What scientific evidence is there that Carbs will make you fat?
Cluelessmama1979 wrote: »The body does not prefer complex carbohydrates over simple carbohydrates. Nutritionists and dieticians prefer that you eat complex carbs over simple carbs for a whole host of reasons, but the body does not care - simple or complex, the carbs all get broken down into glucose by the body,
I was trying to reference the "whole host of reasons" with "the body prefers"... which is why I was confused by your initial reply. I wasn't referring to the sugars themselves but rather the micronutrients in the fiber/starches, if that makes sense.
I was attempting to leave words which tend to confuse a lot of people (fructose, glucose, triglycerides, etc) out of the explanation. And, like I said in my reply to @AnnPT77 , glucose is not my area of expertise. I am genuinely sorry if that contributed to the sea of misinformation out there.
the body does not care - simple or complex, the carbs all get broken down into glucose by the body, which will either be used to satisfy immediate energy needs, get shuttled to the muscles/liver to top off glucose stores there and then if there is any left, will get stored as fat. Literally NONE of the sugar that you eat is immediately stored as fat.
I instinctively wanted to state that I never said they did... but I did say that. Not sure how/why that happened. (You'll note that elsewhere in the reply I did say the body uses what it needs and sends the excess energy to storage...) I was typing faster than I was thinking, apparently.
That highlighted the specific error for me, thank you. I do see where I went wrong now. That's like... incorrect on so many levels.
What I was thinking of while typing that bit was how more *nutrients* tend to be in foods with fiber and complex carbs... whole foods... and the processes the body goes through to utilize those nutrients, as opposed to just sugars, which get transformed straight to glucose. My focus was on the huge issue with people thinking "specific macro = fat" as opposed to "macros = calories = fat" and, well, looks like I shot myself in the foot with that one and left the opposite impression.
Am kinda bummed... was so proud of the rest of that long explanation, lol...
Thank you for explaining more in depth. I legit didn't even see what I'd said when you quoted it to me.
As I said in my reply to Ann, I would edit the original post, but that would be confusing too.
Not sure how to make it right 😕...
Actually this discussion is very helpful. Many people get confused and have the wrong idea about how carbs work. Asking questions, and answering, and being corrected are a process of knowledge. Don't worry about making mistakes. It's your attitude that counts, and being willing to learn. All good.4
Sinisterbarbie1 Posts: 682 MemberNever mind ….1
No foods make you fat.
Over eating makes you fat - it's just that some foods are highly palitable and much more fun to over eat.
Usually the combination of salt, fat and sugar.
If you are posting in diary what you eat, click on nutrition at the bottom of the page, it will not only tell you how many calories you ate, but also break it down to the percentage of those calories are carbs, protein and fat. Too many calories for your goal and too many calories for your macros will be there if you record it.0
azuki84 Posts: 212 MemberCarbs don’t make you fat excess calories of your maintenance does.0
No scientific feedback from me but all I know is I love my carbs and if I open my mouth to let too many in, ^^^^ goes the scale. Carbs=calories, protein=calories, vegetables/meat/dairy/fruit=all equal calories. Too many of anything=weight gain.
Carbs are not the problem. However, two of the most readily available carbs in the standard american diet are sugar and white flour. These are just empty calories with virtually no nutritional value, and high glycemic index; which leads to high blood sugar, insulin spikes, insulin resistance, increased risk of diabetes, etc. However, there are plenty of health foods with a balance of carbs, fiber, protein, healthy fats, and or nutrients. Beans, lentils, sweet potatoes, whole grains, pseudograins, fruits, berries, seeds and nuts all contain carbs and are very healthy.0
AnnPT77 Posts: 27,588 MemberCarbs are not the problem. However, two of the most readily available carbs in the standard american diet are sugar and white flour. These are just empty calories with virtually no nutritional value, and high glycemic index; which leads to high blood sugar, insulin spikes, insulin resistance, increased risk of diabetes, etc. However, there are plenty of health foods with a balance of carbs, fiber, protein, healthy fats, and or nutrients. Beans, lentils, sweet potatoes, whole grains, pseudograins, fruits, berries, seeds and nuts all contain carbs and are very healthy.
Well, loosely, yeah: But personally, I think they're over-demonized, especially the flour. Mostly, it's a problem that they're over-consumed, and other things (especially veg/fruits IMO) are under-consumed.
Sugar is pretty much empty calories, agreed.
Glycemic index is not so relevant for individual foods, because effective GI in the body involves a total meal/snack's profile. I think it's kind of unusual to eat flour by itself, though a few foods are mostly flour.
On the "empty calories" point, let's look at refined flour, vs. whole wheat, both unenriched, the main values typically considered important enough to be listed on nutrient labels, per the approximate amount of flour in a common slice of bread**:
Calories: 70.3, 65.7
Fat: 0.32g, 0.52g
Cholesterol: not listed, not listed
Sodium: 0.38g, 0.57g
Total Carbs: 14.2g, 13.5g
Fiber: 0.57g, 2g
Protein: 2.3g, 2.9g
Vitamin not listed, not listed
Calcium: 4.2mg, 7.2mg
Iron: 1.2mg, 0.7mg
Potassium: 28.5mg, 71.4mg
Is whole wheat "better"? Sure. But not by very much, in common quantities. Is white flour "empty calories"? Nah. Neither is super nutrient-dense. Fiber's really only the meaningful difference, a whole 1.43g.
Statistically average USA-ian (and probable other developed countries) people would be better off nutritionally, eating less bread and more veggies, but the type of flour in the bread (or similar foods) is IMO not something worth agonizing over. If someone likes white bread, the switch to whole wheat isn't a big deal one way or another, in a reasonable overall dietary context.
Context: I've been a hippie-dippy vegetarian whole foods, whole grains preferring eater for decades, rarely drinking soda pop, eating fast food, etc. I got fat (obese) and unhealthy anyway (high BP, cholesterol, etc.), stayed that way for decades, even after becoming athletically active routinely for the final decade plus.
This "white flour is bad" thing (along with a number of other common dietary shibboleths) is a distraction, IMO, from the actually important issues of getting the right number of calories, getting adequate nutrients into one's eating (vs. worrying about getting supposedly "bad" ones out), on average, over reasonably short time horizons (day or few).
(**This is from the USDA database. Quantity assumes about 500g flour in a common loaf of bread, which can be 26-28 slices, so I used 26 slices, thus 19g flour (rounded from 19.23g). I had to use the unbleached entry for refined flour, because USDA doesn't list unenriched white flour. Since enriched white flour has more micros, using bleached flour entries would make white flour look better in that list, and in practice most white flour is enriched. Whole wheat flour does have more of other (non-label) micros than white flour, but the differences are equally non-dramatic.)
Honest P.S. Is there a chance I did the arithmetic wrong somewhere in there? Yes. Not the whole thing, though. Anyone else wants to check me, the pages are here:
White bread varies a lot in nutritional content, but it will have more nutrients than just the flour it contains. Even white bread has some nutritional value. Some "better" white bread might even have more nutrition than lower-quality whole-wheat bread.
Personally, I think anyone/everyone should be looking at their personal specific food selections, and evaluating them in terms of their individual nutritional needs and context. Endurance athletes sometimes eat pure sugar, the highest glycemic-index sugars they can find. It's "good for them" in their context. It wouldn't be great, in mine usually. For dinner, some nonfat refried beans would be a good food to include, most days, for me. For that endurance athlete, if they ate the refried beans mid-event, they wouldn't get the fast energy they truly need, and they'd probably end up vomiting into the nearest trash can.
Specifics matter, context matters.
Yay, thanks for defending the humble white flour, AnnP! Seriously, if it was so bad then substantial populations had a massive problem, especially in southern Europe where white bread is not uncommon. Just think of Baguettes in France! If they were so bad then France had a massive health problem.0
- 1.5M All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 386.4K Introduce Yourself
- 42.5K Getting Started
- 258.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 174.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.1K Recipes
- 231.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 304 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.3K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 72.9K Success Stories
- 152K Motivation and Support
- 7.4K Challenges
- 1.2K Debate Club
- 96.1K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 1.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 20 News and Announcements
- 504 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 1.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions