 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2006Fat is NOT bad?
Interesting article confirms what we already know, but I bet Ornish would have a cow over it. http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm/cmi_1864882/cid_1/ "In other words, fat doesn't make you fat. And, in my opinion, it also doesn't make you sick. What does seem to matter, however, is the type of fat and the type of carbohydrate eaten. Let's look at the carbs first. Processed carbs -- which are most of the carbs that come in boxes and packages -- are seen by the body as a big lump of sugar. They're deadly. And they drive triglycerides through the roof. Carbs from vegetables and fruits -- and the ocasional whole grain -- are loaded with fiber, which are associated with a king's ransom of good health effects, including moderating blood sugar and insulin. You can be on a low-carb or controlled-carb regimen and still consume a ton of these good carbs. What you can't consume -- at least if you want to lose weight -- is pasta, bread, baked goods and commercial cereals. You can however, consume fat. And you should." > Interesting article confirms what we already know, but I bet Ornish would > have a cow over it. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > low-carb or controlled-carb regimen and still consume a ton of these good > carbs. I think most of us would disagree that you can be on LC and still consume a ton of vegetables and fruits. You can certainly eat reasonable amounts of the right ones from the list, but leaving it open to eating "tons" of say grapes and potatoes is misleading. the rest of it sounds pretty reasonable advice. What you can't consume -- at least if you want to lose weight -- is > pasta, bread, baked goods and commercial cereals. > > You can however, consume fat. And you should." :: Rick King wrote: ::: Interesting article confirms what we already know, but I bet Ornish [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] :: open to eating "tons" of say grapes and potatoes is misleading. the :: rest of it sounds pretty reasonable advice. Makes you wonder if the author really practices what he preaches. I still maintain that the notion of "good carbs" is silly and not a good term to use. :: What you can't consume -- at least if you want to lose weight -- is ::: pasta, bread, baked goods and commercial cereals. ::: ::: You can however, consume fat. And you should." > I still maintain that the notion of "good carbs" is silly and not a good > term to use. I kind of disagree. I have no problem believing that colorful, leafy, fibrous veggies and fruits are more beneficial to health than starchy ones, or high GI ones. That said, it doesn't mean you can eat boatloads of any of them. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: leafy, fibrous veggies and fruits are more beneficial to health than :: starchy ones, or high GI ones. See, that's what gets me. Those colorful, leafy, fibrous veggies and fruits that we both believe are good parts of the diet aren't "carbs", so why are we calling them that? If we take it to the limit, we might as well refer to meat as "good carbs". I don't have problems with phrases such as "carby foods" and such. Also, I believe a "carb" is a "carb" and if you get too many (YMMV) you could have problems. It's hard to get too many carbs from broccoli. :: That said, it doesn't mean you can eat boatloads of any of them. :: :: Susan > See, that's what gets me. Those colorful, leafy, fibrous veggies and fruits > that we both believe are good parts of the diet aren't "carbs", so why are > we calling them that? If we take it to the limit, we might as well refer to > meat as "good carbs". They are carbs, in macronutrient breakdown. Virtually all of their calories come from carbs. They're low carb, low glycemic, highly nutrient dense, which makes them a no brainer carb choice vs. starch. > I don't have problems with phrases such as "carby foods" and such. Also, I > believe a "carb" is a "carb" and if you get too many (YMMV) you could have > problems. It's hard to get too many carbs from broccoli. That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of eating enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow full. That's why broccoli and salad are "good carbs." Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: calories come from carbs. They're low carb, low glycemic, highly :: nutrient dense, which makes them a no brainer carb choice vs. starch. Well, if you look at 1 cup of broccoli from fitday, you get Total Carbs: 4.61g Fiber: 2.64g ===================>Net Carbs: 1.94g Protein: 2.62g Cals from carbs = 1.94*4 = 8 Cals from protein = 2.62*4 = 10.48 So, they are as much, or more, protein as carbs. Yes, they are low carb & nutrient dense which is all that counts. So is meat. ::: I don't have problems with phrases such as "carby foods" and such. ::: Also, I believe a "carb" is a "carb" and if you get too many (YMMV) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow full. :: That's why broccoli and salad are "good carbs." They are low-calorie foods that take up space in the gut and provide nutrients, but it's unfair to call them "carbs," good or bad. They are good foods. How can something that barely contains carbs be called a "good carb"? It makes no sense unless you consider "no carb = good carb", so we can call meat a good carb, too. :) > Well, if you look at 1 cup of broccoli from fitday, you get > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So, they are as much, or more, protein as carbs. Yes, they are low carb & > nutrient dense which is all that counts. So is meat. Not actually. It has more carbs by weight; you have to count the fiber, it is carbohyrate and contrary to popular belief, about half of it or more is digested, Lyle once posted cites for this. The fact that some of it is not digested makes it desirable carbs. Further, I'm talking about more than just broccoli. > They are low-calorie foods that take up space in the gut and provide > nutrients, but it's unfair to call them "carbs," good or bad. Once more; vegetables have lots more nutrition per calorie or gram than starchy or sugary carbs, therefore, they are good carbs. Ignoring GI/GL and all that for a moment, they are far more nutrient dense, making them a superior nutritional choice, whether or not you're fat, diabetic or skinny and healthy. > They are good > foods. How can something that barely contains carbs be called a "good > carb"? That's why it's a better carb; few calories, but a LOT of phytonutrients. > It makes no sense unless you consider "no carb = good carb", so we > can call meat a good carb, too. :) I think I'm typing in English... ;-) Roger, I'm not just counting the carbs, I'm examining the nutritional content. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] :: fiber, it is carbohyrate and contrary to popular belief, about half :: of it or more is digested, That all depends on the type of fiber, etc. Most of these non-starchy veggies just don't have much of anything calorific, but they aren't exclusively carbs. Lyle once posted cites for this. The :: fact that some of it is not digested makes it desirable carbs. Makes it low in carbs that can convert to glucose in the body.... :: Further, I'm talking about more than just broccoli. Me too, but you didn't expect me to list numbers for all the LC veggies, did you? :) ::: They are low-calorie foods that take up space in the gut and provide ::: nutrients, but it's unfair to call them "carbs," good or bad. :: :: Once more; vegetables have lots more nutrition per calorie or gram :: than starchy or sugary carbs, therefore, they are good carbs. Once more; they are "good foods" for that reason. :: Ignoring GI/GL and all that for a moment, they are far more nutrient :: dense, making them a superior nutritional choice, whether or not :: you're fat, diabetic or skinny and healthy. Preach on! :: > They are good ::: foods. How can something that barely contains carbs be called a ::: "good carb"? :: :: That's why it's a better carb; few calories, but a LOT of :: phytonutrients. That's why it's a better food; few calories, but a LOT of phytonutrients. :) :: > It makes no sense unless you consider "no carb = good carb", so we ::: can call meat a good carb, too. :) :: :: I think I'm typing in English... ;-) Me too! :) :: Roger, I'm not just counting the carbs, I'm examining the nutritional :: content. Me too, Susan. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. > That all depends on the type of fiber, etc. Some fiber is under 2 calories per gram, some is over. You deducted it as if it weren't present. Most of these non-starchy > veggies just don't have much of anything calorific, but they aren't > exclusively carbs. Eggs each have a gram of carb, but they're still a protein food, no? If we can't agree that vegetables are a carbohydrate group, there's no point in proceeding. > Lyle once posted cites for this. The > :: fact that some of it is not digested makes it desirable carbs. > > Makes it low in carbs that can convert to glucose in the body.... Not just lower, but slower. You seem to insist that only one thing can be true at a time. Most things are more complex than you're giving them credit for. > :: Further, I'm talking about more than just broccoli. > > Me too, but you didn't expect me to list numbers for all the LC veggies, did > you? :) Most are lower in fat and protein than broccoli. Just sayinzall. :-) > ::: They are low-calorie foods that take up space in the gut and provide > ::: nutrients, but it's unfair to call them "carbs," good or bad. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Once more; they are "good foods" for that reason. They're good carbs, compared to starch, which isn't even suitable for animal feed, IMO. > :: Ignoring GI/GL and all that for a moment, they are far more nutrient > :: dense, making them a superior nutritional choice, whether or not > :: you're fat, diabetic or skinny and healthy. > > Preach on! I think I'm done. > :: > They are good > ::: foods. How can something that barely contains carbs be called a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's why it's a better food; few calories, but a LOT of > phytonutrients. :) Carb is a subset off food. Saying it's a good food doesn't negate that it's also a good carb. There you go with that either/or black/white stuff again. > :: > It makes no sense unless you consider "no carb = good carb", so we > ::: can call meat a good carb, too. :) > :: > :: I think I'm typing in English... ;-) > > Me too! :) > :: Roger, I'm not just counting the carbs, I'm examining the nutritional > :: content. > > Me too, Susan. > > I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Foin. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: Some fiber is under 2 calories per gram, some is over. You deducted :: it as if it weren't present. Right, so being faced with not knowing which is the case for broccoli, I just treated as it didn't count. Big deal. For all practical matters, broccoli is a zero carb food. None will get a spike eating it, and it not because of the type of carb in it, because because there is little carb there. :: Most of these non-starchy ::: veggies just don't have much of anything calorific, but they aren't ::: exclusively carbs. :: :: Eggs each have a gram of carb, but they're still a protein food, no? Eggs are a good source of protein and fat, yes. :: If we can't agree that vegetables are a carbohydrate group, there's :: no point in proceeding. We're already into this now. Obviously, veggies span a wide range of carbs. Some are way more carby that others, so saying veggies are carbs is, again, silly. Do we get to say that fruits are carbs, too? Is meat protein or fat? ::: Lyle once posted cites for this. The ::::: fact that some of it is not digested makes it desirable carbs. ::: ::: Makes it low in carbs that can convert to glucose in the body.... :: :: Not just lower, but slower. I'm not convinced of that. That claim is made for lots of fiber-rich grain based foods, too. And IFAIC, it wrong to call them carbs, too. You seem to insist that only one thing :: can be true at a time. Most things are more complex than you're :: giving them credit for. I don't think I'm insisting that only one thing can be true at a time...The fact is, most foods don't have that much fiber anyway. ::::: Further, I'm talking about more than just broccoli. ::: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: They're good carbs, compared to starch, which isn't even suitable for :: animal feed, IMO. That really depends. One couldn't survive for long on just brocolli or just the inside of a potato. One provides nutrients other other energy. The body needs both. ::::: Ignoring GI/GL and all that for a moment, they are far more ::::: nutrient dense, making them a superior nutritional choice, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :: that it's also a good carb. There you go with that either/or :: black/white stuff again. A carb is a carb in the body. We don't eat them as food in isolation. We eat combinations of food, which provides carbs, protein, fat and nutrients. LC veggies provide carbs that act the same way in the body as the carbs from an egg, do. They simply provide very few carbs, good nutrition, and few calories. Saying they are a "good carb" (a black/white argument) is just wrong, as they aren't only carbs, and they've very little of that. Last time I checked, *foods* weren't labeled strictly as fats, carbs, and protein (unless there some serious processing going on). It's more complex than that. ::::: > It makes no sense unless you consider "no carb = good carb", ::::: so we [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: :: Susan >A carb is a carb in the body. We don't eat them as food in isolation. We eat >combinations of food, which provides carbs, protein, fat and nutrients. LC [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >protein (unless there some serious processing going on). It's more complex >than that. I don't know quite where to start on this debate. Roger, from this perspective your refusal to refer to broccoli, and other low-starch veggies, as "carbs" appears to be related to a bias against carbs in general. In light of the traditional way different food types are classified by dominant macronutrient content... I'd have to agree that your position does sound a little goofy. Although... I do get where you're coming from. It is more complex, and the traditional "labeling," which does exist regardless of whether you care to acknowledge it, isn't a bad starting point. I'm a huge fan of lc folks adding loads of low-starch (and yes, low-carb) veggies to their diet. For the reason cited by Susan... they tend to be very, very nutrient dense. Talking micronutrients here, which are very necessary. You can try to muddy the waters by talking about higher-energy foods that are equally micronutrient-dense... but in reality, those foods pretty much don't exist in nature. And a fruit may, for many people, be a better