Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Quality Carbs -- Starches and Greens

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    This.

    Unless you have a medical reason to be in strict ketosis, don't count greens as carb sources. They're sources of nourishing vitamins and minerals, but they're basically useless for energy. I don't even count carrots, turnips, broccoli or brussels sprouts as carbs even though they have some starch or sugar content.

    Fruits/potatoes/sweet potatoes/parsnips/taro/cassava/jicama/plantains and added sugar sources like honey, maple syrup, molasses count for your carb sources. And obviously, any non-Primal things you may eat like wheat, corn, rice, beans, etc. If you're picking lettuce leaves out of your salad because you're afraid it'll put you over some irrelevant "carbohydrate curve" number, you're doing it wrong
    Ok, so you count the carbs from a parsnip but not from a turnip? How much sense does that make?

    I agree that the OP probably doesn't need to be restricting carbs to ketosis levels. That does not mean that the ONLY people for whom ketosis is beneficial are people with serious medical conditions. Once again you are generalizing from your experience with higher carb primal and saying it is right for everyone. We don't really know what the OP's stats are other than being a student and therefore probably pretty young.

    As to the "irrelevant carb curve" comment. Could you be a little more snotty to Mark on his own site? The carb curve actually works for an awful lot of people. You are an outlier. Yay you.

    Nobody is picking lettuce leaves out of a salad. Tilting at strawmen again, I see.

    Comment


    • #17
      the carb curve is some bullshit. can't wait till mark walks that one back, or admits that it's not real science, and is just a recommendation for inactive, out of shape people.

      Comment


      • #18
        I dunno, I think that if you are serious about losing weight via ketosis, that number is pretty relevant. If I were serious about ketosis, I'd be more likely though to look at a plan like Atkins modified for real foods (or just eat real foods at the levels they reccommend).

        I feel like people try Primal, try and do the ketosis thing and then have trouble because maybe they don't have enough information (if you read, he doesn't really promote ketosis as a holy grail). I think the best source of that information lies in the Atkins community.

        I think if you are trying to acheive ketosis, you do need to be more careful about vegetables. If you are just eating primal, you really don't unless you just can't control yourself around fruit and sweet potatoes to a big enough degree that you overeat the calories.

        http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
        Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
          Ok, so you count the carbs from a parsnip but not from a turnip? How much sense does that make?
          A lot.

          100g of raw turnips have 6g of carbohydrate with 2g of dietary fiber for a grand total of 4 net carbs. The GI is a 2.

          100g of raw parsnips have 18g of carbohydrate with 5g of dietary fiber for a grand total of 13 net carbs. The GI is 5.

          100g of raw potatoes have 17g of carbohydrate with 2g of dietary fiber for a grand total of 15 net carbs. The GI is 7.

          A parsnip is over 3 times more carbohydrate-dense than a turnip and is close to a potato, which is a significant starch. A turnip is close to a radish, which is a fibrous low-starch root.


          Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Parsnips, raw
          Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Turnips, raw
          Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Potatoes, white, flesh and skin, raw [Includes USDA commodity food A215]
          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

          Comment


          • #20
            If I were a counter I would count all fruits, root veggies including tubers and the squash family. After that your really micromanaging to count everything else.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
              Ok, so you count the carbs from a parsnip but not from a turnip? How much sense does that make?
              A lot.

              100g of raw turnips have 6g of carbohydrate with 2g of dietary fiber for a grand total of 4 net carbs. The GI is a 2.

              100g of raw parsnips have 18g of carbohydrate with 5g of dietary fiber for a grand total of 13 net carbs. The GI is 5.

              100g of raw potatoes have 17g of carbohydrate with 2g of dietary fiber for a grand total of 15 net carbs. The GI is 7.

              A parsnip is over 3 times more carbohydrate-dense than a turnip and is close to a potato, which is a significant starch. A turnip is close to a radish, which is a fibrous low-starch root.


              Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Parsnips, raw
              Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Turnips, raw
              Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Potatoes, white, flesh and skin, raw [Includes USDA commodity food A215]

              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
              As to the "irrelevant carb curve" comment. Could you be a little more snotty to Mark on his own site? The carb curve actually works for an awful lot of people. You are an outlier. Yay you.
              Yes. I could send him an email.

              Mark's carbohydrate curve is crap. It always has been crap, it always will be crap. People are successful on this site because they stopped eating low-nutrient processed foods that do little to keep you full and they're now eating highly nutritious foods that take a long time to digest. It was never carbs making you gain weight, solely calories. If you don't believe me, take 1,000 calories of plain, unseasoned ribeye and a 1,000 calories of plain, unseasoned boiled white potato. See which is harder to overeat. You'll blow through the steak with relative ease. If you're overconsuming carbohydrate, it's probably because you're eating it along with too much fat and seasoning and making it hyperpalatable. I'm not anything close to an outlier, I am the very definition of the norm. You're one of the only outliers on this site truth be told, and even you aren't that big of an outlier.
              Originally posted by jakey View Post
              the carb curve is some bullshit. can't wait till mark walks that one back, or admits that it's not real science, and is just a recommendation for inactive, out of shape people.
              Yep. Most very lean societies still in existence today are hardcore carb eaters. People have pretty much always eaten more starch than animal fat. Why hunt when you can gather? It's more reliable and it doesn't fight back or make you sprint your ass off trying to kill it.
              Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 12-12-2012, 11:57 AM.
              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by jakey View Post
                the carb curve is some bullshit. can't wait till mark walks that one back, or admits that it's not real science, and is just a recommendation for inactive, out of shape people.
                Well its in line with some basic premises including those that the PHD people make. They shoot for slight glucose deficit equaling 600 calories (150g) carbs per day. I consider and Volek and Phinney have marked low carb as 150g or less. Mark is a little lower, but meeting your energy demands for carbs without going over just assures less damage from excess being as the disposal pathways for excess carbs leave no good options. I believe its more a point of health than about weight. You also gotta remember the PB includes the PB "fitness plan" which shows what level of activity this particular WOE correlates well with.

                Its all averages....average sized person doing the PB fitness deal should be fine on the recommended carb load. There are always outliers and those not doing the average....or even following the PB fitness deal in any manner or form. Obviously then you gotta tweak things to your own optimal levels. The PB curve and even the PHD's recs are all sound starting points IMO. They make a good scientific case based on fasting, breast milk, and mammalian diets all in an evolutionary perspective.

                http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/12...onary-dieting/

                And this article is just a really interesting read:

                http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobes/2012/258624/
                Last edited by Neckhammer; 12-12-2012, 12:13 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                  Well its in line with some basic premises including those that the PHD people make. They shoot for slight glucose deficit equaling 600 calories (150g) carbs per day. I consider and Volek and Phinney have marked low carb as 150g or less. Mark is a little lower, but meeting your energy demands for carbs without going over just assures less damage from excess being as the disposal pathways for excess carbs leave no good options. I believe its more a point of health than about weight. You also gotta remember the PB includes the PB "fitness plan" which shows what level of activity this particular WOE correlates well with.

                  Its all averages....average sized person doing the PB fitness deal should be fine on the recommended carb load. There are always outliers and those not doing the average....or even following the PB fitness deal in any manner or form. Obviously then you gotta tweak things to your own optimal levels. The PB curve and even the PHD's recs are all sound starting points IMO. They make a good scientific case based on fasting, breast milk, and mammalian diets all in an evolutionary perspective.

                  What

                  And this article is just a really interesting read:

                  The Carnivore Connection Hypothesis: Revisited
                  You're vastly overthinking. Eat. Real. Food. It doesn't matter what it is.

                  Paleo, Primal and all these stupid dogmas totally take away with what this is supposed to be - a whole foods diet. Eliminating 1/3 of the food on Earth is NOT paleo or Primal. It is stupid. This is what you need to do:

                  1.) Eat real food. It doesn't matter what it is as long as you can eat it without processing it. If you can kill it, dig it up, pick it, or to a lesser extent milk it, it's food.

                  2.) If you want to build lots of muscle and lift heavy weight or compete in athletics, keep an eye to make sure you're eating enough protein, fruit and starch. You'll want to eat more starchy roots and tubers and fruits in lieu of fats due to your goals.

                  And that's it. If you do any more than this, you are overthinking and defeating the purpose of this lifestyle, which is supposed to be natural and effortless. Carbohydrate restriction is not natural and effortless - it is unnatural, inhuman and unnecessarily difficult and stressful. If you're craving an apple in the middle of November and you're shoving bacon down your throat until the sugar used to cure it slowly removes your craving and you feel ill from all the grease, you're not doing this right. Just eat the apple.
                  Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    low carb as 150g or less.
                    It takes a lot of work to get to 150 grams of carbs if you exclude processed sugar and grains. I would imagine most people just eating Primal - few servings of starch a day, few servings of fruit, maybe some 20% chocolate have no trouble staying below that without any thought.

