Food Carb Control

I've done it. Be warned: you will pretty much gain back the weight you've lost as soon as you stop. However, it does give you a good awareness of how you crave carbs, if you do crave them, and which ones are really going to trip you up. If you haven't figured it out already, drinking tons of water will help when you feel fuzzyheaded.

The latest dietary change I've made has resulted in similar weight loss over time but without the unpleasant side effects of ketones. It's also more of a manageable lifestyle change, given that my husband is a vegetarian. It does limit consumption of whole grains and fruit, but it does not limit carbohydrate from other sources--beans and vegetables--as one of the precepts of the diet is that fiber makes you full. It's Dr. Joel Fuhrman's Eat to Live diet. We're doing the vegan version, and so as a result, I have been vegan for almost 2 months now. I've lost about 15 lbs. and my husband has lost 20 lbs. We've already discussed how we are going to change what we eat at home even after we are done with this diet because it has been so successful. We feel healthier, and apparently, my skin looks great (I didn't notice any difference, but I have had several people comment on it).

 

I understand the carb craving thing. Before I went vegan, I followed the first phase of the South Beach Diet in support of my SO doing the diet. It's pretty much like what you've described. The cravings for carbs eventually disappeared, but I didn't like the buzzy feeling in my head or the four days without a bowel movement. It was a fun experiment though.

Now that I'm vegan and following a balanced diet of mostly wholesome foods, I'm confident in the carbs I am consuming. I've lost 20 lbs. overall.

However, I am increasingly interested in what I've recently been reading about glycemic load (as opposed to glycemic index). Looking at the glycemic load of foods is good for determining the overall impact on you. For example, the carbs in carrots may rank one way on the glycemic index, but 100 g of carrot has an extremely low glycemic load because of its water and fibre content. That sort of thing.

Basically, if people were to focus on their day-to-day glycemic load and aim for foods rated around 10 (which includes carrots, lentils, and beans), they'd have a much easier time managing their weight.

I understand the value of carb rationing, which is why I think glycemic load measurement is fantastic. Imaging having that value on nutrition labelling: it would blow a lot of misconceptions out of the water.

Good luck, Leto .

 

Actually, not quite. What's happening in your program is basically giving fibre an "out." Basically: fibre isn't the same as starch. That's a simple way of looking at carbs overall, but it doesn't paint the full picture.

Have a look at this link here: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

Glycemic load takes the glycemic index rating of a food and accounts for its mass, so: grams of available carbohydrate in the food multiplied by the food's GI / 100.

The result is that your program and glycemic load are in disagreement about chickpeas. The glycemic load of chickpeas is actually low: 8 or 9, depending on whether they're canned. Anything under 10 is considered low.

The glycemic index of chickpeas ranges between 28 and 42, depending on whether they're canned. According to GI, 100 is glucose. So chickpeas are ranked no more than the upper end of low (55 or less).

GI takes into account the chemical makeup of carbohydrates and ranks foods according to the rate at which glucose is released into the bloodstream. Basically: not all starches are the same.

The glycemic load of the food, then, takes into account two main things: 1) the rate at which the glucose content will release into the bloodstream, and 2) the total amount of glucose that will be released in a particular serving of food.

So, in summary, chickpeas aren't really bad at all. Actually, they're very good. They rank low as a serving of 150 g (5.3 oz).

I think your program looks at 150 g of chickpeas and calculates: 34 g carbs - 7 g fibre = 27 g carbs. Chickpeas = bad, because 27 g carbs = bad.

However, the glycemic load will state that 150 g of canned chickpeas has a load of 9 (where under 10 is low). The reason for this is because within those 150 g is more than carbs. There is water, fibre (6.6 g), protein (7.4 g), fat (1.7 g), and a number of other things, such as sodium, potassium, etc. Only 23% of that serving of chickpeas is carbohydrates, and they are "slow-burning" ones at that.

The other thing, too, is that your program seems to measure in volume, rather than mass, which is quite different when it comes to different food types.

 

Thanks for your update on your progress! Good work keeping the weight off.

I had to cut my carbs out nearly completely when I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes. I was very happy when I gave birth and didn't have to deal with that ridiculous diet anymore.

I had 50-100 grams of protein daily, and basically no carbs. If I did have carbs, I had to counter their effects with a lot of raw veggies, fiber, and exercise. I'm a vegetarian, so most of the protein was in the form of whey protein and soy protein shakes. I consumed vast quantities of nuts, cheese, broccoli, and tofu. In the last month, even protein bars and peanut butter had too many carbs.

Eating this way was incredibly challenging, and I don't think it would be healthy for me to continue long-term. The most disturbing part about the diet was when my feces became oily.

