Fat is NOT bad?

Rick King said:

Interesting article confirms what we already know, but I bet Ornish would
have a cow over it.

http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm/cmi_1864882/cid_1/

"In other words, fat doesn't make you fat. And, in my opinion, it also doesn't
make you sick.

What does seem to matter, however, is the type of fat and the type of
carbohydrate eaten. Let's look at the carbs first. Processed carbs -- which
are most of the carbs that come in boxes and packages -- are seen by the
body as a big lump of sugar. They're deadly. And they drive triglycerides
through the roof.

Carbs from vegetables and fruits -- and the ocasional whole grain -- are
loaded with fiber, which are associated with a king's ransom of good health
effects, including moderating blood sugar and insulin. You can be on a
low-carb or controlled-carb regimen and still consume a ton of these good
carbs.

I think most of us would disagree that you can be on LC and still
consume a ton of vegetables and fruits. You can certainly eat
reasonable amounts of the right ones from the list, but leaving it open
to eating "tons" of say grapes and potatoes is misleading. the rest of
it sounds pretty reasonable advice.

What you can't consume -- at least if you want to lose weight -- is

Quoted message said:

pasta, bread, baked goods and commercial cereals.

You can however, consume fat. And you should."

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Rick King wrote:
::: Interesting article confirms what we already know, but I bet Ornish
::: would have a cow over it.
:::
::: http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm/cmi_1864882/cid_1/
:::
::: "In other words, fat doesn't make you fat. And, in my opinion, it
::: also doesn't make you sick.
:::
::: What does seem to matter, however, is the type of fat and the type
::: of carbohydrate eaten. Let's look at the carbs first. Processed
::: carbs -- which are most of the carbs that come in boxes and
::: packages -- are seen by the
::: body as a big lump of sugar. They're deadly. And they drive
::: triglycerides through the roof.
:::
::: Carbs from vegetables and fruits -- and the ocasional whole grain
::: -- are loaded with fiber, which are associated with a king's ransom
::: of good health effects, including moderating blood sugar and
::: insulin. You can be on a low-carb or controlled-carb regimen and
::: still consume a ton of these good carbs.
::
:: I think most of us would disagree that you can be on LC and still
:: consume a ton of vegetables and fruits. You can certainly eat
:: reasonable amounts of the right ones from the list, but leaving it
:: open to eating "tons" of say grapes and potatoes is misleading. the
:: rest of it sounds pretty reasonable advice.

Makes you wonder if the author really practices what he preaches.

I still maintain that the notion of "good carbs" is silly and not a good
term to use.

::
::
::
::
:: What you can't consume -- at least if you want to lose weight -- is
::: pasta, bread, baked goods and commercial cereals.
:::
::: You can however, consume fat. And you should."

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

I still maintain that the notion of "good carbs" is silly and not a good
term to use.

I kind of disagree. I have no problem believing that colorful, leafy,
fibrous veggies and fruits are more beneficial to health than starchy
ones, or high GI ones.

That said, it doesn't mean you can eat boatloads of any of them.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: I still maintain that the notion of "good carbs" is silly and not a
::: good term to use.
::
:: I kind of disagree. I have no problem believing that colorful,
:: leafy, fibrous veggies and fruits are more beneficial to health than
:: starchy ones, or high GI ones.

See, that's what gets me. Those colorful, leafy, fibrous veggies and fruits
that we both believe are good parts of the diet aren't "carbs", so why are
we calling them that? If we take it to the limit, we might as well refer to
meat as "good carbs".

I don't have problems with phrases such as "carby foods" and such. Also, I
believe a "carb" is a "carb" and if you get too many (YMMV) you could have
problems. It's hard to get too many carbs from broccoli.

::
:: That said, it doesn't mean you can eat boatloads of any of them.
::
:: Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

See, that's what gets me. Those colorful, leafy, fibrous veggies and fruits
that we both believe are good parts of the diet aren't "carbs", so why are
we calling them that? If we take it to the limit, we might as well refer to
meat as "good carbs".

They are carbs, in macronutrient breakdown. Virtually all of their
calories come from carbs. They're low carb, low glycemic, highly
nutrient dense, which makes them a no brainer carb choice vs. starch.

Quoted message said:

I don't have problems with phrases such as "carby foods" and such. Also, I
believe a "carb" is a "carb" and if you get too many (YMMV) you could have
problems. It's hard to get too many carbs from broccoli.

That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of eating
enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow full. That's
why broccoli and salad are "good carbs."

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: See, that's what gets me. Those colorful, leafy, fibrous veggies
::: and fruits that we both believe are good parts of the diet aren't
::: "carbs", so why are we calling them that? If we take it to the
::: limit, we might as well refer to meat as "good carbs".
::
:: They are carbs, in macronutrient breakdown. Virtually all of their
:: calories come from carbs. They're low carb, low glycemic, highly
:: nutrient dense, which makes them a no brainer carb choice vs. starch.
::

Well, if you look at 1 cup of broccoli from fitday, you get

Total Carbs: 4.61g
Fiber: 2.64g
===================>Net Carbs: 1.94g
Protein: 2.62g

Cals from carbs = 1.94*4 = 8
Cals from protein = 2.62*4 = 10.48

So, they are as much, or more, protein as carbs. Yes, they are low carb &
nutrient dense which is all that counts. So is meat.

::: I don't have problems with phrases such as "carby foods" and such.
::: Also, I believe a "carb" is a "carb" and if you get too many (YMMV)
::: you could have problems. It's hard to get too many carbs from
::: broccoli.
::
:: That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of eating
:: enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow full.
:: That's why broccoli and salad are "good carbs."