                    Most people here that seem to post of woes are probably eating under 50 grams of carbs, and some well below that. They post days of eating that don't include starches or fruits. I think there is a perception, deserved or not, that one has to be in ketosis to burn fat. However, it's a hard way for a lot of people to live. Mark does not seem to advocate this anyway, and suggests it for very obese, and I believe suggests some level of medical supervision. It is not a core tenet of the plan.

                    http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
                    Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                      You're vastly overthinking......
                      Nah, just a base level for me . Really it doesn't tax me to contemplate physiology and various health theories.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                        It takes a lot of work to get to 150 grams of carbs if you exclude processed sugar and grains. I would imagine most people just eating Primal - few servings of starch a day, few servings of fruit, maybe some 20% chocolate have no trouble staying below that without any thought.

                        Most people here that seem to post of woes are probably eating under 50 grams of carbs, and some well below that. They post days of eating that don't include starches or fruits. I think there is a perception, deserved or not, that one has to be in ketosis to burn fat. However, it's a hard way for a lot of people to live. Mark does not seem to advocate this anyway, and suggests it for very obese, and I believe suggests some level of medical supervision. It is not a core tenet of the plan.
                        I agree. Its why this becomes such a moot point many times. I fall into ketosis almost on accident just cause I don't care for a lot of starch or fruit. Its all good though. Part of the beauty of eating Primal. I believe you just tend to eat towards your own balance and necessities when much of your systems are working right.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                          Well its in line with some basic premises including those that the PHD people make. They shoot for slight glucose deficit equaling 600 calories (150g) carbs per day.
                          That is where I was getting my info from also. And that's for relatively sedentary person. If you are active, you add more. Don't count the low-cal veggies - just the fruit, starches. This is maintenance level like OP was asking. Weight loss is a little less.

                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          You're vastly overthinking. Eat. Real. Food. It doesn't matter what it is.
                          While I do agree, it is nice to have a guideline. Something to shoot for until you get the hang of it, and learn more what you are eating and why and what your body wants/needs.
                          65lbs gone and counting!!

                          Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Choco, sweetie, why do we always end up like this?

                            Good for you. You can post the different carb counts of different veggies. I never said they were equal just that all do include carbs therefor counting some and not others makes no sense. Some people may not need to count at all. Cool. But arbitrarily drawing a line somewhere between a parsnip and a turnip just isn't logical.

                            As NH points out the average PB person starting out is doing PBF level of workouts. That starts with wall pushups. For you in all your iron pumping studly-ness to stand there and say the carb curve is crap just means that it doesn't apply to you and I don't disagree. But again you generalize to everyone from your experience.

                            Please don't try to tell the author of the calorie counting threads that calories are important as if it is news.

                            I know that my health condition makes me an outlier so I don't try to push my way of eating onto anyone. You are not the norm, you are more like the ideal (don't let that go to your head ). You are the young healthy Grok. Most of the people on this site however are starting out as the Korgs. They are the norm.

                            Please don't try to tell people they are "stupid" for doing something that works to move them out of being Korgs and toward Groks. (I.e. eating lowER carbs. Nobody is or ever has been advocating ketosis for all.)

                            And then you always bring it back to "Eat. Real. Food." as if anyone was ever saying to do otherwise.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I dunno, I feel like a lot of people here are fitter than just being able to walk and do wall push ups. I read a lot of posts from people that do Cross Fit, run, and do pretty significant fitness, even as they start out. So many people actual come to primal/paleo eating BECAUSE of their fitness activities.

                              http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
                              Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                                I dunno, I feel like a lot of people here are fitter than just being able to walk and do wall push ups. I read a lot of posts from people that do Cross Fit, run, and do pretty significant fitness, even as they start out. So many people actual come to primal/paleo eating BECAUSE of their fitness activities.
                                No doubt, but the PB fitness is basically this:

                                Move at a slow pace 2-5hrs/week (I jog), 2x/week LHT for about 20 minutes (this can be any compound movement resistance training....I do a big 5 BBS one day and dead lifts another), 1x/week-10 days sprint. That is the general fitness level we are talking about. For that level of activity there is no need to do high carb days or re-feeds or any other such nonsense where you are purposely altering how you eat to ramp up your carb intake or reduce your fat. Just Eat. Real. Food.

                                Crossfit mecons 5x/week, 2/days in college football, or olympic level competition are different stories.
                                Last edited by Neckhammer; 12-12-2012, 01:23 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X