I love carbs.....

[fraidycat]

I'd break out my Atlas pasta machine for that!

I posted it a little earlier in the thread, but in case you missed it:

 

Found it even without my computer bookmarks! There are a lot of similar ones out there, but I know and love this one, so here it is.

 

http://www.paleocupb...aleo-pasta.html

 

Couple things, because I'm lazy:

 

I've never used blanched almond flour - regular works fine.

 

I've never used the food processor and all the fussy step by step stuff. I either dump it all in a bowl and mix/knead by hand, or toss it in the Kitchen Aid with the dough hook, then knead by hand for the last couple minutes.

[Ausmumof3]

I don't understand the vilification of carbohydrates. Carbs have been the staple of many traditional diets for centuries - because protein and fat were expensive, and it was not feasible for most people to consume the massive amounts of meat proponents of low carb diets suggest (yes, I know, the inuit only had meat and fish, but that seems to be an exception). For centuries, people have managed to live on carb heavy traditional diets without developing obesity or diabetes.

Do many people eat too much sugar? Yes, absolutely. But carbohydrates per se have always been a staple, for a variety of reasons. Deciding that they are evil is very odd.

I don't understand it either. It seems crazy. But I know it's the only way I manage to lose weight and don't feel starving and also helps with some health issues. I suspect that part of the problem is that the combination of all the emphasis on low fat over the years plus the fact that carbs are so easy with processed food means people have been over consuming by years so cutting carbs gives a reset somehow.

[MyLife]

Except that what the OP is talking about doesn't necessarily require she limit carbs which was my point. And yes, you were dismissive of regenetrude.

 

If the OP is a self professed lover of carbs then low carb may not be a good fit.

No, I wasn't dismissive of regenetrude. Are we not allow to have an actual conversation on these forums? Is there some rule that we can't share differing opinions? Can I not share my thoughts and regenetrude share her thoughts without feelings getting hurt over a topic as stupid as carbs?

[MyLife]

I love pasta, bread, rolls, crackers...so much, I fear...so much my tummy is getting bigger than I like. What is the best way to make limiting carbs not so painful? How much can I eat without too much damage?

 

I am 5ft2in... Small build...except my tummy and behind.

 

Any suggestions for me?

 

Thanks.

NEprairiemom, best wishes on figuring this all out. Sorry for the disruption to your thread. Not my intention. Edited August 30, 2017 by MyLife

[frogger]

I would say the villification of carbs is due to poor insulin regulation in the body which can cause weight gain. Sugar and carbs simply affect the body differently than fat. They break down too fast. They cause cravings. Of course, sugar is way worse and affects more people but even a baguette with lunch will make me tired. If people feel hungry or tired all the time because they eat carbs and their insulin levels are jumping up and down they have a more difficult time not gaining weight. Perhaps it's not true for everyone but that seems to be the case for my family. The super thin people get tired super fast if eating lots of carbs(my son is not allowed sugar before school is finished for the day) the children are hungry ten minutes later as is the couple of us who are constantly battling their weight (who are just as active as the thin people mind you, well more active). So yes, we would be better off having 0 sugar for the rest of our lives and maybe things would stabilize but that is a tough sell. But controlling carbs through the day makes a big difference.

 

That being said, someone who struggles to digest fat must eat a lot of carbs. Those of us with insulin issues and who simply can't seem to get enough calories need to eat more fat.

[wintermom]

That is an odd assumption. I don't know what kind of bread or rolls you eat, but I know they must not be particularly good. Really good bread and rolls are wonderful all by themselves. That's why there is a bakery on every corner in Germany :) And that's why, when I bake and the bread comes out of the oven before dinner, my folks will devour an entire loaf in one sitting.

 

You assume that people are eating "really good" bread or rolls all the time.  And do you put butter, cheese, oil and vinegar, jam on your bread, as most people do?  There are few people, I'd guess, who are eating their bread, pasta, and crackers plain. Wheat and water on it's own is pretty dull. It's the sugar, salt and fat in most of the things people put on it that provide flavour.

[wintermom]

Vegetables and fruit are carbohydrates. Why do people assume that "carbs" are starches only?  Our bodies need the carbohydrates in vegetables and fruit, and the fibre that is also found in them help fill us up so we don't consume as much sugar.  The vitamins found in vegetables and fruit are also great. 

 

Do people actually cut out veggies in low carb diets?  

[Night Elf]

Do you really? Or do you actually love them as a medium for getting sugar, salt and/or fat into your body?

 

Plain pasta, bread, rolls, crackers are not "love" worthy because they have almost no taste. I doubt you actually eat them without sugar, salt or fat. 

 

So think about what it is that you actually do "love."

