Weight Busters: All Carbohydrates are NOT Created Equal
By: Tanya Jolliffe,
SparkPeople Blogger
8/13/2009 6:46 AM
: 40 comments
: 10,618 Views
Carbohydrates are important and necessary in our diets and have generated a great deal of attention over the past decade due to the low carbohydrate weight loss craze. Marketing trends have played off of that low carb craze and so have dieting plans that count "points" and provide different "rules" based on what carbs are being consumed. Could this confusing information and marketing ploy be affecting your weight loss success?
Most of us know the basic truth about carbohydrates. We know there are simple carbohydrates that increase the blood sugar level which brings a surge of insulin and roller coaster of highs and lows. We know we need to limit our intake as much as possible. We are equally aware that complex carbohydrates provide necessary energy for the brain and body need to live the active life we desire to live. We know about the importance of indigestible carbohydrates called fiber and the benefits it provides to our digestive health. In our healthy eating plan we watch our total carbohydrate intake and know that they come from a variety of foods such as sugars, fruits, vegetables, legumes, milk and grain products.
Extremely low carbohydrate diets that restrict intake to 20-30 total grams in a day are harmful to the body but since they provide weight loss results they have become popular regardless of the long term risks to the body. To me it just goes to show how willing we are to see a change of number on a scale that we are willing to ignore the long term risks for a short term benefit. Add to that the new marketing focus of "net carb" counting and you have a recipe for messed up metabolic responses and weight loss confusion and frustration. I think it is important to point out that there is NO legal definition for "net" "active" or "impact" carbs. The only FDA regulated carbohydrate information is total carbohydrate with the break down of dietary fiber and sugars. The idea that a food item can have 30 grams of total carbohydrate but only 2 grams of "impact" carbs counts because the other 27 grams are from sugar alcohols can make us feel better but if you skip the part on the label that says that those 2 grams of impact carbs also come with 260 calories, you have missed a lot. If you eat a food that provides 2 net or impact carbs and 75 calories or you consume 2 net or impact carbs from a food that provides 250 calories, you are kidding yourself if you think you are consuming equal foods. Using a made up marketing trend to measure your intake could be limiting your weight loss success.
What if I told you perhaps the simple versus complex versus total amount of carbohydrate discussion is only part of the story? Diabetics have known for a while that glycemic index guidelines can also be a helpful tool in managing blood glucose levels. There are many weight loss diets that have taken the glycemic index principles and packaged them as a diet regimen. For some it can be helpful especially if the person has a degree of glucose intolerance issues that are contributing to their weight management issues. For other people, following these diet guidelines could be a contributor to weight loss frustrations. Looking at glycemic index numbers alone only looks at part of the way the body uses carbohydrates but where weight is concerned, there is more to it than just the raise and rate of blood glucose levels. Something that may be even more practical is using the glycemic load. Glycemic load looks not only at the quantity of response but also the quality. The glycemic load is determined by the glycemic index plus the amount of carbohydrate available for the body to use. Consider this example - a large carrot has a high glycemic index, however, since it is made up mostly of water, there are only about 5 grams of available carb for the body to use. A cup of spaghetti on the other hand while it has a similar glycemic index also contains 38 grams of carbohydrate for the body to use so it has a glycemic load that is eight times higher than the carrot. Following a low glycemic index diet for blood glucose control makes a great deal of sense but if you are having trouble with weight loss using these same principles, focusing on glycemic load may be more beneficial.
A Harvard multi-year study that looked at overweight woman found that those who ate a high glycemic load diet increased risks of developing coronary heart disease as well as increased risks of diabetes, gallbladder disease and elevated triglycerides, cholesterol and c-reactive protein (which is an inflammation marker related to a number of diseases). Likewise, they found that the glycemic index/glycemic load ratio may play a key role in weight loss. So if you are having trouble moving that scale and you are eating enough calories and including the right types and amounts of your macro nutrients, consider lowering your glycemic load. When you look at the list and compare that with all those that talk about following a low carbohydrate diet and seeing results, perhaps you will find that maybe it was related more to changing the glycemic load and the amount of sugar the body had to process.
