It's not the amount of carbs that are bad - it's the type of carbs. Big difference between getting 100 grams of steel cut oats vs. 100 grams of french bread.
And of course, the French are healthier (at least, traditionally), and they *do* eat the French bread. And the Italian bread is much the same. I love me my whole grains, but it's interesting, to be sure.
Medical science agrees: fat is a much needed ingredient in our diets, as the "low-fat" craze that swept the nation a few decades ago hasn't done much for our expanding waistlines.
Thanks for the article though - I'm a firm believer that information is power
Oh yes, I am being very careful with exactly where my fats come from - mostly olive oil, nuts and avocados - and using FitDay to make sure my saturated fats really do stay at a the lowest percentage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drina
As Josephine mentioned, it likely varies by individual (and by one's history with food). Do what works for you, but if you opt for fat, make it the healthy kind found in fish, nuts and seeds.
I have to admit, though, I'm a little concerned by how carbohydrates are being villified among the general public right now; the current attitude really echoes the anti-fat hysteria of decades past. Our bodies (and especially our brains!) need an ample amount of carbs to function. It's really inappropriate to issue a blanket condemnation of carbs and hold them responsible for the obesity epidemic here. In general, Americans eat a very rich, high-fat diet yet continue to balloon. In many other cultures where healthy carbs make up a large percentage of the diet, the people are generally lean and fit until they adopt the high-fat American way of eating. We're fat because we eat lots of high-calorie, low-nutrient junk foods. It's not the rice and beans.
Oh goodness, I hope I didn't make it sound like I was cutting out all my carbs! I had actually been having quite the little fruit fest/feeding frenzy lately so when I wanted to make room in the calories for that olive oil, that seemed like the place I could scale back just a tad without really noticing. Still getting plenty of carbs from veggies and beans and, of course, haven't given up all my fruit - I'm positively addicted to grapefruit, and berries of any kind
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost
I agree with other posts here, high fiber content with the good whole grain carbs can satiate us longer and better then over processed junk carbs but fat also helps up feel satiated too. I recently started adding olive oil mayo to my diet because, damn, its good! And I feel so much more satisfied after a meal now then when I was just ommitting that amount of fat. I still get the same amounts of other foods just that added 50 calories of fat is what is making a huge difference in me wanting more when I've finished my alloted serving.
! and ! BTW - Canola mayo is not half bad either. Way better than those *light* or imitation mayos they used to have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulieJ08
People are different, and do best with all sorts of different things. Drina only spoke against blanket condemnation. I agree. Many very healthy populations (Mediterranean, Chinese) have had plenty of carbs in their diet. People need to know that low or lower carb may help them or may even be key for them. And they also need to know that low carb isn't necessary for everyone.
One thing the last decade has surely taught us is that every new year (or every few months!) what we think we know about nutrition is rapidly evolving. I'm sure that I'm sure 10 years from now, Atkin's and South Beach will be vastly improved upon. We'll have all kind of additional knowledge that will make our current ideas seem full of holes. I can only hope the government's recommendations regarding nutrition will also be vastly improved, but that is more doubtful . Too many industries to keep happy.
Oh absolutely! Atkins has changed so drastically from when it first came out in the 70s that I would almost be willing to bet that if you took an excerpt and showed it to someone who just recently found Atkins, they wouldn't recognize it. I kind of think one of the big things 3FC can take credit for teaching us is that there really is no such thing as an "end all" diet because just because I don't lose weight eating a particular food doesn't mean no one else should ever eat it again either. I would kind of hope the *diet industry* would learn that as well but, I suppose a book called "The Last Diet You (Might) Ever Need" probably wouldn't be a big seller
Altari, I must respectfully disagree. There are very few peoples/cultures who have evolved eating so much fat and protein that their bodies can function efficiently with little carbohydrates. Carbs are the main fuel for your brain and are essential for a healthy body.
Looks to me like everyone is in agreement that everyone is different and has different needs.
But actually, I think that exact concept is the whole premise behind the idea of eating based on your ancestry (like 2 or 3 thousand years ago ancestry). For example, the Inuit, Eskimo and other peoples indigenous to arctic areas would have had extremely limited (if any) access to grains, or any fruits or vegetables really, so adapted to survival on a very high fat diet. You're not going to believe this but FitDay actually lists the nutrutional values for whale blubber - not a single carb
Following that theory then, there should be some people who need almost no carbs, in fact would do poorly with too many; and other people who's ancestry comes from areas with high vegetation and scarce game who would do poorly without enough carbs and may have problems digesting and processing meats. I also think it's entirely possible that even "good" carb foods can't be pegged as all being the same. Carbs from grains (even whole grains) may be hard on a person who can scarf down all the fruit they want (and vice versa).
Sadly, human beings tend to be an extremely migratory, intermingley bunch which makes it kind of tough to be able to trace ourselves back quite that far (and if you had a *high fat* ancestor who married a *grain grower* you'd have no way of knowing if you need one or both things).
Which still brings me right back to the point - no one, including nutritionists, should really make any blanket statement claiming what is good or bad for everyone. I'm sure there's still people out there who really and truly do get high cholesterol from too many eggs
According to your link "Nutrition guidelines recommend that a healthy individual can have up to seven eggs a week[1] and those on a cholesterol lowering diet can have four to six eggs a week[2]."
So there is a difference. But it is good that we are learning all the other factors that go into it.
But see? How do we really know that there isn't some poor soul out there taking massive doses of Lipitor because they can't get their cholesterol down but they are still eating eggs every day because "they say" the first guys were wrong? We don't - and probably never will unless/until the next generation of researchers comes up with something like "if you are male, of Greek decent, have naturally blond hair, and are a Capricorn, eggs can raise your cholesterol if you eat them during a full moon in October"
Me, my cholesterol got to a scary level with hardly any eggs in my diet at all. When I went to eating cleaner I added eggs almost every day for the protein. No meds but my cholesterol is now right in the middle of the healthy range (and I eat an average of 10 eggs a week) so I personally have no fear of eggs at all - but that certainly doesn't mean I should run around claiming that eggs might actually help reduce cholesterol does it? But I could
P.S. I can't believe that not one of you commented about FitDay listing whale blubber
Last edited by yoyonomoreinvegas; 08-13-2008 at 06:21 PM.
! and 
. Too many industries to keep happy.