 

I read somewhere that low-carb diets have greater short-term weight loss than low calorie/fat diets, but that the differences are much less apparent over the long term.

I think the popularity of low-carb eating is driven by these quicker results. It's perhaps not that cutting calories or eating better calories "doesn't work," but that it doesn't work fast enough, perhaps taking several months before having the same impact as low-carb diets. What likely happens is that those trying to cut/control calories to lose weight give up because the results aren't fast enough.

Instant gratification and all that. Relatively speaking, low-carb diets can give just that over other types of diets, despite some "carb friendly" diets being potentially better for weight loss over a long-term dietary lifestyle. Seeing results sooner rather than later keeps one motivated, and that's important.

That said, I don't think I'd ever go low-carb except in fasting situations. I do, however, appreciate the good that people get out of these diets, especially if weight loss has been a struggle.

 

Some meandering ramblings about carbs, fat, diets, nutrition, cattle feeding, paleo, food, people, etc.

Protein is necessary for good health, though too much protein can cause problems.
Fat is necessary for cellular well being and as a carrier of some vitamins.
There are no known health problems caused by a lack, even a complete absence, of the macronutrient carbohydrate in the human diet. If I'm wrong on that, I'm sure someone here will set me straight.

Dietary ketosis is not the same as diabetic ketoacidosis.

Eight years into my controlled carb regime, semi-paleo, plenty of meat, poultry, fish (less since my move to Nebraska) and protein is my long term dietary lifestyle. It's a diet also that is higher in fat. Definitely sustainable, I've been doing it now for eight years.

I'm not always on a "low carb" diet every meal or every day, but I prefer to call my regime a controlled carb diet, which is to say that I'm always mindful of the carb content of the foods that I eat, and I choose based on that awareness. Like some diets might be called a "controlled fat" diet.

Putting the word "whole" in front of grains does not somehow magically transform them into something wonderfully healthy.

Cattle and hogs (that's cows and pigs to you city folks) and chickens are fattened for market on a diet that primarily consists of whole grains and hi carb grain byproducts like molasses, with some corn oil thrown in to help it move through the tract.

I've never had to lose a lot of weight. The most I've ever weighed was about 130, right after university and my divorce about fifteen years ago. I weighed in at 109 this morning.

I am firmly an omnivore.

If you do a low carb diet, and people know about it, your diet will be blamed for everything from the zit on your nose to the crabgrass in your yard. If they don't know about your diet they'll just say you look great.

If someone saw me in the grocery, they might think I was a vegetarian.

I make the distinction between grains and veggies. I eat very little grain, but a lot of vegetables. A lot. Broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, fennel, bok choy, napa, lettuce and greens of all kinds, cabbage, brussels sprouts, celery, etc., and a lot of that raw. Melons and berries also. I even eat potatoes on occasion. Beans and other legumes are seldom my choice. Corn is not a veggie, it's a grain. I rarely eat wheat, corn, rice, or other grains. Uhhh... except for steel cut oatmeal a time or two each week in the winter, a guilty pleasure that I'm not willing to give up. With cream, of course. Beans and other legumes are also seldom my choice.

I'm also not a fanatic about it. I'm pragmatic where others are concerned, especially on their own turf. If we're at a party and all that's available is chips, pretzels, sandwiches, and beer, that's what I'll enjoy. I can return to my regime of choice tomorrow. And I won't whine about it not being "vegetarian friendly" like I occasionally hear from the vegetarian/vegan side of the fence.

I rarely weigh or measure anything in the kitchen (unless for a recipe) and don't pay attention to calories. I generally eat as much as I care to, but that's no excuse to pig out. The foods that I would really overeat? Pizza. Ice Cream. Fetucine Alfredo. Dangerously high fat and high carb.

A higher protein lower carb regime tends to be naturally diuretic, so some of the initial weight loss is most likely water, but it also helps with edema/water retention. Every low calorie low fat diet that I've ever looked at always tries to push toward low sodium as well, and some people (me included) just like their salt. If I remember right, Drs. Eades (Protein Power) recommend eating salt with a low carb diet, because it contributes to electrolyte and, absent carbs, salt does not cause water retention or raise blood pressure.

Eating controlled carb IS eating better calories. Eliminating sugar, corn, and flour pretty much puts the kabosh on high sugar baked goods, and fried munchies with their associated trans-fats. No high fructose corn syrup in my life. No celiac problems from modern cultivars of wheat. Modern wheat is very different from the "amber waves of grain" wheat in the song. Modern wheat seldom grows much more than a foot tall, and has been bred (bread??) for ease of production, not for good nutrition.

