Originally Posted by diamondgeog
Say I have 400 cal salmon for lunch and 200 cal potato chips. Or I have 400 cal salmon and 200 cal brociolli. If I have the chips I get hungry in 2 hours and have a candy bar. Then I am really hungry by dinner and eat more and crave starches. Then that leads to a late night snack.
Both lunches were 600 calories but vastly different consequences. That message can get lost if we just say a calorie is a calorie.
I focus on carbs/sugars because that is what Americans have increased by and large during obesity crisis. Per capita fat has gone down. I even think meat consumption has gone down. For me it was the thing to concentrate on but I also don't think I am unique.
300 grams of carbs a day, the recommendation, I believe works out to a cup and half of sugar a week. That is what Americans are recommended to consume.
i DO agree with you that lowered carb consumption for most people in the way of processed foods IS probably the healthiest way to go and would possibly facilitate easier weight loss but i have to agree in some ways with wannabeskinny. I think the problem AT LEAST FOR ME doesn't lie with food, it's MY relationship with food and hunger. See.. i could still consume the candy bar and go on a binge after i ate the healthy salmon and broccoli, i love BOTH of them. And i don't know if my relatively lower carb consumption that i do 6 days a week is helping me feel less hunger and thus not overeat--i simply CHOOSE not to and i also have learned not to fear hunger anymore-self control is far more empowering.
i only WISH my cleaner, lower carb way of eating 6 days a week has solved everything for me. It MAY VERY WELL for the majority of people but it hasn't for me, it's just a plan that i've come up with that i think is healthier (and i save my carb rich and no holds barred free day for friday and i still lost 100 lbs and kept it off) and that i manage easier if this at all makes sense. This isn't to be argumentative, it's just my POV FWIW