Carbs or no carbs?

[gettheweightoff]

Everywhere I turn it seems like the low carb craze is back with a vengeance. I love how this plan soes not dictate what to eat - just the parameters.

It's just that everything I read lately is low carb and I'm feeling guilty for eating carbs now. I know that sounds insane but I feel pressured like it is the only way to go or something.

What do you do?

[wosnes]

I eat carbs. And I read very little about other diets, especially if they limit food groups.

[gettheweightoff]

If you don't mind me asking... how is your weight loss going?

[wosnes]

I don't weigh myself (even though I should for a medical reason). I've been at this for over 4 years now and I think my weight has pretty much stabilized. I'd like to weigh a little less, but it's not a big deal.

But think about it -- all those healthy groups of people around the world -- the Japanese, Italians, Greeks, French and others -- they all eat carbs, including the white stuff and some sweets. They don't, or at least haven't until recently, consumed junk food nor do they eat 24/7.

[osoniye]

Hi- I often try to eat low carb veggies, fruits and proteins on N days, and sometimes I manage and sometimes I don't. It seems that there is sort of a torturous period of withdrawl, and if you're not willing/ready to embrace a real low carb lifestyle for a while, it might be worth it just to stick to (vanilla if possible) NoS for 3 monts or so and see how it goes. Another of my 2 cents .

[reinhard]

A few points regarding low-carb:

1. The timing of the low carb movement is extremely suspicious. Atkin's published his book in 1972. And by a few years ago some astonishing percentage of the U.S. population claimed to be on a low carb diet. The results, in terms of obesity rates, have not been very impressive.

2. No-s is, in a way, a lower-carb diet. Sweets are carbs. They're just easier to identify and more indisputably bad for you than other carbs. They're the "low hanging fruit" of carbs. So while I am not persuaded that the "carbness" of sweets makes them worse than any other calories (to my mind, it's all about the bigger picture behaviors they're associated with) you're hedging your bets a little with no-s: if they are in fact worse you are in fact eating less of them.

3. If you feel the need to add additional carb based restrictions to no-s, you certainly can, it's an easy framework to hang additional rules onto -- but be careful. Every new restriction brings new risk that you'll be unable to comply, whether because of its complexity or sheer deprivation. That additional risk may not be worth a few carbs. I think it rarely will be.

A relevant passage about low carb from the no-s diet book:

Pages

What is starch, anyway? I’m amazed at how many people who claim to be avoiding it don’t even know. It’s one of three kinds of dietary carbohydrates—the others are sugar and fiber. Starch is not some Fran- kenstein ingredient out of a pharmaceutical lab but is found abundantly in natural foods such as grains, roots, tubers, fruits, and seeds. It’s so abundant in our food supply that, since the dawn of agriculture at least, it has been the chief source of our caloric intake.8

Yes, that’s right, historically, most of the calories people have consumed since they learned to grow plants were from carbohydrates, and from starch spe- cifically. And, historically, most people were thin. With- out starch, they would have been dead. It seems odd to target a substance that kept our ancestors alive and thin for thousands of years as the culprit for the recent obesity epidemic. With the unprecedented amounts of meat and fat that we in our rich society today can enjoy, we’re already eating low-carb, as a percentage of total calories, compared to our poorer ancestors (and neigh- bors). So why do something totally historically unprec- edented, when we have thousands of years of evidence, from billions of people, that eating a much higher per- centage of carbs (and starch) than we currently do will not, in itself, make us fat?

What people historically did not eat a lot of is sugar. That is the really striking substantive difference between our diet and that of our skinny ancestors. Yes, they man- aged to find some sugar (or, more likely, honey), and prized it highly. But it was rare, expensive, a festive treat; precisely what the No S Diet aims to make it again.

If the past will not persuade you, consider the future.

If more and more people really were to start eating low-carb, and get more and more of their calories from animal protein, the environmental consequences would be devastating. According to a United Nations report quoted in the New York Times, already “global livestock grazing and feed production use ‘30 percent of the land surface of the planet,’†and “livestock are responsible for about 18 percent of the global warming effectâ€â€”more than cars, airplanes, and all forms of transportation combined. Worried about everyone in currently skinny, high-carb India and China getting cars like us and what that will do to the environment? Worry, too, about them going Atkins, even just halfway.

The truth is, we fat Westerners already eat a low- carb diet. Compared to people in other parts of the world and to our own ancestors, we get a much higher percentage or our calories from fat and protein than from carbohydrates. Ever heard that old saw about “all the rice in China� Well, that’s what they eat, mostly. It’s their chief source of calories. And it’s white rice. No one in Asia, except perhaps a few Western expats, eats brown rice. Ditto in India. Not especially fat countries. And that’s about half the world’s population right there. The simple fact is that people in most parts of the word can’t afford to eat as much meat and fat as we do today; and until recently, we couldn’t afford it either.

[wosnes]

Compared to people in other parts of the world and to our own ancestors, we get a much higher percentage or our calories from fat and protein than from carbohydrates. Ever heard that old saw about “all the rice in China� Well, that’s what they eat, mostly. It’s their chief source of calories. And it’s white rice. No one in Asia, except perhaps a few Western expats, eats brown rice. Ditto in India. Not especially fat countries. And that’s about half the world’s population right there. The simple fact is that people in most parts of the word can’t afford to eat as much meat and fat as we do today; and until recently, we couldn’t afford it either.

In the past I've joked that it's only overly-health conscious Americans encourage the consumption of brown rice.

I worked in a large university medical center where there are many Asian and Indian employees and students. Those who continued to eat their traditional diets were slim. Those who ate like most Americans were heavier (though generally not as heavy as Americans). The slim ones almost always brought their meals from home. The heavier ones ate cafeteria food.