I have to say that I do have a cast iron stomach. Not talking about abs, but internally. Although there are things I don't care for, I have no food sensitivities or allergies, and with one exception, nothing I eat seems to cause any upset or problems. The exception is cinnamon, which I love the taste, but it doesn't love me.

I think that paleo is interesting, evolutionarily sound, and worth exploring. But I'm enough of a neolith that there are things I don't want to go without. Like dairy. I rarely drink milk, but I don't want to go without cheese, cottage cheese, yogurt, sour cream, and sweet cream. I also use splenda, and don't want to give up my sugar free lemonade and iced tea.

Oh my, this is getting way too long.

 

Just about everything I've read on the paleo diet has been scientifically specious, and a lot of it has to rely on conjecture. (I considered taking my diet in that direction, but I changed my mind.) It doesn't rank high enough as an ideal diet (in its popular form) for me to take it on. There are better options out there—the traditional Mediterranean diet, for example.

"Controlling carbs" makes sense on any dietary regime, because most of them available to us in supermarkets are crap. But there is no reason to forgo on a strict basis whole foods as grown, such as legumes, tubers, etc., and things such as oatmeal.

If you want to do the ketosis thing, then have at it, but this doesn't require eliminating all starches, just enough to get the effect. The one thing that makes me uneasy about ketosis is the possible effect it may have on organs and bone density. I'd be worried about not getting enough insoluble fibre too, not to mention a few vitamins and minerals.

I'd certainly supplement if I went low-carb or paleo, but I'd sooner go on a balanced low-calorie diet like the Okinawa diet. My ideal diet wouldn't require supplementation or certain requests for doctors to test me to make sure I'm not ruining my body with my diet.

I don't mean to "poo poo" low-carb. I don't deny it works, nor do I deny that too many refined/empty carbs is a serious problem. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe in completely eliminating an entire class of food like those who go extremely low-carb/no-carb. I'm a textbook "balance is the key" kind of guy.
--- merged: Sep 27, 2013 at 10:29 PM ---

No. It's because they're simply magically wonderfully healthy in their natural state before they're ripped of their best parts. I assume you mean a processed product that says "whole grain" on it, like bread and pita. These things aren't bad, actually. Even diabetic associations say so.
--- merged: Sep 27, 2013 at 10:40 PM ---

As far as I know, the only macronutrient that has specific conditions attributed to it is protein. Too little protein is a protein deficiency (aka kwashiorkor), which is virtually unheard of in developed nations. Too much protein can result in protein toxicity, which can affect those with kidney disorders or the elderly.

Fat and carbs, on the other hand, have hosts of issues related to a lack or an excessive intake (just like protein).

To speak directly to your point, too few carbs can have issues related to energy production and even colon health. I can't think of any athletes, for example (unless you include odd things like bodybuilding and gymnastics or whatever sport requires extreme, short-term planning for fat/weight control), who use low-carb diets. Many of them who compete in high-intensity sports actually consume ridiculous amounts of carbs. I know of ultramarathoners who eat probably as many as 5,000 or more calories a day in carbs alone. Many athletes also engage in carb-loading before events, and use lots of carbs for recovery for both energy replenishment and for muscle growth.

In other words, the effects will vary, and this is why most doctors/nutritionists advocate balanced diets.

Whether certain levels of carbs matter to you really depends on your situation.

 

Ch-ch-ch-chia...

Seriously. Insoluble fiber? Taken care of. It's got a nice 50-50 mix of both. I also eat a ton of greens. Like Lindy said, choosing not to eat many carbs doesn't mean eliminating vegetables. I eat a ton of veggies every day. I'm just conscientious about what I choose.

I often wonder if many of the benefits people see from going gluten-free are actually from reducing the amount of carbohydrate in their diet. If I'm going to have carbs, it's going to be in beer form.

 

This might interest you: Doctors Say Changes In Wheat Do Not Explain Rise Of Celiac Disease : The Salt : NPR

 

Yeah, I saw that this morning and linked it in the Good Science thread.

 

I'm not saying there isn't insoluable fibre in nuts and seeds and certain vegetables, but grains and legumes of all sorts are loaded with it, and I'm concerned about getting my 40+ grams/day, not to mention all the other goodness in those things.

I like nuts and seeds like the next health nut.
--- merged: Sep 27, 2013 at 10:53 PM ---

Oh, maybe I saw it there and forgot about it. My friend posted it on Facebook today too, and that's where I remembered it.

 

I hit 30gs a day, which is what is recommended for me, without really trying.

For me, one of the main issues has been my battle with GERD/IBS through the years. Having done keto since early July, I can say the incidence of stomach incidents has decreased dramatically. I wonder if there are certain carbs I just can't digest. It makes my tummy happy, and therefore I am happy.