 

I eat those things plain. When I eat spaghetti noodles, I put a little shaved parmesan on but that's it. I don't eat spaghetti sauces of any kind. I use a small amount of margarine if I'm having toast but I'm just as inclined to eat plain bread. And the only thing I know of that goes with crackers is cheese but I don't eat anything with my crackers. I eat Club crackers and Saltines mostly. Oyster crackers are also yummy. Yes, those crackers have salt on them if that's what you mean, but I don't add anything else to them. So yes, I find these foods "love" worthy.

[Pawz4me]

Do you really? Or do you actually love them as a medium for getting sugar, salt and/or fat into your body?

 

Plain pasta, bread, rolls, crackers are not "love" worthy because they have almost no taste. I doubt you actually eat them without sugar, salt or fat. 

 

So think about what it is that you actually do "love."

 

I think this is excellent advice, and it's what I did many years ago (like thirty) when I went on the first diet of my life and lost over sixty pounds and pretty much kept it off since. What I found out is that I love carbs and don't really care at all for fat or protein. Plain baked potato? Yummy with just a sprinkling of salt and pepper! Sometimes I choose to add just a tiny bit of salsa. Butter or sour cream ruins it. A piece of plain (good) bread or a nice, crusty roll? Heaven. Sacrilege to ruin them with something nasty like jam or jelly or make them soggy with butter. Ick.

 

So I agree with your method of really, really paying attention to what one likes. I don't agree at all that plain carbs have almost no taste. Far from it. I think what's likely is that most people's taste buds are so used to the "hit" of flavor from high fat foods and salt that they aren't good at detecting the incredible, nuanced flavors in less enhanced foods. But trust me, the flavors are there! It required me to cut way back on fat for a few weeks before I was able to detect those awesome subtle flavors, though. So I can easily believe that someone used to eating a typical high fat diet might think those foods have little/no taste.

 

ETA: My advice isn't just to pay attention to what you like, but most importantly to really pay attention to what makes your body feel good. It's one reason I've pretty much stayed on a high carb diet for decades, and also why I don't doubt those who say they feel best on a low/lower carb diet. I tried low carb once to see how I'd feel. It wasn't awful but I sure didn't feel my best, and I'm pretty sure it put the nail in the coffin of my thyroid. It was probably doomed to fail sooner or later, but  from what I've read I tend to think that few months of a somewhat low carb diet may have sped up the process.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Pawz4me

[MyLife]

Nevermind

Edited August 30, 2017 by MyLife

[Carrie12345]

I would say the villification of carbs is due to poor insulin regulation in the body which can cause weight gain. Sugar and carbs simply affect the body differently than fat. They break down too fast. They cause cravings. Of course, sugar is way worse and affects more people but even a baguette with lunch will make me tired. If people feel hungry or tired all the time because they eat carbs and their insulin levels are jumping up and down they have a more difficult time not gaining weight. Perhaps it's not true for everyone but that seems to be the case for my family. The super thin people get tired super fast if eating lots of carbs(my son is not allowed sugar before school is finished for the day) the children are hungry ten minutes later as is the couple of us who are constantly battling their weight (who are just as active as the thin people mind you, well more active). So yes, we would be better off having 0 sugar for the rest of our lives and maybe things would stabilize but that is a tough sell. But controlling carbs through the day makes a big difference.

 

That being said, someone who struggles to digest fat must eat a lot of carbs. Those of us with insulin issues and who simply can't seem to get enough calories need to eat more fat.

 

To the bolded - In a person whose body functions atypically (biologically or by lifestyle), perhaps.  But the function of carbs is to quickly and somewhat effortlessly provide accessible energy.  I don't know, I just don't like the word "too" in there, since it's the speed at which a majority of bodies *need. (Quantity and quality, certainly processed sugar, being whole other things.)

 

Fat and protein operate differently because they have whole other functions to serve, with energy being the body's back up plan, not it's primary intent.

 

And I don't mean to direct that at you, frogger, but I sometimes wonder if people know that macros and micros DO have different purposes and usage.

[ProudGrandma]

I get the feeling that it is me that made a wrong assumption....I am off to start a new thread... Join in if you want...

[Zinnia]

That was a specific example mentioned by another poster as a satisfying meal w/o carbs. Anything else high fat would similarly not work for me. Some people cannot digest a high fat diet, for example if they don't have a gall bladder. Carbs are easily digestible.

Without carbs, I am just freaking hungry all the time and struggle to consume enough calories. There's only so much nut butter one can stomach.

I think that most people who are cutting carbs do not struggle with getting enough calories.

 

To me, this falls under the, "oh, I just got busy and forgot to eat," category of people. I have never, not one day in my life, struggled to get enough calories to maintain myself and had unintentional weight loss. The idea is just foreign to me.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Zinnia

[Carrie12345]

I think that most people who are cutting carbs do not struggle with getting enough calories.

