Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Quality Carbs -- Starches and Greens

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by PrimalStudent View Post
    Wow, didn't expect to come back to this thread and find so many (fired up) responses.

    For the purposes of answering the original question (and whether or not you think LC is good or bad), is it safe to assume that a carb is a carb -- and that fifty grams of broccoli carbs affect the body no differently from sweet potato or squash carbs? or have I gotten this wrong?

    Sorry... the conversation sort of veered and I'm still a little fuzzy on the verdict!
    Broccoli is a high protein food. It even has more fat calories than carb calories.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
      Broccoli is a high protein food. It even has more fat calories than carb calories.
      Uh, not quite...

      One cup of broccoli according to Cronometer, has:

      Protein: 2.6 g
      Carbs: 6.0 g
      Fiber: 2.4 g
      Lipids: 0.3 g

      So:

      2.6 * 4.5 = 11.7 protein calories.

      6.0 - 2.4 = 3.6 and 3.6 * 4.5 = 16.2 carb calories.

      0.3 times 9 = 2.7 calories.

      Looks like carbs still win the day, even if the total calories are not that significant.
      "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

      Comment


      • #78
        Yeah true, mine wasn't including the stalks

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Damiana View Post
          I eat a ton of more carb rich vegetables daily, and I managed to lose and maintain. Carb-rich and starchy vegetables aren't really the problem here if you're looking to lose weight, it's rather hard to eat enough to sabotage your day's worth of food.
          I also eat plenty of carbs - white potatoes, white rice, squashes etc. And I've gone from around 165 lbs to 144, which has stayed the same now for a couple of years. Just didn't feel right when I first started primal and thought it was a low carb way of eating.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
            do not believe anyone would get such an over the top anti carb message from a board so dominated by spud threads.
            There are alot of spud threads now, but not always. Only since about October. Before that, I think there was a carb/spudphobia, at least for me. And I could be a minority in that thinking, but I think that is partly why they were so wildly popular. It made starch okay again. When I was trying to stay in ketosis, I could not even hardly justify My Daily Apple and a BAS in the same day.

            That is something I like about PHD in that you don't count the veggies. I use to count net which did help, but just yesterday I quit counting the veggies.

            Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
            I agree with Magnolia's contention that a lot of people fail at paleo/primal because they get all wrapped up in low carb when they don't need to.
            Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
            To each his own, but I hate reading about people struggling with VLC,ready to go back to SAD or CW because they think that if they have a banana or sweet potato they are 1. cheating or 2. going to fail.
            I know what you mean. This is just my opinion. Nothing scientific or evidence but...

            I think some see the curve and are drawn to the bottom (accelerated fat burning) Initially, you can dump some weight. So if you are dumping some weight, it must be good to keep going? Pretty soon you are VLC, lower calories, relatively small window, and so that must be good for weight loss, right? Just keep going, don't give up! But they forget the rest of what Mark writes: (myself included)

            0-50 grams/day – Ketosis and Accelerated Fat Burning
            Acceptable for a day or two of Intermittent Fasting towards aggressive weight loss efforts, provided adequate protein, fat and supplements are consumed otherwise. May be ideal for many diabetics. Not necessarily recommended as a long-term practice for otherwise healthy people due to resultant deprivation of high nutrient value vegetables and fruits.
            65lbs gone and counting!!

            Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

            Comment


            • #81
              If I may share my experience with Primal and thoughts about LC/VLC. At around age 45, I knew I had allowed the middle-aged creep of weight (and the concommitant indicators of high BP, rising serum glucose, etc.) to go far enough. While otherwise healthy, I was 6'2", 250#, and wondering whether I needed to re-think my "healthy" diet. I love to cook for my wife and myself, so we never really ate much processed food or fast food, but like so many others, we thought it was just fine to include generous portions of pasta a couple of times a week, homemade pizza, cereal, oatmeal, and of course bread and crackers. Both of us had been rather sedentary, aside from walking a lot, but had begun jogging a bit with no impact on weight.