[BrightAngel]

One of the things I like best about Reinhard, (along with his Habit concept),
is his Acceptance of the Differences between each of us.

One of the things I like best about the No-S diet,
is the way it provides Structure together with Individual Flexibility.

No-s is, in a way, a lower-carb diet.
Sweets are carbs.
They're just easier to identify and more indisputably bad for you than other carbs.
They're the "low hanging fruit" of carbs.

So while I am not persuaded that the "carbness" of sweets
makes them worse than any other calories (to my mind,
it's all about the bigger picture behaviors they're associated with)
you're hedging your bets a little with no-s:
if they are in fact worse you are in fact eating less of them.

If you feel the need to add additional carb based restrictions to no-s,
you certainly can, it's an easy framework to hang additional rules onto.

Another relevant passage from the no-s diet book:
Page 167

...the No S Diet...is accommodating and unobtrustive enough
that you could combine it with another diet if you want to hedge your weight-loss bets,
want to take a systematic approach to specific nutritional issues...
People on No S...have reported combining it
with various types of low-carb plans,
the Shangri-La Diet, vegetarianism, and more.

[gettheweightoff]

Thanks everyone. I'm just going to plan to eat clean and see what happens. Right now I have to concentrate on getting sugar out of my diet and get the cravings under control.


I think it is absolutely true what Reinhard said about adding more rules in that it might make it harder so it's not just a matter of me not being ready to go low carb but it is a matter of why should I out of peer pressure?

Maybe if the weight doesn't come off after a few months I should consider it but for now it's more important to get vanilla no-s under my belt.

[BrightAngel]

I think it is absolutely true what Reinhard said
about adding more rules in that it might make it harder.

Maybe if the weight doesn't come off after a few months I should consider it
but for now it's more important to get vanilla no-s under my belt.

Congratulations on arriving at an Excellent Solution for your problem.

[Over43]

I was re-reading the book last evening. And was reading through the no sweets section. By cutting out sugar (sweets) you are lowering your carbohydrate intake significantly.

Having low carbed in the past I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with sitting down to a dinner of steak and salad, with asparagus on the side. However, I also fell into the "trap" of pork rinds, salami, cream cheese, pepperoni, bags of beef jerky, etc. Atkins' mantra of: If it's low carb it's healthy, did not extend to all of the low carb fare he was pushing.

So, in a sense, No S has a "modified" low carb built in just by avoiding snacks (which are often high carbohydrate) and no sweets.

[wosnes]

I'm just going to plan to eat clean and see what happens. Right now I have to concentrate on getting sugar out of my diet and get the cravings under control.

Sigh. Another term I'm already sick of: "clean eating." I think putting emphasis on "clean eating" or "healthy eating" just adds to the guilt and confusion we feel about food.

[gettheweightoff]

You have a point. All these labels. And you could go off of "clean eating" too.

How about I rephrase to sensible eating!

[RichTJ99]

BTW, I bought the book on Kindle & I dont think I have the same page numbers. Any way to figure that out? I only have a digital copy.

[jellybeans01]

going without carbs or doing really low carbs to me is like holding your breath under water. Maybe at first your okay, but you gotta give. I am in the best shape I have ever been at 35 and I eat carbs.

[BrightAngel]

IT"S SO COOL...
I've been talking to everyone about Gary Taubes' new book,
Why We Get Fat And What to Do About it.
and how interesting its concepts are to me...
even though I've never been a "low-carb" person,
but have always been a calorie counter.
I even bought another copy as an audio book
because I like listening to them while I do other things.

Today I working on a picture puzzle while I listened to that cd,
when the mailman brought my new Reader's Digest.
WWGF was featured RIGHT THERE ON THE COVER,
and there was an excellent article about it inside.
It made me feel just like one of the "in-crowd"..

[reinhard]

Some environmentally friendlier protein alternatives low-carbers:

http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0109-morg ... _meat.html

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0014445

Bugs, I admit, are going to be a tough sell, but the in-vitro stuff has potential.

I wonder if in-vitro pork is kosher...

Will a sub-set of vegetarians split off and become invitrotarians?

Along with another sub-set of compassionate carnivores?

Fascinating as these questions are, I think I may dodge these issues and stick with moderation (and my meat share).

Reinhard

[reinhard]

BTW, I bought the book on Kindle & I dont think I have the same page numbers. Any way to figure that out? I only have a digital copy.

I don't know.. but I think you can search the text on a kindle, right? I'm pretty confident I don't talk about "livestock" or "global warming" anywhere else in the book so try those terms.

[BrightAngel]

Fascinating as these questions are,
I think I may dodge these issues and stick with moderation (and my meat share).

Reinhard, you are male, young and lean.
You can afford to do that since you appear to lack the Genetic factors
which causes a disorder of exess fat accumulation.

Good Habits of Moderation appear to be enough to keep you at normal weight.
They also appear to be enough for many other No S members.
However, some of us, including me, are not so fortunate.
Those Habits of Moderation ARE extremely helpful,
but they aren't enough...in themselves...for everyone.

We aren't all the same.
I believe you know my Lifetime weight History,
if you want to refresh your memory
that information is in my Check-In Thread.
I've been maintaining a large weight-loss for more than 5 years,
have been a member here for almost 3 years.

I love your Habit Concept.
However, I ...personally...need more than good Habits of Moderation
in order to maintain my current weight.
And so do some of your other long-time obese or reduced obese members.

I'm very tired of being Hungry and constantly craving starch and sweets.
My own experience is similiar to that descriptions
of the reduced men in that 1940's starvation experiment by Keyes.
I don't know if Taubes' is right about low-carb or not,
but I've recently begun a low-carb experiment...together with No S Habits...
in the hopes that it might improve the quality of my life.
I admire you greatly, and believe that you will be supportive of this.