How to get more carbs in my diet?

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: scootermaster
Am I the only one who's noticed the 130+ grams of fat? I feel bad when I eat half that. And I'm 6'4", 210.

I usually take in about 100g of fat while taking in 3000 calories. Fat isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you keep it ~30% of your caloric intake, and as long as you're taking in good fats.

Thanks for the citations, bignateyk, I was just wondering HOW the carbs exactly helped. You're a busy person and I can see why those carbs would help you keep your energy level up. Just be careful if you ever start to slow down You don't want those carbs to make you a fatty. GL.

scootermaster: It's almost entirely polyunsaturated fat though.

Becoming a fatty is about the last thing I have to worry about in my diet. I usually make small adjustments week by week and vary my diet by the results.

edit: And yeah, protein does serve as a source of energy, but it is far less efficient, and if you are using protein as a source of energy, it isn't getting used for what it SHOULD be used for, which is tissue growth and repair. People eating more than 2x RDA in protein should think about eating more carbs, because that extra protein is just being used as an inefficient (and potentially harmful) energy source. The body doesn't store a reserve of protein like it does with fat and carbohydrates.

 

[wildwolf]

People eating more than 2x RDA in protein should think about eating more carbs, because that extra protein is just being used as an inefficient (and potentially harmful) energy source. The body doesn't store a reserve of protein like it does with fat and carbohydrates.

Isn't that the point of some of the "diets" out there, though? Bulk up on protein and low fat, and the body will turn (eventually) to the fat stores to get the energy it needs.

I don't know...I'm just asking btw.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: wildwolf
Isn't that the point of some of the "diets" out there, though? Bulk up on protein and low fat, and the body will turn (eventually) to the fat stores to get the energy it needs.

I don't know...I'm just asking btw.

The objective of any weight loss diet is to have the body utilize fat stores. Bulking up on protein is never good, although getting as much protein as your body needs is.

When your body runs out of glycogen, it goes for alternate routes to get energy. If you are low on glycogen for 48 hours, your body changes preference to ketosis.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: wildwolf
Isn't that the point of some of the "diets" out there, though? Bulk up on protein and low fat, and the body will turn (eventually) to the fat stores to get the energy it needs.

I don't know...I'm just asking btw.

The objective of any weight loss diet is to have the body utilize fat stores. Bulking up on protein is never good, although getting as much protein as your body needs is.

When your body runs out of glycogen, it goes for alternate routes to get energy. If you are low on glycogen for 48 hours, your body changes preference to ketosis.

Yeah, but to keep that ketosis, you can barely take in any carbs at all. And I've heard the transition into it is not fun at all. I would not suggest this for just everybody that wants to lose weight.

 

[CubanCorona]

Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, and you will all learn something.

 

[wildwolf]

So, at the link provided, I read on the last page:

A diet that prohibits sugar, flour, potatoes, and beer, but allows eating to satiety meat, cheese, eggs, and green vegetables will still include the essential nutrients, whether or not it leads to a decrease in calories consumed.

.

This sounds an awful lot like the Atkins (or was it Adkins?) diet and/or similar to the "South Beach" diet. Am I reading that right? If I don't eat sugars, flours, pototoes and beer (OMG NO!), I can eat what I want (to satiety) of meat, cheese, eggs, and green veggies and lose weight? Or was it merely stating eating like that will provide the nutrients I need and not gain or lose weight?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: wildwolf
This sounds an awful lot like the Atkins (or was it Adkins?) diet and/or similar to the "South Beach" diet. Am I reading that right? If I don't eat sugars, flours, pototoes and beer (OMG NO!), I can eat what I want (to satiety) of meat, cheese, eggs, and green veggies and lose weight? Or was it merely stating eating like that will provide the nutrients I need and not gain or lose weight?

Atkins is a functional diet with an incredibly horrible rep from people who treated it like a fad diet and abused the hell out of their bodies in the process. Yes, you can lose weight from a proper diet, but the kicker is that Atkins and any other diet that attempts this is actually more difficult than simply working out. On top of this, you need to continue working out to keep your muscle definition, which means you need to refeed to have the energy to workout which means you now have an incredibly difficult regiment that most people cannot follow.

 

[spamsk8r]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: scootermaster
Am I the only one who's noticed the 130+ grams of fat? I feel bad when I eat half that. And I'm 6'4", 210.

I usually take in about 100g of fat while taking in 3000 calories. Fat isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you keep it ~30% of your caloric intake, and as long as you're taking in good fats.

Thanks for the citations, bignateyk, I was just wondering HOW the carbs exactly helped. You're a busy person and I can see why those carbs would help you keep your energy level up. Just be careful if you ever start to slow down You don't want those carbs to make you a fatty. GL.

scootermaster: It's almost entirely polyunsaturated fat though.

Becoming a fatty is about the last thing I have to worry about in my diet. I usually make small adjustments week by week and vary my diet by the results.

edit: And yeah, protein does serve as a source of energy, but it is far less efficient, and if you are using protein as a source of energy, it isn't getting used for what it SHOULD be used for, which is tissue growth and repair. People eating more than 2x RDA in protein should think about eating more carbs, because that extra protein is just being used as an inefficient (and potentially harmful) energy source. The body doesn't store a reserve of protein like it does with fat and carbohydrates.

I disagree with the bolded statement. People who are eating too much protein as an energy source should up their fat intake instead of their carb intake, as fat doesn't provoke an insulin response, which tells your body to store excess energy as fat (and prevents your body from using stored body fat as energy). Fat is a more efficient fuel (9 calories per gram to carbs 4), you just have to put the body into a state where it can use the fat. I do agree, however, that everyone should eat the amount of protein that their body required, no more, no less (less you get muscle wasting, and more doesn't do anything beneficial for you).

 

[spamsk8r]

Originally posted by: CubanCorona
Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, and you will all learn something.

Taubes is basically reiterating the standard ketogenic diet, but I don't agree with some of the things he says, such as "Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior." Yes of course it's excess fat accumulation, which is due to overeating (calorie-wise) and sedentary behavior. I weighed 175 pounds when I graduated high school. I didn't eat a lot of junk food, and I worked out. Fast forward 6 years, and I weighed 230 pounds. I was no longer active, and I sat behind a desk all day. I ate fast food on an almost daily basis. Don't tell me that lifestyle was not what lead to me being fat, that's patently false.

I agree on other points though, such as dietary fat is not inherently bad for you, and that carbohydrates should be limited to low glycemic load carbs.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: spamsk8r
Fat is a more efficient fuel (9 calories per gram to carbs 4), you just have to put the body into a state where it can use the fat.

Fat may have more kcals per gram but it is actually less efficient due to the added steps to turn it into something useful to the body. This is why carbs are the premiere energy source. But fats inefficiency doesn't matter when you are talking about someone who needs to lose weight. It really only matters when you are talking about someone trying to reach their peak performance.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: spamsk8r
Fat is a more efficient fuel (9 calories per gram to carbs 4), you just have to put the body into a state where it can use the fat.

Fat may have more kcals per gram but it is actually less efficient due to the added steps to turn it into something useful to the body. This is why carbs are the premiere energy source. But fats inefficiency doesn't matter when you are talking about someone who needs to lose weight. It really only matters when you are talking about someone trying to reach their peak performance.

That doesn't quite seem right, skace. Fatty acids can pretty much jump right into the Citric Acid Cycle, with little conversion energy. I don't believe they have a net yield per gram less than carbs. If you think so, can you supply me a source that says that?

 

[skace]

Perhaps, efficiency wasn't the right word to attack. Fat is more efficient when it can be used. When it cannot be used, it has to be modified via the liver, it also cannot be used anaerobically without many additional steps (fat -> glycerol -> glucose). Carbohydrates, on the other hand, contain glucose which the entire body can use readily. In my mind, that makes it more "efficient" as a readily available energy source, while it may not be as efficient kcal per gram.