              For ~ a year, I dabbled in diet that's sort of Primal, basically reducing grains drastically. I began to see weight come off, and my wife joined in. (In retrospect, she is still amazed how little she misses bread and cereal, although occasionally we will indulge in pasta and pizza as our 20%.) When we dove into Primal last year, it was mostly a matter of continuing to tweak what we had already begun, cutting out sweets and continuing the reduction of grains. I will say that we have always used healthy cooking fats (olive oil, butter, some lard and bacon fat), with the exception of canola, which went in the pre-Primal foray into better eating.

              Once we decided to go full Grok, the big change was that we focused on eating LC or VLC Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday our days to splurge a bit. We never added extra dietary fat for its own sake (bulletproof coffee, eating coconut oil), but focused on eating whole foods, aiming for under 50 g. carbs per day, realistically falling anywhere from 25-75. Breakfasts were typically deconstructed lox bagels (smoked salmon, cream cheese, capers, tomatoes, dill), or eggs and bacon, a baggie of berries, etc. My go-to lunch was a large knob of goat cheese and roasted veggies. Dinners were basically protein (DW is a pescetarian, but I eat pretty much anything, and have been buying grass-fed and pastured meats for ~7 years), with low-carb veggies. We eliminated potatoes and sweet potatoes, high-fructose fruits (bananas, apples, oranges), and our only sweets were (and remain) dark chocolate. If we needed a snack, nuts or cheese.

              We were each able to shed ~10% of our body weight, so for me it was going from high 240's to low 220's. It was, as Mark's carbohydrate curve promises, effortless. We began running better, doing a little (not as much as most Primals) weight workouts, and gradually saw that when our weights hit a plateau, our body compositions were still changing. We were getting noticed, compliments, wows. We could still lose a bit, but we have over the past year allowed carbs back into the mix: bananas, oranges, apples, sweet potatoes, etc. We listen to our bodies now, so we generally are in agreement that, say, a day or two of low carb seems right, or maybe we need some sweet potatoes to make up for a longer run just completed.

              Right now, there's no calorie counting, no macro rigidity, just eating much better overall.

              So why did the carbohydrate curve work for us? I think there is something to the notion that there was caloric reduction. I used to eat plain yogurt with berries... and honey and a bunch of granola thrown in. Or the weekly bagel. Undoubtedly, my LC/VLC breakfasts satieted me with nice compact food instead of grainy fillers, and came in lower cal. Same with lunches and dinners. Tracking on FitDay for a month or so until I got the targets established did seem to hit lower caloric numbers, although I should have been more assiduous in tracking my "before" totals.

              I also believe that when your starting point is not that of a fit and athletic individual, and perhaps you suffer some degree of insulin resistance, that going LC/VLC may help reset things. After the months it took me to lose 25#, I found my hunger pangs stabilized, my ability to IF at will also effortless, the usual daily sugar swings gone. The BP, serum glucose, lipids (especially triglycerides), are all moving in the right direction.

              I agree with the idea that Primal is adaptive enough to be tailored to individuals, their widely varied starting points and widely varied goals. Different macros for different folks. Our metabolisms are not identical, our age and fitness are not uniform, our level of exercise varies. But for me, something about LC/VLC not only helped me drop weight, but also removed the want of grains and sweets, and changed how my body reacts to carbs. Intuitively, this does not seem to be merely the effect of weight loss per se - I had lost 15# a few years back on a caloric restriction diet, but always craved my pasta and eventually put that 15# and more back on.

              So I will allow paleo-bird and others more studied in nutrition to parse why LC/VLC had this effect, if indeed it was causal and not merely correlational. Some days I feel the need to eat LC, and my sense of it is that even if it is not impacting my weight, it does affect how I feel (less bloated, tighter core). As an addendum to the jogging, DW and I still mostly run distances of 5K and under; my goal of running a half marathon before I turn 50 was sidetracked last year by a calf strain and this year by a few months worth of suffering from plantar fasciitis, but the switch from LC/VLC to a more moderated carb macro has also boosted running energy. If we know we have a run coming up, we usually will eat a bit higher in carbs, because my energy just flags running LC.