The Bottom Line
Your body needs carbohydrate energy every day, throughout the day. Your muscles need them if you are active and your brain needs them to keep you sharp and clear. It is important to be aware of simple carbohydrate intake and limit them when possible in favor of complex, whole grain options. For many people, making sure macro nutrient intake and total calorie intake are in line and balanced with activity is enough to reach weight loss goals. For other people, especially those with conditions that effect glucose metabolism, it is necessary to look at macro nutrients like carbohydrates a little closer to see weight loss success. Don't fall prey to the marketing and dieting ploy to use net carb as an evaluation tool. Instead, consider the foods that you typically eat and how they rate related to glycemic load. You may find that making some small modifications is all your body needs to see the results you desire.
Did you know that "net carbs" was not an official FDA definition? Have you ever thought about the glycemic load of your carbohydrate intake? Will you now?
Most of us know the basic truth about carbohydrates. We know there are simple carbohydrates that increase the blood sugar level which brings a surge of insulin and roller coaster of highs and lows. We know we need to limit our intake as much as possible. We are equally aware that complex carbohydrates provide necessary energy for the brain and body need to live the active life we desire to live. We know about the importance of indigestible carbohydrates called fiber and the benefits it provides to our digestive health. In our healthy eating plan we watch our total carbohydrate intake and know that they come from a variety of foods such as sugars, fruits, vegetables, legumes, milk and grain products.
Extremely low carbohydrate diets that restrict intake to 20-30 total grams in a day are harmful to the body but since they provide weight loss results they have become popular regardless of the long term risks to the body. To me it just goes to show how willing we are to see a change of number on a scale that we are willing to ignore the long term risks for a short term benefit. Add to that the new marketing focus of "net carb" counting and you have a recipe for messed up metabolic responses and weight loss confusion and frustration. I think it is important to point out that there is NO legal definition for "net" "active" or "impact" carbs. The only FDA regulated carbohydrate information is total carbohydrate with the break down of dietary fiber and sugars. The idea that a food item can have 30 grams of total carbohydrate but only 2 grams of "impact" carbs counts because the other 27 grams are from sugar alcohols can make us feel better but if you skip the part on the label that says that those 2 grams of impact carbs also come with 260 calories, you have missed a lot. If you eat a food that provides 2 net or impact carbs and 75 calories or you consume 2 net or impact carbs from a food that provides 250 calories, you are kidding yourself if you think you are consuming equal foods. Using a made up marketing trend to measure your intake could be limiting your weight loss success.
What if I told you perhaps the simple versus complex versus total amount of carbohydrate discussion is only part of the story? Diabetics have known for a while that glycemic index guidelines can also be a helpful tool in managing blood glucose levels. There are many weight loss diets that have taken the glycemic index principles and packaged them as a diet regimen. For some it can be helpful especially if the person has a degree of glucose intolerance issues that are contributing to their weight management issues. For other people, following these diet guidelines could be a contributor to weight loss frustrations. Looking at glycemic index numbers alone only looks at part of the way the body uses carbohydrates but where weight is concerned, there is more to it than just the raise and rate of blood glucose levels. Something that may be even more practical is using the glycemic load. Glycemic load looks not only at the quantity of response but also the quality. The glycemic load is determined by the glycemic index plus the amount of carbohydrate available for the body to use. Consider this example - a large carrot has a high glycemic index, however, since it is made up mostly of water, there are only about 5 grams of available carb for the body to use. A cup of spaghetti on the other hand while it has a similar glycemic index also contains 38 grams of carbohydrate for the body to use so it has a glycemic load that is eight times higher than the carrot. Following a low glycemic index diet for blood glucose control makes a great deal of sense but if you are having trouble with weight loss using these same principles, focusing on glycemic load may be more beneficial.
A Harvard multi-year study that looked at overweight woman found that those who ate a high glycemic load diet increased risks of developing coronary heart disease as well as increased risks of diabetes, gallbladder disease and elevated triglycerides, cholesterol and c-reactive protein (which is an inflammation marker related to a number of diseases). Likewise, they found that the glycemic index/glycemic load ratio may play a key role in weight loss. So if you are having trouble moving that scale and you are eating enough calories and including the right types and amounts of your macro nutrients, consider lowering your glycemic load. When you look at the list and compare that with all those that talk about following a low carbohydrate diet and seeing results, perhaps you will find that maybe it was related more to changing the glycemic load and the amount of sugar the body had to process.