choice than a potato. Both higher-sugar fruit and potatoes have similar energy content, by weight, but in general,, the fruit will have a higher micronutrient density. It will also often have more fiber and be more slowly absorbed in the gut, if eaten whole, despite a rather high sugar content. But, I'll agree that this whole topic is complex. I just don't have a lot of problem with the concept that some foods are considered dominantly "carb" foods, and that there is a continuum of healthfulness that will depend on factors such as micronutrient density, specific type of carbohydrate, how fast the carbs are absorbed, and even individual variation in how that specific food affects a given person. HG > I don't know quite where to start on this debate. Roger, from this > perspective your refusal to refer to broccoli, and other low-starch [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > HG Thanks, Hannah, for your usual cleareyed, succinct summary. Susan :: On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:27:55 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: veggies, as "carbs" appears to be related to a bias against carbs in :: general. If you say so, but I don't see why you think I have a bias. If anything, it's the opposite, or more precisely, I think carby foods have a place (which, BTW, is not in the diet of most folks today). As I've stated over and over, something like broccoli barely has any energy content at all and close to half of it comes from protein. So why refer to it as a carb? The same could be say for the other LC veggies, IMO. Yeah, others may do so, but my position is that don't agree with that usage. In light of the traditional way different food types are :: classified by dominant macronutrient content... I'd have to agree :: that your position does sound a little goofy. What traditional way is that? Obviously, I'm just missing that point. Are other foods referred to as a 'protein' or a 'fat'? It seems the only reason to classify is to talk about good carbs and bad carbs, which is where my objection to those terms comes in. :: Although... I do get where you're coming from. It is more complex, :: and the traditional "labeling," which does exist regardless of :: whether you care to acknowledge it, isn't a bad starting point. Well, I certainly acknowledge the "good carb/bad carb" labeling. I know people talk a lot about good fats and bad fats (usually sat fats and transfats), but those aren't foods and most foods contains combinations of them. Should we label steak a bad fat because it s a source of sat fats, while containing other fats as well? Or, would it be better to label steak as a "good protein" or would that be "bad protein"? Yes, a traditional labeling does exist, and all I've been trying to say is that I don't like the phrases "good carbs" and "bad carbs." From there, things just spun out of control and the threads get so convoluted that points get lost. I'm :: a huge fan of lc folks adding loads of low-starch (and yes, :: low-carb) veggies to their diet. Me too. I think google will prove that. :: For the reason cited by Susan... Well, I hope you realize that I've never objected to her points about nutrients, even though it seems as if you both think I'm unaware of this issue. I fully get why she puts broccoli into the "good carbs" group while putting a potato into the other group. :: they tend to be very, very nutrient dense. Talking micronutrients :: here, which are very necessary. You can try to muddy the waters by :: talking about higher-energy foods that are equally :: micronutrient-dense... but in reality, those foods pretty much don't :: exist in nature. I don't try to muddy any waters. I was making the point that carby stuff like potatoes, corn, rice, etc has a place in the diet depending on what a person does. Of course, I have some kind of anti-carb bias, so.... :: And a fruit may, for many people, be a better choice than a potato. I think I wrote about why a potato isn't a good choice for many people. :: Both higher-sugar fruit and potatoes have similar energy content, by :: weight, but in general,, the fruit will have a higher micronutrient :: density. It will also often have more fiber and be more slowly :: absorbed in the gut, if eaten whole, despite a rather high sugar :: content. And what if the objective is not to have the food slowly absorbed in the gut? What if the objective is to fill muscles/liver with glycogen, so that one can perform high-intensity/long duration exercise? Now, before you say I'm trying to muddy the waters, my only reason for suggesting that situation is because in that case a potato would be considered good. Certainly some fruits are good too, but many fruits stimulate the gut and hence aren't always be best choice and certainly don't need to be the only choice. Yes, we get nutrients from food. But we also get energy from food. We only need so many nutrients for good health and once those needs are met, one can eat to supply energy. If energy output demands are high, then energy input needs to match. When view like this, those bad carbs aren't so bad. However, for typical folks, too many carby foods which are also not nutrient dense is bad. :: But, I'll agree that this whole topic is complex. I just don't have a :: lot of problem with the concept that some foods are considered :: dominantly "carb" foods, I don't either, really. I could consider a potato in that group, but not broccoli. One would have to eat a LOT of broccoli to get signficant carbs. Hence, is it not a good source of carbs, hence, it isn't a "good carb." Sure, you can say (weakly, too) that according to weight or percent calories that broccoli is mostly carb, but 10 * 0 is still zero. And 10 * {some small number} is still a small number. and that there is a continuum of :: healthfulness that will depend on factors such as micronutrient :: density, specific type of carbohydrate, how fast the carbs are :: absorbed, and even individual variation in how that specific food :: affects a given person. I don't disagree with any of that. Perhaps if I took more time to peck this stuff out my positions would be more clear, but honestly, I'm always doing something else while in this group. So I peck fast and hope that others can follow. Such is life. >If you say so, but I don't see why you think I have a bias. Mainly because you don't like low-carb high-nutrient-density foods to be labeled as "carbs," even as "good" carbs. There are three main macronutrient groups - carbs, protein, and fat. As FOB aptly notes, most foods *contain* a mixture. However, from longstanding dietary management practice, foods have tended to be sorted out into groups. The exchange system is a good example, although that gets complicated by addition of "dairy," which is a mix of protein, fat and carbs (lactose), and low-starch vegetables are in their own category. The Zone concept uses just the 3 main categories. > If anything, >it's the opposite, or more precisely, I think carby foods have a place [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >same could be say for the other LC veggies, IMO. Yeah, others may do so, >but my position is that don't agree with that usage. You do have a point with broccoli, but by common usage low-starch vegetables have been sorted into the "carb" group or into their own group (exchange programs). Most of these veggies don't have as much protein as broccoli. >What traditional way is that? Obviously, I'm just missing that point. Are >other foods referred to as a 'protein' or a 'fat'? It seems the only reason >to classify is to talk about good carbs and bad carbs, which is where my >objection to those terms comes in. See above. And I'm not saying these sytems are all that great, but they have been in use for a long time. FWIW, I agree that the terms "good" and "bad" are a bit silly when applied to carbs and fats. Although I guess we'd all agree that transfats are "bad." But the jury is still out on other fats, and for most fats and carb-dominant foods, the amount is also important. A little simple sugar isn't a big deal for most folks, on an occasional basis, unless their health is already compromised. All the time, at every meal and in quantity - a whole other ball game. >Yes, a traditional >labeling does exist, and all I've been trying to say is that I don't like >the phrases "good carbs" and "bad carbs." From there, things just spun out >of control and the threads get so convoluted that points get lost. That's for sure! And yes, since there is still no universal agreement on which foods are good and bad for us, then oversimplified good/bad labeling is just going to exacerbate the confusion. >Well, I hope you realize that I've never objected to her points about >nutrients, even though it seems as if you both think I'm unaware of this >issue. I fully get why she puts broccoli into the "good carbs" group while >putting a potato into the other group. No, I know you are aware of this. More than that, you're one who can be counted on to remind newbies that they need to keep eating their veggies, and increasing quantities as they go along. From what I've seen here over the years, that may be the one most valuable piece of advice we can give a new lc dieter. Reason - I've observed that most of the long-term successful lc'ers are the ones who do eat a lot of veggies, not the ones who eat a couple lettuce leaves for lunch and a few green beans for dinner. >I don't try to muddy any waters. I was making the point that carby stuff >like potatoes, corn, rice, etc has a place in the diet depending on what a >person does. Of course, I have some kind of anti-carb bias, so.... Well, I'd agree with you on this. It will depend on the person and the quantity, of course. I wouldn't call any whole food starch "bad," no matter what the GI. >And what if the objective is not to have the food slowly absorbed in the >gut? What if the objective is to fill muscles/liver with glycogen, so that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >fruits are good