              For me, LC is just a tool in the toolbox, a way to adjust the metabolistic throttle, but the most important thing is still to focus on making what we eat the best and healhiest food, and to further adjust our WOL in terms of activity, sleep, outlook, etc.

              Comment


              • #82




                0-50 grams/day Ketosis and Accelerated Fat Burning
                Acceptable for a day or two of Intermittent Fasting towards aggressive weight loss efforts, provided adequate protein, fat and supplements are consumed otherwise. May be ideal for many diabetics. Not necessarily recommended as a long-term practice for otherwise healthy people due to resultant deprivation of high nutrient value vegetables and fruits.
                Yeah, I kind of wonder why people start thinking that VLC is somehow a key component of the plan, and where the perception comes from that fruit and starches are not a part of the plan? I think people here are supportive of carbs, I guess I just wonder why so many people make posts that seem to suggest that they think that the plan is meant to be VLC? You see so many people "X happened in my first two weeks, why?" and they post their menus and they are void of fruit and starch.

                I think Mark's writing is a little vague.... I do know he mentions overeating nuts and fruits causing stalls, and overeating in general. But people must just read this as "carbs are bad".

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

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                  Yeah, I kind of wonder why people start thinking that VLC is somehow a key component of the plan, and where the perception comes from that fruit and starches are not a part of the plan? I think people here are supportive of carbs, I guess I just wonder why so many people make posts that seem to suggest that they think that the plan is meant to be VLC? You see so many people "X happened in my first two weeks, why?" and they post their menus and they are void of fruit and starch.

                  I think Mark's writing is a little vague.... I do know he mentions overeating nuts and fruits causing stalls, and overeating in general. But people must just read this as "carbs are bad".
                  Long term LC to VLC eating can be very useful to some people (it helps Cori with her headaches and cranial pressure, Paeleobird does it to control her seizures, and it's helped me to bring my binging under control for example). But it's DEFINATELY not for everyone. If being caught up in it is not working, then you can and should consider reintroducing some carbs.

                  To play the Devil's advocate, I think everyone doing paleo/primal should experiment with the VLC WOE just so they know what it's like. Some people will thrive, others will stall, but it's about experimenting to find what works for you. What bothers me is the people who throw it off without having tried it. "Low carb is evil!"

                  "Have you EVER tried it? Even just for a short experiment, to see how you feel?"

                  "Uh, no..."

                  What I love most about primal eating is the ability to experiment with such a wide variety of foods, eating habits, fasting schedules, what have you, and to find the one that works for YOU.

                  Try it. If it works, awesome. If not, try something else. Just don't assume something won't work just because you haven't tried it. I'm constantly experimenting based on new knowledge I am learning, just to see if anything works better than what I've got going on now.
                  "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                    Yeah, I kind of wonder why people start thinking that VLC is somehow a key component of the plan, and where the perception comes from that fruit and starches are not a part of the plan?

                    Part of it, at least for me... it is VLC compared to SAD & the CW of dieting, which is all I knew. I found PB after hanging around Sparkpeople for about 3 months. One click leads to another and I landed here somehow.

                    Anyways, my spark range is 1200-1550 calories, or 135-252 grams of carbs. So when compared to that, PB is LC - VLC And I was losing weight on the 135-252g also, I was just hungry all the time. I knew there had to be a better way and that is what got me here. So going LC helped me to get a grip on all that, and learning about good fats. I had already cut grains and sugars, but I was just hungry all the time because I was also trying to way cut the fat also. More CW of dieting - I am a product of the 80-90 dieting which was low/no fat everything.
                    65lbs gone and counting!!

                    Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                      To play the Devil's advocate, I think everyone doing paleo/primal should experiment with the VLC WOE just so they know what it's like. Some people will thrive, others will stall, but it's about experimenting to find what works for you. What bothers me is the people who throw it off without having tried it. "Low carb is evil!"
                      Part of it, again for me... is trying it but maybe not fully understanding it and then when it stops working, wondering what you are doing wrong. For me, it was missing the posts and Mark's extra blogs written over the years, about refeeds like once a week. Or if you are active, you might need to add more carbs on those days. Especially when time is limited to research, you read something that works for some, and so you try it. And then when it doesnt work for you or stops working, you wonder what is wrong with you.