The Bottom Line
Your body needs carbohydrate energy every day, throughout the day. Your muscles need them if you are active and your brain needs them to keep you sharp and clear. It is important to be aware of simple carbohydrate intake and limit them when possible in favor of complex, whole grain options. For many people, making sure macro nutrient intake and total calorie intake are in line and balanced with activity is enough to reach weight loss goals. For other people, especially those with conditions that effect glucose metabolism, it is necessary to look at macro nutrients like carbohydrates a little closer to see weight loss success. Don't fall prey to the marketing and dieting ploy to use net carb as an evaluation tool. Instead, consider the foods that you typically eat and how they rate related to glycemic load. You may find that making some small modifications is all your body needs to see the results you desire.
Did you know that "net carbs" was not an official FDA definition? Have you ever thought about the glycemic load of your carbohydrate intake? Will you now?
 You will earn 3 SparkPoints |
NEXT ENTRY > Touching My Toes: What Goal Have You Achieved?
Comments
What it didn't teach was portion control. Just how to you measure 'plenty'? Why are are some seemingly healthy foods completely off limits?
The thought of eating as many fats as were allowed in that diet plan just made me gag. I've never been a big user of butter or sour cream or a big eater of things like bacon, sausage, and pork rinds.
SparkPeople filled me in on portion control. I learned that you can't eat 'plenty' of something just because it's got no carbs and you sure as heck can't eat 'plenty' of even the low carb vegetables because they still count up calories and will add weight. I learned that the quality of the food is more important than how many carbs it has (low carb bread, for instance, with white flour in it is still bad for you).
My doctor prescribed diebetic education classes filled me in on the rest: how to use the glycemic index and when, how to properly count those carbs. I learned I'd been starving myself because I thought that 1 carb serving meant 1 gram of carbs. I'd freak out when everything I tried to cook seemed to go over and I'd cut out foods with vital nutrients. The class taught me that 15 grams of carb = 1 carb serving for me and how many carb servings I'm allotted with each meal. Some of the stuff like butter, peanut butter, jams, and bread I still won't eat. I don't eat them because I don't feel well when I eat them. I've learned to eat the proper amounts of fruits and vegetables I'd previously thought off limits so that I can enjoy them without getting sick. I learned that I need to eat far more calories than I'd been previously told to eat.
Today, I combine these methods in a simple approach to cooking: if the first three ingredients on the label aren't a recognizable food source, we don't buy it. I cook with olive oil or other healthy heart oils instead of with butter. I eat my cheese in the right proportions. I use a food scale. Meat is a texture and flavor, not the main feature. We voluntarily cut the pork and beef out of our diet (I don't like how it tastes here and we can't afford the pork anyhow).
I've lost thirty-one pounds doing this. It's still a moderate low carb regimen but it's one approved by my doctor and dietitian. It works because certain types of foods make me ill (white flour breads and pastas come to mind, but processed potatoes are a close second) and I shouldn't be eating them anyhow. My blood sugars normalized. My triglycerides, HDL, and LDL are all in the healthy range without medications.
Most people also don't have to contend with a severely broken metabolism. Mine doesn't use the glucose as energy. It stores it all as fat, no matter what diet I'm one. The doctors are willing to deal with the moderate ketone production and monitor it and my kidneys carefully because it's the only way I WILL lose weight.
It DOESN'T work for everyone, but for me it does. The key was watching what kinds of carbs were being eaten and how many of them and in remembering that there's such thing as moderation. Ever actually measured out your dressings? 2 tbsp is A LOT. 3 ounces of meat is ENORMOUS. There's simply no need to eat more.
All I did was oust the 'plenty', make healthy food choices, and eat a variety of foods. It doesn't really matter that most of them are high fiber, moderate protein, and low carb. - 8/17/2009 1:48:45 PM
I thought more people would be educated past the days of "all you eat on Atkins is bacon and cheese". You DO eat carbs on Atkins!! Try it - getting in 20 carbs of vegetables a day is a lot! If you do it correctly, you eat more fruits and veggies than you would on most other plans. Once you get to your goal you are completely encouraged to start adding in complex carbs - while monitoring your body to find your personal healthy balance.
Food junkies can find a way to corrupt any plan to feed their addictions - just look at the way those "100 calorie packs" are selling! I truly believe that my body doesn't like processed food and eating healthy meals of meat and veggies will not hurt me - even if my recipes come from Dr Atkins books. - 8/17/2009 10:02:01 AM
just my two cents---and we all have our own two cents - 8/17/2009 2:29:44 AM
I do not think about the glycemic load or glycemic index of my carbs. All I care about is eating the healthiest ones, defined by me as foods that are recognizable by their source. That means veggies, fruit, and whole grains. I do eat multi-grain bread (not simple, flour-enriched breads), and I do eat crackers (Triscuits are great, whole-grain crackers), but I try to stay away from the processed, refined, boxed foods.