 

To me, this falls under the, "oh, I just got busy and forgot to eat," category of people. I have never, not one day in my life, struggled to get enough calories to maintain myself and had unintentional weight loss. The idea is just foreign to me.

I have days when I forget to eat or to eat enough. But, in my case, they don't come more than 1 or 2 days at a time, and I make up for it easily, lol.

 

Well, except when I was on adderall, but that's another example of atypical interference. (And I suppose explains my occasional food forgetfulness when unmedicated!)

[frogger]

To the bolded - In a person whose body functions atypically (biologically or by lifestyle), perhaps. But the function of carbs is to quickly and somewhat effortlessly provide accessible energy. I don't know, I just don't like the word "too" in there, since it's the speed at which a majority of bodies *need. (Quantity and quality, certainly processed sugar, being whole other things.)

 

Fat and protein operate differently because they have whole other functions to serve, with energy being the body's back up plan, not it's primary intent.

 

And I don't mean to direct that at you, frogger, but I sometimes wonder if people know that macros and micros DO have different purposes and usage.

True. It depends on intended purpose. For an extreme example if you were feeling dizzy from low blood sugar you wouldn't reach for a fat. If you are only doing a measly hour of excercise a day though and eating all day long it is harder to regulate if you eat mostly carbs. Most carbs in modern society come from refined flour to boot. Your bodies response in such cases is to crave more. I think white flour and sugar are probably the main culprits and things gradually get better as you move towards the other end of the scale. I don't understand why you would say carbs are the speed at which most bodies need energy especially when you don't say under what circumstance. Unless my entire immediate family(husband and children), my mother's side of the family who struggles with weight gain and my father's side who is generally super thin and can't handle sugars at all are all outliers. Is there some study you are referencing?

[regentrude]

To me, this falls under the, "oh, I just got busy and forgot to eat," category of people. I have never, not one day in my life, struggled to get enough calories to maintain myself and had unintentional weight loss. The idea is just foreign to me.

 

If somebody took away the one food that was the basis of two of your daily meals (as traditional in your culture) and provided a major source of your daily calories, it might be hard for you as well. I went from eating two bread based meals for 40 years (without any problems, at stable weight) to suddenly not being able to eat bread anymore. I found it very difficult to completely re-invent my way of eating. There really are not many good substitutes that don't require cooking.

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by regentrude

[regentrude]

. If you are only doing a measly hour of excercise a day though and eating all day long it is harder to regulate if you eat mostly carbs.

 

But as humans evolved, neither was the case. They tended to move all day and eat at meal times only, most often a traditional diet that was high in carbohydrates, because that was what was available.

 

[frogger]

But as humans evolved, neither was the case. They tended to move all day and eat at meal times only, most often a traditional diet that was high in carbohydrates, because that was what was available.

Exacatly. But now they spend a lot more time at a desk. I'm all for people moving more if they can make it work with their responsibilities and adjusting their diet for their lifestyle.

 

I was shopping a few weeks back with my daughter and I don't remember what triggered it but I told my daughter, "Eat your lifestyle". She asked me if my lifestyle was tasty. I had to reply that it definitly was. That being said, life sometimes throws things my way that mess up that lifestyle and others have challenges that may keep them from living normally (being as active as humans have generally been over the course of history) so they may not be able to eat normally.

[happypamama]

Vegetables and fruit are carbohydrates. Why do people assume that "carbs" are starches only? Our bodies need the carbohydrates in vegetables and fruit, and the fibre that is also found in them help fill us up so we don't consume as much sugar. The vitamins found in vegetables and fruit are also great.

 

Do people actually cut out veggies in low carb diets?

I think most people low carbing tend to cut out most fruit, except for berries and avocados, and they generally skip the starchier veggies. Non-starchy veggies are pretty much unlimited. They provide the carbs your body needs but without overloading it and causing it to store excess carbs as body fat, which is really easy to do with a bread/pasta/potato heavy diet.

 

And I think the food pyramid and my plate are way off. Even when I are closer to a typical American diet, that was still a ton of bread/pasta. We don't need croutons on salad AND garlic bread AND pasta (to say nothing of dessert) at the same meal. Not with our sedentary lifestyles. And I do think that's a big part of it. I can get in a specific exercise time, but I have to make a point to do it. I don't live where I can walk to anything, even if I want to and am in shape to do so, not with being 8 or 10 miles from a grocery store. Very different from a lifestyle where I might walk to the local market several times a week to pick out food for a day or two. And homeschooling a lot of kids is a lot of sitting. I mean, it's a lot of getting up and down too, but it's very different from working construction or farming. I can't very well do four kids' math programs if I'm not still. My DH commands a computer or drives to see clients, and he has a long commute (40 miles each way) that requires driving instead of walking or biking. Yes, we chose this lifestyle, and we benefit from it in other ways (quiet area, fresh country air, unhurried pace, etc.), but basically it does mean we can't be super super active all the time. So excess bread/pasta/rice/potatoes show on us if we aren't careful. So we aim for more good fats, proteins, and non-starchy veggies because those fit our lifestyle better.