too, but many fruits stimulate the gut and hence aren't >always be best choice and certainly don't need to be the only choice. Sure, a valid point. Although non-fructose-sweetened candies work even better for replenishing muscle glycogen, don't they? Potatoes only become "bad" when you can't eat them in any reasonable amount because your glucose-handling system is deranged. Then you may need to avoid them and you may personally want to label them as "bad," but for lots of people in the world, who need the calories to stay alive, potatoes would be a very, very good dietary component. >Yes, we get nutrients from food. But we also get energy from food. We only >need so many nutrients for good health and once those needs are met, one can >eat to supply energy. If energy output demands are high, then energy input >needs to match. When view like this, those bad carbs aren't so bad. >However, for typical folks, too many carby foods which are also not nutrient >dense is bad. I don't think we actually disagree about much, then, it looks like. lol! >I don't either, really. I could consider a potato in that group, but not >broccoli. One would have to eat a LOT of broccoli to get signficant carbs. >Hence, is it not a good source of carbs, hence, it isn't a "good carb." >Sure, you can say (weakly, too) that according to weight or percent calories >that broccoli is mostly carb, but 10 * 0 is still zero. And 10 * {some small >number} is still a small number. Well, I don't have a problem calling it a "carb," but it's just not contributing much carb is all. Personally, I don't really keep track of low-starch veggies. They don't have much impact on my system, other than promoting "regularity" I guess. Starchier stuff I do keep track of. So in effect I guess I've adopted your system. >Perhaps if I took more time to peck this stuff out my positions would be >more clear, but honestly, I'm always doing something else while in this >group. So I peck fast and hope that others can follow. Such is life. It's just labeling and definitions. I think we're all on the same page in terms of the more substantive stuff. HG <snip> You got a point. It's interesting that the protein content of certain "carb foods" is higher than the carbohydrate content. Spinach is a great food for this reason, for every 1 carb, you get like 3 grams of protein and two grams of fiber. :: <snip> :: :: You got a point. It's interesting that the protein content of :: certain "carb foods" is higher than the carbohydrate content. :: Spinach is a great food for this reason, for every 1 carb, you get :: like 3 grams of protein and two grams of fiber. Yep. Great LC food, IMO. Well, you all drive me crazy. I don't call any food a carb because it isn't a carb, it CONTAINS carbs. It's like calling a person water because we are composed primarily of water. There are carby foods of varying degrees and there are foods containing no carbs at all. The carbs themselves are pretty much the same, what makes them "good" or "bad" or "healthy" or "unhealthy" is the rest of the stuff a particular food contains. "Good" carbs keep company with lots of vitamins, minerals, fiber, antioxidants. "Bad" carbs tend more to be loners but they do hang out with transfats and HFCAs and other things that taste good but have no beneficial effect on the body. Having read this exchange, I think I will add my two cents. I think the confusion stems from using "moral" terms to refer to food. We all get lured into using terms like "good" or "bad" or "healthy" by this or that expert: "good carbs" "eat healthy" etc as though the phrase, "eat healthy" actually meant anything except as a buzz phrase for the low-fat movement. If we don't let them dumb us down and instead use scientifically descriptive terms, there is a lot less confusion when we discuss issues. I have often wondered if bad carbs should be put in jail.... just a thought. Cookie > :: x-no-archive: yes > :: [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > :: > :: Susan :: Having read this exchange, I think I will add my two cents. :: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: :: Cookie :) And you know, I also dont' much like phrases such as "eat healthy" either. It means different things to different people. For a diabetic, it could mean eating in such a way as to maintain stable, normal BGs. But to a LFer, it would mean a high carb diet which would tend to destroy my organs. To a LCer, it could mean eating a diet high in fat, which would make some LFers sick on the stomach. Now, I think most would agree "eat healthy" could mean avoiding junk foods, fast foods, and transfats. But I can "eat healthy" of McD any day of the week. Anyway, it's fun to talk about. > That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of > eating enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow > full. That's why broccoli and salad are "good carbs." I think the reason people are balking at calling broccoli a "good carb" is that it makes it sound like the carbs in some foods are better than the carbs in others. Broccoli is good because it has few carbs, not because the carbs in broccoli are superior to those in a potato.  