I also pair my carbs with protein whenever possible. Therefore, I'll have cheese and crackers, or meat and cheese sandwiches with lettuce, salad with shredded cheese, apples with peanut butter, etc. - 8/14/2009 11:42:38 AM
- 8/14/2009 11:42:37 AM
I can't remember who wrote the book regarding metabolic typing, anyway some people think that the reason some diets work for some and not others is because of our metabolic typing.
Personally I know that we all have differences in our bodies that cause our bodies to respond differently to foods and activity levels. I guess the sooner we accept that the more able we are to move on and find what works best for oneself. - 8/14/2009 11:39:26 AM
I have lost from 520 to 385, have got off two blood pressure meds and a thyroid med. I am able to go shopping without the use of a mart cart and am very happy that there was a doctor named Atkins. - 8/14/2009 11:09:13 AM
For years, at 5'6", I tried to keep to a 1500 - 1800 calorie diet, eating the "right" foods and steadily gaining weight. I considered myself a failure, exercised daily, would fall off the wagon on family gatherings and beat myself up. Fruit, veggetables (which I can only stomach when coated in butter), pasta, potatoes, rice and bread are like poison to me: if I want to be anywhere near my healthy weight I have to avoid much more than a taste of them.
I tried Atkins years ago and it worked: but I was scared off by all the stories of how unhealthy it was. Finally, a dietician told me that it was unhealthier to weigh what I weighed than to be on Atkins. God bless her. I have lost 40 lbs. and feel great with energy to burn and a smile on my face. I can go anywhere and eat within the range of 35-40 carbs and enjoy myself. No more points and measuring and worrying.
But I know it isn't for everyone. I just know that anything that makes me feel this good, look this well and full of energy, is OK for me.
- 8/14/2009 10:40:06 AM
- 8/14/2009 8:35:01 AM
- 8/14/2009 7:00:38 AM
The more fruits and vegetables I eat, the more apt I am to lose weight. When I upped my proteins I ate less freggies due to calorie constraints. And my weight held still.
Measure and weigh - I now can eat on average 15+ freggie portions daily and the weight drops, even now in the last few pounds. I find this satisfies my sweet tooth and my munchies without going over on my calories. The only downside is my carbs can be high with my fats low some days.
Balance and moderation.
Thanks for a great blog! - 8/14/2009 6:10:07 AM
- 8/14/2009 12:22:13 AM
Try http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm
http://www.gifoundation.com/glycemi
c_load_concept.htm
for more info on GL.
Good luck with your weight loss journey! - 8/13/2009 3:22:32 PM
I just try to follow general, common sense principles: very few processed foods, lots of fiber from natural sources, limited saturated fat, and some protein with every meal. Looking at my SparkPeople reports, I end up with a healthy balance that enables me to lose 1-2 lbs a week, without having to worry so much about the science behind it. - 8/13/2009 2:47:18 PM
I make sure I eat plenty of healthy carbohydrates i.e. whole wheat bread, pasta and cereals. I also eat plenty of fresh fruits and veggies. I tried going low carb once and it just did not work for me. No, it's not the carbs that made us fat, it's the crap that made us fat.
Great information !
thanks
- 8/13/2009 2:43:16 PM
i grew up in a household with a diabetic (my dad), so we were always careful on what we ate... however, i'm still seriously overweight! my father had his gall bladder out 10/2005, and i soon followed in 06/2006. i haven't been diagnosed with diabetes, but if i stay the way i am, i'm well on my way.
help on the GL thing??? - 8/13/2009 1:30:33 PM
I had thought when I lived in England for some months that their "Kelloggs" cereals tasted different (better, but then I'm not fond of sweet things) but it wasn't till the first GI/GL lists came out that I began to understand why. Now that I can compare labels online, I've learned a lot, and it's kept me out of the 'center' of our supermarkets more effectively than any other single piece of information I can recall.
The other thing that puzzles me is why we must rely on an Australian study (not because it's not good--it is). Why don't we have a US study based on US brands? My guess--the companies would rather we not know, and it's too expensive for an independent agency. (paranoid? maybe. cynical? no...just sad). The calculation's pretty complex, so it's not something most are likely to do for themselves.
- 8/13/2009 8:15:56 AM
Please Log In To Leave A Comment: Log in now ›