[Carrie12345]

True. It depends on intended purpose. For an extreme example if you were feeling dizzy from low blood sugar you wouldn't reach for a fat. If you are only doing a measly hour of excercise a day though and eating all day long it is harder to regulate if you eat mostly carbs. Most carbs in modern society come from refined flour to boot. Your bodies response in such cases is to crave more. I think white flour and sugar are probably the main culprits and things gradually get better as you move towards the other end of the scale. I don't understand why you would say carbs are the speed at which most bodies need energy especially when you don't say under what circumstance. Unless my entire immediate family(husband and children), my mother's side of the family who struggles with weight gain and my father's side who is generally super thin and can't handle sugars at all are all outliers. Is there some study you are referencing?

 

Under all circumstances.  Carbs give your heart energy to pump, your brain energy to operate, your bowels energy to move... obviously much less than, say, running a marathon (which is where my comment about quantity and quality comes in) but the body would prefer not to reach into fat stores and tax itself more breaking those down just to serve basic functions. That's not a special study, that's basic nutrition.

 

And, if someone is sedentary and eating more calories (of whatever macro) than needed, whatever speed at which a carb can be broken down isn't going to prevent the excess from being stored as fat... which brings us back to the body taxing itself more to convert fat into readily accessible energy.  In certain outliers, perhaps that is the best route.  I'm not particularly educated on the biology of diabetics, for instance, who obviously need assistance (medical and educational) with macro management, so I sure as heck wouldn't suggest they eat as though they had a typical body.  But they don't change what a typical body does.

[frogger]

Calories from fat and protein can also be used as fuel by the body for both basic metabolic needs and running a marathon so I'm not sure what your point is there. It seems like you are confusing calories and carbs.

 

If your body quickly metabolizes say a bowl of oatmeal then you will feel hungry again and want to eat more. It's hard not to eat if you feel hungry. That is why I no longer feed my kids oatmeal for breakfast unless it is just a side. Within 20 minutes they are hungry again even though they are finishing their seatwork for school. If we eat a bowl of oatmeal every 20 minutes all day long then yes we will end up eating more than needed. A more even intake of sugars into the bloodstream makes sense in keeping the insulin levels steady which is what harder to digest things do and that is why a black bean is better than a sugar cube for insulin for example. Both have carbs and calories but the sugar will cause an insulin spike.

 

I do believe most people who are cutting carbs are wanting to use their fat stores so it makes sense to try to use them. They don't need to replace them of course.

[Zinnia]

If somebody took away the one food that was the basis of two of your daily meals (as traditional in your culture) and provided a major source of your daily calories, it might be hard for you as well. I went from eating two bread based meals for 40 years (without any problems, at stable weight) to suddenly not being able to eat bread anymore. I found it very difficult to completely re-invent my way of eating. There really are not many good substitutes that don't require cooking.

 

No, really, as a fat woman that likes food.... I am telling you that this is unfathomable to me.  If I grew up eating a certain food, I could find a substitute easily.  

 

I do not do well on diets that limit one type of food, because I can *always* find something else I like.  I didn't lose any weight being gluten free, doing low carb/high fat, or doing vegan.  I can always find a substitute, which is a big problem for me.

[Carrie12345]

Calories from fat and protein can also be used as fuel by the body for both basic metabolic needs and running a marathon so I'm not sure what your point is there. It seems like you are confusing calories and carbs.

 

If your body quickly metabolizes say a bowl of oatmeal then you will feel hungry again and want to eat more. It's hard not to eat if you feel hungry. That is why I no longer feed my kids oatmeal for breakfast unless it is just a side. Within 20 minutes they are hungry again even though they are finishing their seatwork for school. If we eat a bowl of oatmeal every 20 minutes all day long then yes we will end up eating more than needed. A more even intake of sugars into the bloodstream makes sense in keeping the insulin levels steady which is what harder to digest things do and that is why a black bean is better than a sugar cube for insulin for example. Both have carbs and calories but the sugar will cause an insulin spike.

 

I do believe most people who are cutting carbs are wanting to use their fat stores so it makes sense to try to use them. They don't need to replace them of course.

 

I'm not confusing calories and carbs, I'm distinguishing between the types of calories, all of which are important to the body, and pointing out that they each have their own primary purposes and different processes for digestion and utilization.  There are many Youtube, Crash Course, Khan, and random videos that provide nice explanations.

 

I'm in no way saying that one should be used in lieu of another, like your oatmeal example.  All I was ever doing was pointing out my issue with the word "too" in "too fast".  Combined with other macros, quality carbs process "just right" in a typical body.