, and some are even diabetic.
Of course, this is because they ate improperly.. IF they ate the right amount, they wouldn't have the health issue. That is awesome, if you monitor people, and only count the people who eat what they are supposed to.. say in a study. They don't show you the results of the people who went on binges, and ate a bunch of carbs, because they were starving while eating carbs.. 2-3 hours after a meal.. as exhibited by the idea.. 4th MEAL. It happens SO much, it is part of our society.. late night cravings, caused by the foods which they say are not unhealthy.. but to the average person who ate what they were told was HEALTHY, but find themselves ravenous at 10 p.m., and in a fast food drive-thru.. it's deadly.
That is how, technically, fast acting carbs can be said to not cause obesity, and the ensuing diseases, in a study, while in real life, the results are that 42% of people are obese. About 70% of adults are overweight. That's not a study.. those are the ACTUAL results of people following the SAD. The scientists who back this way of eating.. increased carbs, lower fat, point to people not following the diet, but never take into account that the food ON the diet, causes people to eat more, and become overweight. We get cravings, and we cave.. the MAJORITY.
This matters. People have to be able to eat the food, and not be hungry between scheduled meals, or the reality is, the diet doesn't work. The result is people overeat. Studies tend to remove those results, because the subjects didn't follow the diet.. but neither do people who actually eat the diet, because it is not possible for the majority.
I would love to see the results of studies which follow people on the SAD.. with NO ONE removed.. all the data, even the people who have cravings, and binge, and GAIN weight. That would show REAL results. Instead they cherry pick the good results, and tell us it's healthy.
Now, they aren't unique in fudging the data to fit their way of thinking, and getting the results they want. Which is why studies are basically useless. The person paying is the people who benefit. No one pays that much money to prove another diet doesn't work, or would publish their study, if it contradicted what they paid to hear.
So that leaves us with reality.. if you can eat lots of carbs, fast carbs.. whatever, and maintain a healthy weight.. then great.. eat them, and enjoy.. but don't tell the 70% who are overweight eating that diet, that they simply need more willpower, and to follow the diet correctly.. a good diet shouldn't be that hard to follow.
A lot of people are starting to think that since they are always wanting to eat, maybe that isn't normal.. and finding that with high protein, or high fat diets, that they don't have those cravings. If the diet causes cravings, beyond what you SHOULD consume... that makes it unhealthy. That makes fast carbs unhealthy for a lot of people, based on the results.
Different diets work for different people.. there are good and bad foods for different people. Any diet can be made to look good in a study, but instead of us saying one is best, or attacking others.. let people try different diets, and see what WORKS for them.. saying that one diet is healthy, and maligning others, makes people hesitant to try diets, which they might stick to, and maintain a healthy weight on.
There is no one size fits all. Most diets work for some people, and those people should stay on whatever works. Whatever they can do properly.
I disagree that pasta is the same as green beans.. I am sure that if you eat them in a controlled setting, and mandate serving size, and make sure no extra calories are eaten.. they can be healthy.. but we also need to note that for 70% of us, that isn't what actually happens.. we end up eating 4th meal, because pasta causes cravings.. and we SHOULD take that into account, if that is one of US.. I have yet to hear of green beans causing cravings in people, or experienced it myself.
If you CAN eat pasta, without cravings.. good for you! Enjoy. I am jealous... but that isn't most of us. Most of us can't stay on plan, like people in a study. That is why studies are useless. They don't measure REAL results. They confirm math problems, by forcing people to stick to the numbers, and of course, that gets them the desired results. Brilliant propaganda, but not helpful to regular people.4 -
If you CAN eat pasta, without cravings.. good for you! Enjoy. I am jealous... but that isn't most of us.
Where do you get this statement from??
I would say most people CAN eat pasta without cravings.
Obviously if individual people have cravings from any particular food, adjust your lifestyle accordingly.
But I don't think this issue and pasta is most of us.8 -
Agreed. Also, I don't understand talking about pasta as if it were eaten alone. Typically it's eaten with some kind of protein and a sauce that includes fat and vegetables. If the argument is that a meal pattern including meat/other protein, veg, and starchy carbs, with perhaps some added fat for cooking or in vinaigrette or some other source of fat like olives or nuts = unhealthy or causes cravings, I would strongly disagree that that is a problem for most people. I think pasta is more likely to result in overeating bc people have portion distortion or use high cal (high fat) sauces without realizing how many cals they are consuming without thinking, and that can be fixed by learning more about what fills you up and how many calories are in different ingredients and what a sensible portion size is.
I also didn't personally gain weight due to cravings or being hungry all the time, but because I wasn't mindful about my choices and would eat food just bc it was around. Once I started eating only at planned meals, that made a huge difference. Also, not sure why being hungry in the evening results in going to get fast food vs having some cottage cheese or fruit or whatever you happen to find filling and satisfying (I picked what I would probably go for).4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions