Thread: It's the carbs!

Data continues to accumulate, despite the best efforts of the agro-business lobby and the inflexibility of the medical profession, dieticians, and the American Heart Association...

Women who eat foods with high glycemic index may be at greater risk for heart disease

I really try not to eat wheat, sugar, dairy - but it's so damned hard. Now I have to worry about foods high on the Glycemic index. Who said being a Woman is easy - I'll punch 'em.

On top of that, you have this study:
Glycemic Index Values Are Surprisingly Variable, Researchers Report

Originally Posted by ssipes

Data continues to accumulate, despite the best efforts of the agro-business lobby and the inflexibility of the medical profession, dieticians, and the American Heart Association...

Women who eat foods with high glycemic index may be at greater risk for heart disease

Why are you bashing? The medical industry, etc. has known and published on this for at least the past 30 years, particularly if you look into the reports on diabetes. It just hasn't been called "glycemic index" in the general public and popular media.

Originally Posted by BELLA_BELLA

Why are you bashing? The medical industry, etc. has known and published on this for at least the past 30 years, particularly if you look into the reports on diabetes. It just hasn't been called "glycemic index" in the general public and popular media.

Because the American Heart Association still promotes a low fat, lowish protein diet (which by default results in a high carb diet).

Because most doctors will advise patients with high cholesterol to eat less meat, less eggs, less fat, all of which by default result in, again, higher proportions of carbs. Unless you eat green veggies by the bushel, this is going to lead you to eat more high GI and high GL fioods.

Because diabetics are still told to eat very low fat but allowed lots of "complex carbs", most of which are both relatively high glycemic index and very high glycemic load.

Because the USDA food pyramid promoted by the federal government still looks like:


When it should look more like Dr. Barry Sear's pyramid propounded for decades in his zone diet books:


Because dieticians and certified fitness instructors are still taught to teach people that an optimal diet consists of 60% carbs, 30% fat, and 10% protein.

Because most people still believe that bread made from 100% whole wheat flour is a low GI food, when in fact, it almost always tests only a few GI points below white bread and still well within the "high" range. Ditto brown rice. Ditto cheerios, instant oatmeal, and other cereals marketed for health conscious people.

That's why.,f::

Originally Posted by ssipes

Because the American Heart Association still promotes a low fat, lowish protein diet (which by default results in a high carb diet).

Because most doctors will advise patients with high cholesterol to eat less meat, less eggs, less fat, all of which by default result in, again, higher proportions of carbs. Unless you eat green veggies by the bushel, this is going to lead you to eat more high GI and high GL fioods.

Because diabetics are still told to eat very low fat but allowed lots of "complex carbs", most of which are both relatively high glycemic index and very high glycemic load.

Because the USDA food pyramid promoted by the federal government still looks like:


When it should look more like Dr. Barry Sear's pyramid propounded for decades in his zone diet books:

Because dieticians and certified fitness instructors are still taught to teach people that an optimal diet consists of 60% carbs, 30% fat, and 10% protein.

Because most people still believe that bread made from 100% whole wheat flour is a low GI food, when in fact, it almost always tests only a few GI points below white bread and still well within the "high" range. Ditto brown rice. Ditto cheerios, instant oatmeal, and other cereals marketed for health conscious people.

That's why.,f::

I had NO idea about this...I need to get out more I guess. I thought I was doing well eating whole grains and the like. Hummmmmm must rethink diet.

You must have experienced different doctors than me, I guess, same for dieticians -- possibly b/c I live in California. I agree that the USDA's out of date, though. I hear nothing but low glycemic carbs, up the yin-yang.

Bella -

Yes, because we live in California, we are more likely to hear about eating more lean protein and fewer carbs. I was under the impression that the old food pyramid had been thrown out about a decade ago. In fact the pyramid that I just looked at on the FDA/USDA website looks nothing like either of the ones posted.

MyPyramid.gov - Inside the Pyramid.

As for carbs, as few of us are currently leading the type of lifestyle which demad large quantities of quickly accessible energy - because we are farming or doing other heavy physical labour - cutting down on carbs makes all kinds of sense. Making wiser choices about the kinds of carbs does also. This applies to food across the board. Whole grain pasta, olive or canola oil when you use it, steaming your food instead of frying. All good choices.

It is also about learning to make intelligent choices based on your lifestyle. Which means being aware of what is going on.

{{{HUGS}}}

ETA: On the new food pyramid, I don't necessarily agree with the large section on milk. While I don't have a dairy intolerance, I know many who do. this could easily be distributed between leafy green veggies and protein.

Originally Posted by tahiradancer

Bella -

I was under the impression that the old food pyramid had been thrown out about a decade ago. In fact the pyramid that I just looked at on the FDA/USDA website looks nothing like either of the ones posted.

MyPyramid.gov - Inside the Pyramid.

My bad, I think I grabbed that from a different site, but it was definitely a government site. NIH maybe. Regardless, I am glad to see that they changed it, but the traditional one is still widely used in print and online on many health and medical agencies.

I can vouch for the fact that, as an exercise and wellness major 3 years ago, I was being taught 60% of calories from carbs, 30% fat, 10% protein.

I was also taught that more than 30% of calories from protein can result in kidney problems and other issues. So I shoot for more of a 30, 30, 30 balance, but I find carb cravings incredibly hard to kick.

So many of the things people eat, thinking they're doing well, make me shake my head. Fruit smoothies and yogurt for instance, very healthy alternatives to, say, a bowl of ice cream or pudding. But people think these are healthy meal replacements!

On a side note, who ya calling stupid?

Well people here will know I am a big believer in Udo's pyramid which looks similar to the zone diet pyramid. Udo actually has 3 pyramids depending on whelther you classify yourself as healthy, sick or active.

Udo's Choice™ FOOD PYRAMID for Healthy People!

I think I read somewhere as well that Udo Erasmus had a hand in change the USDA's pyramid.

Originally Posted by Lauren_

I can vouch for the fact that, as an exercise and wellness major 3 years ago, I was being taught 60% of calories from carbs, 30% fat, 10% protein.

I was also taught that more than 30% of calories from protein can result in kidney problems and other issues. So I shoot for more of a 30, 30, 30 balance, but I find carb cravings incredibly hard to kick.

So many of the things people eat, thinking they're doing well, make me shake my head. Fruit smoothies and yogurt for instance, very healthy alternatives to, say, a bowl of ice cream or pudding. But people think these are healthy meal replacements!

I think some of the problem is that when you talk about Protein, Carbs, Fat ratios that Vegetables and Fruits get lumped into the Carbs category. Same with Fats in that good and bad fats get lumped into the one category as well.

Originally Posted by ozma

On a side note, who ya calling stupid?

It's just a cliche catch phrase, but giving it some thought, I suppose I can think of several health professionals that I would like to say it to.

Originally Posted by HubicRuzz

I think some of the problem is that when you talk about Protein, Carbs, Fat ratios that Vegetables and Fruits get lumped into the Carbs category. Same with Fats in that good and bad fats get lumped into the one category as well.

Except that in terms of a person's daily energy balance, non-starchy vegetables are essentially non-players. You can eat all the spinach you want and it will not be contributing very much to whatever your caloric needs are. Almost the same is true of fruits, except for a few calorie dense ones like bananas.

If you are not eating calorie dense carbs like grains and potatoes, and are eating only non-starchy fruits and veggies, it would be extremely difficult to get 60% of your calories from carbs.

For a 2000 Cal./day diet, that would be 1200 calories of broccoli, spinach, lettuce, apples, tomatoes, snow peas, green beans, etc. I love veggies but I don't think I could eat that much!

Fats don't really present the same kind of dilemma because bad fats have the same calories per gram as good fats, so you can choose healthy fats without changing serving sizes or the fats/protein/carb pie chart.

Originally Posted by ssipes

It's just a cliche catch phrase, but giving it some thought, I suppose I can think of several health professionals that I would like to say it to.

And goodness knows, that's the audience reading the thread titles.

Originally Posted by tahiradancer

Bella -

Yes, because we live in California, we are more likely to hear about eating more lean protein and fewer carbs. I was under the impression that the old food pyramid had been thrown out about a decade ago. In fact the pyramid that I just looked at on the FDA/USDA website looks nothing like either of the ones posted.

MyPyramid.gov - Inside the Pyramid.

They changed it, and now the pyramid makes no sense at all, visually. It tells you to eat "more" of certain things...how much is "more"?.w.:

Originally Posted by HubicRuzz

I think some of the problem is that when you talk about Protein, Carbs, Fat ratios that Vegetables and Fruits get lumped into the Carbs category. Same with Fats in that good and bad fats get lumped into the one category as well.

All calories come from either protein (4 calories per gram) carbohydrates (4 calories per gram) or fat (9 calories per gram).

There are no other calorie sources. That's why Sedonia is saying that if you cut your fat or limit your protein, you will by necessity be increasing your carbs.

Vegetable and fruits ARE carbohydrates, they're not being 'lumped in.' They contain so very few calories that it's almost impossible to take in anywhere near 30% of your calories from them, much less 60%.

You should, obviously, be eating plenty of veggies, but even 30% of calories allows for more spinach and broccholi than anyone could ever eat in a day. (I think a cup of spinach leaves has 7 calories?) Even if you choose to avoid sugars, alcohols, breads, rice, pasta and potatos and take in your carbs primarily from veggies (fruits are sugary and highly glycemic, a serving or two per day would be more than enough) you'll need some additional carbs from yogurt, milk, beans, lentils, etc. to get anywhere close to 30% of your caloric intake from this category.

Originally Posted by ssipes

Except that in terms of a person's daily energy balance, non-starchy vegetables are essentially non-players. You can eat all the spinach you want and it will not be contributing very much to whatever your caloric needs are. Almost the same is true of fruits, except for a few calorie dense ones like bananas.

If you are not eating calorie dense carbs like grains and potatoes, and are eating only non-starchy fruits and veggies, it would be extremely difficult to get 60% of your calories from carbs.

For a 2000 Cal./day diet, that would be 1200 calories of broccoli, spinach, lettuce, apples, tomatoes, snow peas, green beans, etc. I love veggies but I don't think I could eat that much!

Fats don't really present the same kind of dilemma because bad fats have the same calories per gram as good fats, so you can choose healthy fats without changing serving sizes or the fats/protein/carb pie chart.

That is true.

My point is that some people have fallen into the trap of having the majority of their carbs coming from starchy carbs which have little to no micronutrients.

And when I've been on cutting diets, when I look at how my plate is filled it's 2/3 greens ( mixture of carbs and EFAs ) and 1/3 protein. Whether that 2/3rd of greens on my plate equates to 60% calories I don't know.

A regular meal would be 1/3 complex carbs, 1/3 greens, 1/3 protein. That might be closer to 60% calories from carbs.

Originally Posted by Lauren_

All calories come from either protein (4 calories per gram) carbohydrates (4 calories per gram) or fat (9 calories per gram).

There are no other calorie sources. That's why Sedonia is saying that if you cut your fat or limit your protein, you will by necessity be increasing your carbs.

Vegetable and fruits ARE carbohydrates, they're not being 'lumped in.' They contain so very few calories that it's almost impossible to take in anywhere near 30% of your calories from them, much less 60%.

You should, obviously, be eating plenty of veggies, but even 30% of calories allows for more spinach and broccholi than anyone could ever eat in a day. (I think a cup of spinach leaves has 7 calories?) Even if you choose to avoid sugars, alcohols, breads, rice, pasta and potatos and take in your carbs primarily from veggies (fruits are sugary and highly glycemic, a serving or two per day would be more than enough) you'll need some additional carbs from yogurt, milk, beans, lentils, etc. to get anywhere close to 30% of your caloric intake from this category.

exactly. Anytime I mention cutting back on carbs, people generally have this OMG you're doing an adkin's diet you must be eating nothing but bacon and eggs and fatty meat all day long!!

But the truth is I'm generally try to stuff as many veggies into myself as I can stand. They just don't contribute many calories.

Also, it is dang hard to get up to 30% protein without going over 30% fat, even when I'm eating lean meats, tofu, beans. Especially when I want most of my fat to come from olive oil, etc. There is no room for fried junk or bacon.

Originally Posted by da Sage

They changed it, and now the pyramid makes no sense at all, visually. It tells you to eat "more" of certain things...how much is "more"?.w.:

That was my thought. It went from wrong to just vague and confusing.

Originally Posted by ozma

And goodness knows, that's the audience reading the thread titles.

Ozma, I'm sorry if the phrase made anyone feel I was talking about anyone on this forum, because that was not the intent. I wish I could say my attempts at humor never miss the mark but that wouldn't be true.,f::

That being said, I don't think I am the first person to title a thread with a rant against someone/something other than fellow forum readers.

edited to add: I chopped the "stupid" off so the title is more in keeping with my original intent, which was to share a news story and foster a discussion on the ongoing controversy of carbs and how many/what kind we should eat. To anyone coming in to the thread after this post, my original title was "It's the carbs, stupid".

Originally Posted by ssipes

exactly. Anytime I mention cutting back on carbs, people generally have this OMG you're doing an adkin's diet you must be eating nothing but bacon and eggs and fatty meat all day long!!

But the truth is I'm generally try to stuff as many veggies into myself as I can stand. They just don't contribute many calories.

Also, it is dang hard to get up to 30% protein without going over 30% fat, even when I'm eating lean meats, tofu, beans. Especially when I want most of my fat to come from olive oil, etc. There is no room for fried junk or bacon.

Exactly. Filling up on tons of nice fresh veggies goes a long way toward eliminating junk in the diet.

I cook without using added oils or fats, too. With an olive oil cooking spray and water you can saute just about anything. I choose fat-free dairy products or 1 per cent, and if I eat nuts I eliminate the oil from my salad dressing at the next meal. I love beans and they have little or no fat, so I eat them at least once a day. For starchy foods I stick to the whole foods like yams or brown rice, but always eat them in conjunction with the protein and veggies, which slows their absorption by the body and counteracts the high(er) glycemic index factor.

I've been eating this year for nearly 3 years now. I've lost 50 lbs and my blood work is freakin' fantastic. Before, I had metabolic syndrome, extremely high triglycerides, high cholesterol, high blood pressure through the roof, you name it. So I feel really good about eating this way and I look better than I have in years.

Dunyah, if you are eating low fat, then I would suspect that your % calories from carbs is still rather high even though your food choices are very healthy. I'm not saying that's bad -- for you, if your blood chemistry, weight, energy, etc is good then its obviously good for you. Individual physiologies matter alot. It wouldn't work for me.

I generally eat between 30 and 40% of my calories from fat. As long as it is mostly good fats I don't worry about it. I define good and bad fats a little differently than some people also -- I consider trans fats bad (of course) but also polyunsaturated vegetable oils with very high omega 6 to omega 3 ratios (e.g. the agricultural byproducts corn oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil) are "bad".

Good fats are fats high in monounsaturated fats and omega 3's, so nuts, avocados, olive oil and olives, oily fish, fish and krill supplements.

With respect to animal fats, both the zone diet and the southbeach diet authors (both M.D.'s) differentiate between super bad and not so bad animal fats. Dairy fat is super bad. Fat from meats, seafoods, eggs (especially if the animals are fed natural diets) are not so bad. It has to do with the density of the molecules and their propensity to contribute to arteriosclerosis. Unfortunately I love dairy fat, but I try to minimize it. So, I consider meat and egg fat is just sort of neutral. I don't worry too much about them in small to moderate amounts.

With respect to blood chemistry, it almost seems like to more fat and less carbs I eat, the better the test results are.

edited to add: metabolic syndrome runs in my family too. I never had it but at one time I had very high cholesterol (289) and was probably heading towards the rest.

30% of calories from fat is right in line with the recommendations. I realize we're at odds with the recommendations on the topic of carbs... just pointing out that what Sedonia is describing is not a fat-laden diet by traditional standards, it's right in line with what's generally considered healthy.

She's talking about shifting about 20% of daily caloric intake from carbs to protein. Seems right to me.

I've decided that, after 40, the belly is where old carbs go to die. :(

Originally Posted by ssipes

Ozma, I'm sorry if the phrase made anyone feel I was talking about anyone on this forum, because that was not the intent. I wish I could say my attempts at humor never miss the mark but that wouldn't be true.,f::

It didn't hurt but I did find the "stupid" sort of jarring on the thread list. It didn't seem like the best way to start off sharing information and having it heard...like "oi! Dummy! I got the good word here!"

Originally Posted by ozma

It didn't hurt but I did find the "stupid" sort of jarring on the thread list. It didn't seem like the best way to start off sharing information and having it heard...like "oi! Dummy! I got the good word here!"

Yes, you're right, I had already realized that but for some reason I thought (from previous attempts) that only swap meet thread titles could be changed. Good thing I tried it anyway....

Originally Posted by Lauren_

I've decided that, after 40, the belly is where old carbs go to die. :(

..l;,

Amen sister!

I think that some of all of this depends on you. High protein makes me sick so I eat very little of it (especially in meat form). I do much better with a 60% carb,30% protein, 10% fat diet. Mind you I stay away (for the most part) from potatos, and eat whole grain and what not. THis is the only mix that has allowed me to loose weight instead of gaining!

Originally Posted by Lauren_

All calories come from either protein (4 calories per gram) carbohydrates (4 calories per gram) or fat (9 calories per gram).

There are no other calorie sources. That's why Sedonia is saying that if you cut your fat or limit your protein, you will by necessity be increasing your carbs.

Vegetable and fruits ARE carbohydrates, they're not being 'lumped in.' They contain so very few calories that it's almost impossible to take in anywhere near 30% of your calories from them, much less 60%.

You should, obviously, be eating plenty of veggies, but even 30% of calories allows for more spinach and broccholi than anyone could ever eat in a day. (I think a cup of spinach leaves has 7 calories?) Even if you choose to avoid sugars, alcohols, breads, rice, pasta and potatos and take in your carbs primarily from veggies (fruits are sugary and highly glycemic, a serving or two per day would be more than enough) you'll need some additional carbs from yogurt, milk, beans, lentils, etc. to get anywhere close to 30% of your caloric intake from this category.

You left out alcohol - 7 cal/gm, it's not a carbohydrate. If only it were free..........

Originally Posted by Linnyg

I think that some of all of this depends on you. High protein makes me sick so I eat very little of it (especially in meat form). I do much better with a 60% carb,30% protein, 10% fat diet. Mind you I stay away (for the most part) from potatos, and eat whole grain and what not. THis is the only mix that has allowed me to loose weight instead of gaining!

I agree that it's individual.

Did you mean to type 60% carb, 30% fat, 10% protein? That's in line with what's generally recommended, and I've switched the percentages that way myself by mistake a couple of times.

If you really meant to say 10% fat, I'd be extremely careful with such a restrictive diet. 10% is considered dangerously low by most experts. 10% or less doesn't give you enough to carry fat-soluble vitamins and can lead to hair loss, cancer risk, depression, and, increased cholesterol and heart disease risk (too low 'good cholesterol' levels).

But I do agree that each person is different, and I also think that we are different over the course of our lives. The way my body handles carbs seems to have changed abruptly on my 40th birthday!

Originally Posted by BELLA_BELLA

You left out alcohol - 7 cal/gm, it's not a carbohydrate. If only it were free..........

Oh, I did. Cuz I don't drink much, or at all when I'm counting calories. ..g.: LOL I was taught to think of alcohol as a 'modified carbohydrate'