SignatureAaron -- aaron_baugher@yahoo.com -- 285/245/200 http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher >>That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of >>eating enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > carbs, not because the carbs in broccoli are superior to those in a > potato. I disagree; broccoli is a good carb because it also is more nutrient dense. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :: I disagree; broccoli is a good carb because it also is more nutrient :: dense. But, it were just as nutrient dense but contained a packing whollop of carbs then it wouldn't be so good, by your definition, because it wouldn' be low carb. Food must provide nutrition as well as energy. In that light, some could claim that broccoli is pretty much unless in terms of providing energy to the body for high-performance activity. In that instance, a potato with skin is a lot more useful than broccoli. The carbs in a potato are not "bad" in and of themselves. They can provide useful energy in the right physical system (someone producing explosive or long duration bouts of physical expediture). It's when carbs are excessive and typically combined with excessive calories that problems begin. Hey, all, meat is a good carb! > But, it were just as nutrient dense but contained a packing whollop of carbs > then it wouldn't be so good, by your definition, because it wouldn' be low > carb. It would still be a "good" carb compared to starch, which isn't nutrient dense and oxidizes rapidly. I just wouldn't eat it as liberally. > Food must provide nutrition as well as energy. ExSQUEZE moi, but I'm the one who keeps coming back to nutrients, here! Most folks get too much energy, and too little nutrition. In that light, some > could claim that broccoli is pretty much unless in terms of providing energy > to the body for high-performance activity. Couldn't parse this sentence... In that instance, a potato with > skin is a lot more useful than broccoli. The carbs in a potato are not > "bad" in and of themselves. They can provide useful energy in the right [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hey, all, meat is a good carb! If there's any logic here, it escaped me. Non sequitir. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: ExSQUEZE moi, but I'm the one who keeps coming back to nutrients, :: here! Most folks get too much energy, and too little nutrition. Come on, you're not the only one talking nutrients. :: In that light, some ::: could claim that broccoli is pretty much unless in terms of ::: providing energy to the body for high-performance activity. :: :: Couldn't parse this sentence... Replace "unless" with "useless". :: In that instance, a potato with ::: skin is a lot more useful than broccoli. The carbs in a potato are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: :: If there's any logic here, it escaped me. Non sequitir. Meat provides nutrients and is low in carbs. :: Susan > :: x-no-archive: yes > :: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Come on, you're not the only one talking nutrients. Well, yeah, my point was that they're the difference between good and bad carbs. It's the whole distinction, a distinction you don't make. I also distinguish between protein, fat and carbs. > :: In that light, some > ::: could claim that broccoli is pretty much unless in terms of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Replace "unless" with "useless". Okay... but we weren't talking about energy, which also comes from protein converted to glucose, we were talking about quality. > :: In that instance, a potato with > ::: skin is a lot more useful than broccoli. Then one would want to eat fruit rather than broccoli, not a potato. Broccoli isn't the only non starchy carb. The carbs in a potato are > ::: not "bad" in and of themselves. Well, yeah, they are. They are higher GI than table sugar, and relatively nutritionally impoverished. They can provide useful energy in > ::: the right physical system (someone producing explosive or long > ::: duration bouts of physical expediture). It's when carbs are > ::: excessive and typically combined with excessive calories that > ::: problems begin. I'm not going to argue against controlling calories, but a potato is a choice to make only if no other, nutritious food is available. > ::: Hey, all, meat is a good carb! > :: > :: If there's any logic here, it escaped me. Non sequitir. > > Meat provides nutrients and is low in carbs. Meat is virtually carb free, but 58% of the protein converts to glucose. Much more slowly than a potato, so the energy lasts and doesn't do any physiological damage. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] :: Well, yeah, my point was that they're the difference between good and :: bad carbs. It's the whole distinction, a distinction you don't make. Right. I make the distinction between good and bad food, not carbs. Food that lacks nutritional value is bad food. :: I also distinguish between protein, fat and carbs. And? Most foods don't fall into a single catagory. ::::: In that light, some :::::: could claim that broccoli is pretty much unless in terms of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: Okay... but we weren't talking about energy, which also comes from :: protein converted to glucose, we were talking about quality. In terms of what's good and bad in the body, energy must be considered too. We were talking about calling a LC veggie a 'good carb' because it has nutrients and few carbs. There is no dispute over whether LC veggies are nutritious and of high quality. ::::: In that instance, a potato with :::::: skin is a lot more useful than broccoli. :: :: Then one would want to eat fruit rather than broccoli, not a potato. :: Broccoli isn't the only non starchy carb. Not true. Most fruits dont' provide much energy either, as they contain a lot of water and relatively few calories. That's why the fit in low fat, low cal diets. :: The carbs in a potato are :::::: not "bad" in and of themselves. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: I'm not going to argue against controlling calories, but a potato is :: a choice to make only if no other, nutritious food is available. I won't argue the choice of a potato for most sedentary people. It's usually a very bad choice based on lifestyle issues and overall composition of the diet. But for someone who will actually convert the quick energy they provide into effort, they work well. :::::: Hey, all, meat is a good carb! ::::: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: glucose. Much more slowly than a potato, so the energy lasts and :: doesn't do any physiological damage. In terms of grams of carbs supplied to the body, broccoli is virtually carb free too. As is true of most salad veggies. Any way, as I'm sure you know, no one ever changes positions in these debates. The fact that I don't like the terms "good carbs" and "bad carbs" doesn't mean you and others won't use them. The world doesn't step to my beat. I can deal with that. > > That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of > > eating enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > carbs, not because the carbs in broccoli are superior to those in a > potato. Yes, that's a goof way of explaining it. > -- > Aaron -- aaron_baugher@yahoo.com -- 285/245/200 > http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher :: Aaron Baugher wrote: ::: Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: :: Yes, that's a goof way of explaining it. Goof? :) > Yes, that's a goof way of explaining it. You got THAT right, however unintentially. Susan > I think most of us would disagree that you can be on LC and still > consume a ton of vegetables and fruits. Maybe not 'a ton', but you can be on LC and eat more vegetables than many non-LCers. I know plenty of people who never eat a green vegetable unless they forget to have McDonald's leave the lettuce off their burger. People who think having potatoes, rice, and corn as side dishes at the same meal make it well-rounded because it has three "vegetables." You can easily eat more vegetables on LC than the typical fast food eater, even on Induction. Fruits are a little tougher, since people do eat a lot of apples and oranges and we're pretty much restricted to berries, but the LC fruits are also very high in fiber and good for you. They tend to be a lot more expensive, though, while LC vegetables like broccoli generally aren't. SignatureAaron -- aaron_baugher@yahoo.com -- 285/245/200 http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher IMHO. For weight watchers, fat is bad, if you mix it with carb. For weight watchers, carb is bad, if you mix it with fat. For weight watchers, carb is ok, if you eat it along with exact protein needed by the body w/o fat(ignoring other side effects). For weight watchers, fat is good, if you eat it along with exact protein needed by the body w/o carb. Why? For illustration purpose, I'll make rice bowl as an example. A bowl of rice is about 300Kcal(8g protein and 60g carb). For 2400kcal, one needs to eat 8 bowls of rice per day. For 3000kcal, one needs to eat 10 bowls of rice per day. To grown fat, add 1000kcal then 4000kcal, one needs to eat 14 bowls of rice per day. For experiment purpose, let's all try to eat 14 bowls of rice per day, to see how may days we can last. Conclusion, it is not a very efficient way to grow fat by eating carb without fat. Now, if we add 25g oil in the rice bowl -> A bowl of rice is about 525Kcal(25g oil, 8g protein and 60g carb). For 4000kcal, one needs only to eat 6 bowls of oiled rice per day. This the way to make a sumo fighter. Now, if we know how to grow fat, it is easy to deduct the way not to grow fat. --- The more we know, the less we know. k 1 6 8 9 a t h o t m a i l d o t c o m |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.