                      At that point, many give up. Others, like me, become almost anal about it, research more, maybe over analyze a bit, experiment a little with this or that, and try to figure out what works for them. Some ppl just get frustrated and say screw it. Sometimes you just have to dig deeper inside yourself and dig deeper in the information to find your answers. Somebody somewhere has had the same experiences. It just isnt always obvious.

                      Sometimes I have to read things many many times for it to sink in. I get so focused and on a one way track that I can't see what someone else is saying. Or maybe it didnt pertain to me at that particular time but later it does.
                      65lbs gone and counting!!

                      Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        Nobody is afraid of fruit or potatoes around here. In case you haven't noticed, the potato threads are all over this place.
                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57120.html
                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread49274.html
                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60174.html
                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread33156.html
                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60879.html
                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread25353.html
                        https://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread61203.html
                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread54236.html
                        https://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread63837.html
                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread55529.html
                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60053.html

                        I think the average person at MDA is afraid of fruit or potatoes. And it's posts like this that do it:

                        The Best Low-Carb Fruits (and the Worst)

                        Mark ranks fruits not by their nutrient density, digestibility, common allergies, average pesticide content or cost. He ranks them by carb count and glycemic index/load.

                        This post is even worse.

                        Healthiest Fruits

                        He puts "bananas, figs, and citrus" as occasional foods due to the sugar content, and calls "prunes, dates, melons and most of the tropical fruits" SENSIBLE VICES! Can you imagine that? Eating a melon is a vice? The ironic part is if you read Ray Peat's research into fruits, he recommends citrus fruits, melons and tropical fruits because they have the lowest anti-nutrient content, the lowest pesticide levels, are the easiest to digest and have the most positive impact on mitochondrial, adrenal and thyroid health. Meanwhile, Peat recommends avoiding berries the most because they have the highest levels of both anti-nutrients, pesticide levels and gut-irritating fiber. Remember, when you eat berries, you are eating the seeds and seeds do not like to be eaten. Mark's recommendations are born out of carb-phobia and Peat's science dictates opposite. And this is exactly why we have OP's like this:

                        Originally posted by samiamm View Post
                        Are potatoes bad?? I'm 18 and quite active, I know they're blood sugar bombs but are they healthy in terms of nutrients because I can handle the e cess carbs and I hate eating huge amounts of fats
                        And it troubles me to no end.

                        I tend to go for apples and bananas as my fruit sources, though I pretty much love all fruit.

                        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        Why do you assume that everyone makes choices based on fear?
                        It's clearly not an assumption.
                        Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 12-13-2012, 11:08 AM.
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                          Because it's his duty to tell the "vast majority" what a healthy diet is?

                          Sounds like you've elevated him into the realm of a preacher. Just sayin'.
                          What I'm annoyed at is the dogma that flies around here. This is supposed to be as simple as eating real food. When there is dogma, there are saints and demons, and most people consider 1/3 of the real food on Earth demons while they pile on thousands of additional calories of rendered, mostly nutritionless calories on their food (or blended in their coffee) because they think they're saints. It's a problem.

                          Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                          Choco is a young male body builder who has never been seriously ill or overweight in his life. That is very different than both you and me.

                          This would be an interesting subject for a poll thread.
                          This is a very poor representation of me and you know it. I'm 5'7", 153 lbs and 13% bodyfat. I don't think that makes me a body builder. I enjoy lifting, but I sit on my ass 9 hours a day in an office. My whole life I was a chubbo with acne and awful allergies. I'm pretty much the definition of average.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            The ironic part is if you read Ray Peat's research into fruits, he recommends citrus fruits, melons and tropical fruits because they have the lowest anti-nutrient content, the lowest pesticide levels, are the easiest to digest and have the most positive impact on mitochondrial, adrenal and thyroid health.
                            That fella is an interesting read, but I just don't put much stock into it. Most his "research" is outdated animal models. I mean we can try to tweak out his various hypothesis, but in the end its just too hard to separate the sensible physiology from the obvious bunk. He takes too firm a stance on certain priori's that are way to debatable to base your entire existence on. Things like "faster metabolism = better". Well, not necessarily. More efficient metabolism with less waste could serve as better and there is plenty of evidence that it is.

                            I've seen Peat followers downing mexican cola and imported gummy bears with teaspoons of salt all in an effort to get their resting heart rate into the 90's! Mark may not have all of the answers, but he is at least in the same ballpark of most paleo thinkers......When you start listening to Peat you've moved to the fringe of the fringe. Just saying you should be cautious there Chaco. Heck Peat is quite anti-starch also and those who follow him completely dismiss the evolutionary model of health.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                              That fella is an interesting read, but I just don't put much stock into it. Most his "research" is outdated animal models. I mean we can try to tweak out his various hypothesis, but in the end its just too hard to separate the sensible physiology from the obvious bunk. He takes too firm a stance on certain priori's that are way to debatable to base your entire existence on. Things like "faster metabolism = better". Well, not necessarily. More efficient metabolism with less waste could serve as better and there is plenty of evidence that it is.
                              The issue with the evolutionary model is most things are assumed. I would rather have actual scientific conclusions than just assumptions. For example, people assume that this diet is naturally lower carbohydrate because if you were to walk outside right now and forage for food, you're not going to come up with much carbohydrate. But the fact is life originated at the Equator. We didn't evolve in North America. We evolved in the jungle where there is little fatty meat, lots of lean game meat and fruits and starches everywhere. When you actually examine cultures in those areas - the areas we developed in - they eat very high carbohydrate diets and relatively paltry amounts of animal fat and protein.

                              Nothing is absolute, but many of Peat's research supports paleo circles. It's the question of good vs bad - I support the overlapping information. I won't be drinking soda and orange juice simply because fruit sugar is positive for the thyroid and adrenals. However, I will displace animal fat for more whole fruit. And it's been a positive by far. My pulse, body temperature, libido and energy have rebounded by displacing fat for natural sugar from whole fruits.

                              Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                              I've seen Peat followers downing mexican cola and imported gummy bears with teaspoons of salt all in an effort to get their resting heart rate into the 90's! Mark may not have all of the answers, but he is at least in the same ballpark of most paleo thinkers......When you start listening to Peat you've moved to the fringe of the fringe. Just saying you should be cautious there Chaco. Heck Peat is quite anti-starch also and those who follow him completely dismiss the evolutionary model of health.
                              That's where you have to actually be responsible. People look for lifestyles that are convenient for them. Look at all the PB'ers here that use this as excuse to eat bacon and drink butter just to get that weird look on their friend's and coworker's faces. I eat fruit, not drink fruit juice and soda. I have liberally upped my salt content - when I sear my meats and make my salad dressings. I have upped my diet's sugar content - by eating whole fruits from my local produce market. I have upped my SFA % in my diet - by shifting away from olive oil for Kerrygold butter and organic virgin coconut oil, and eating more beef instead of chicken and pork.

                              And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you get the best of both worlds.
                              Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 12-13-2012, 11:33 AM.
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                                The issue with the evolutionary model is most things are assumed. I would rather have actual scientific conclusions than just assumptions.....
                                Well prepare to be disappointed . Your an engineer right? Well biology, physiology, and the like are all much softer sciences and competing theories when compared to physics and such. Just saying, even when you think you got it all figured out you will read something that completely turns what you thought you knew on its head. And that's why I've come to love the evolutionary framework. It at least gives a model to work out your theories under. Sure we can debate your stance of equatorial evolution or the ice age or cold climate have shaped your particular past....there actually is genetic variation to the production of amylase that may very well give you some clues for the individual. In the end though, looking at all the arguments with an evolutionary lens helps. Its another tool. I do quite like how the authors of the Perfect Health Diet have used the tool in assessing mothers milk, mammalian make up, and our own bodies in a fasting state catabolism.
                                Last edited by Neckhammer; 12-13-2012, 11:40 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X