They are low-calorie foods that take up space in the gut and provide
nutrients, but it's unfair to call them "carbs," good or bad. They are good
foods. How can something that barely contains carbs be called a "good
carb"? It makes no sense unless you consider "no carb = good carb", so we
can call meat a good carb, too. 🙂

Quoted post said:

I think most of us would disagree that you can be on LC and still
consume a ton of vegetables and fruits.

Maybe not 'a ton', but you can be on LC and eat more vegetables than
many non-LCers. I know plenty of people who never eat a green
vegetable unless they forget to have McDonald's leave the lettuce off
their burger. People who think having potatoes, rice, and corn as
side dishes at the same meal make it well-rounded because it has three
"vegetables." You can easily eat more vegetables on LC than the
typical fast food eater, even on Induction.

Fruits are a little tougher, since people do eat a lot of apples and
oranges and we're pretty much restricted to berries, but the LC fruits
are also very high in fiber and good for you. They tend to be a lot
more expensive, though, while LC vegetables like broccoli generally
aren't.

--
Aaron -- [email hidden] -- 285/245/200
http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher

Susan said:

That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of
eating enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow
full. That's why broccoli and salad are "good carbs."

I think the reason people are balking at calling broccoli a "good
carb" is that it makes it sound like the carbs in some foods are
better than the carbs in others. Broccoli is good because it has few
carbs, not because the carbs in broccoli are superior to those in a
potato.

--
Aaron -- [email hidden] -- 285/245/200
http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher

x-no-archive: yes

Aaron Baugher said:

Susan said:

That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of
eating enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow
full. That's why broccoli and salad are "good carbs."

I think the reason people are balking at calling broccoli a "good
carb" is that it makes it sound like the carbs in some foods are
better than the carbs in others. Broccoli is good because it has few
carbs, not because the carbs in broccoli are superior to those in a
potato.

I disagree; broccoli is a good carb because it also is more nutrient dense.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Well, if you look at 1 cup of broccoli from fitday, you get
:::
::: Total Carbs: 4.61g
::: Fiber: 2.64g
::: ===================>Net Carbs: 1.94g
::: Protein: 2.62g
:::
::: Cals from carbs = 1.94*4 = 8
::: Cals from protein = 2.62*4 = 10.48
:::
::: So, they are as much, or more, protein as carbs. Yes, they are low
::: carb & nutrient dense which is all that counts. So is meat.
::
:: Not actually. It has more carbs by weight; you have to count the
:: fiber, it is carbohyrate and contrary to popular belief, about half
:: of it or more is digested,

That all depends on the type of fiber, etc. Most of these non-starchy
veggies just don't have much of anything calorific, but they aren't
exclusively carbs.

Lyle once posted cites for this. The
:: fact that some of it is not digested makes it desirable carbs.

Makes it low in carbs that can convert to glucose in the body....

:: Further, I'm talking about more than just broccoli.

Me too, but you didn't expect me to list numbers for all the LC veggies, did
you? 🙂

::
::: They are low-calorie foods that take up space in the gut and provide
::: nutrients, but it's unfair to call them "carbs," good or bad.
::
:: Once more; vegetables have lots more nutrition per calorie or gram
:: than starchy or sugary carbs, therefore, they are good carbs.

Once more; they are "good foods" for that reason.

:: Ignoring GI/GL and all that for a moment, they are far more nutrient
:: dense, making them a superior nutritional choice, whether or not
:: you're fat, diabetic or skinny and healthy.

Preach on!

::
:: > They are good
::: foods. How can something that barely contains carbs be called a
::: "good carb"?
::
:: That's why it's a better carb; few calories, but a LOT of
:: phytonutrients.

That's why it's a better food; few calories, but a LOT of
phytonutrients. 🙂

::
:: > It makes no sense unless you consider "no carb = good carb", so we
::: can call meat a good carb, too. 🙂
::
:: I think I'm typing in English... ;-)

Me too! 🙂

::
:: Roger, I'm not just counting the carbs, I'm examining the nutritional
:: content.

Me too, Susan.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Aaron Baugher wrote:
::: Susan <[email hidden]> writes:
:::
:::
:::: That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of
:::: eating enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow
:::: full. That's why broccoli and salad are "good carbs."
:::
:::
::: I think the reason people are balking at calling broccoli a "good
::: carb" is that it makes it sound like the carbs in some foods are
::: better than the carbs in others. Broccoli is good because it has
::: few carbs, not because the carbs in broccoli are superior to those
::: in a potato.
::
:: I disagree; broccoli is a good carb because it also is more nutrient
:: dense.

But, it were just as nutrient dense but contained a packing whollop of carbs
then it wouldn't be so good, by your definition, because it wouldn' be low
carb. Food must provide nutrition as well as energy. In that light, some
could claim that broccoli is pretty much unless in terms of providing energy
to the body for high-performance activity. In that instance, a potato with
skin is a lot more useful than broccoli. The carbs in a potato are not
"bad" in and of themselves. They can provide useful energy in the right
physical system (someone producing explosive or long duration bouts of
physical expediture). It's when carbs are excessive and typically combined
with excessive calories that problems begin.

Hey, all, meat is a good carb!

Aaron Baugher said:

Susan said:

That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of
eating enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow
full. That's why broccoli and salad are "good carbs."

I think the reason people are balking at calling broccoli a "good
carb" is that it makes it sound like the carbs in some foods are
better than the carbs in others. Broccoli is good because it has few
carbs, not because the carbs in broccoli are superior to those in a
potato.

Yes, that's a goof way of explaining it.

Quoted message said:

--
Aaron -- [email hidden] -- 285/245/200
http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Aaron Baugher wrote:
::: Susan <[email hidden]> writes:
:::
:::: That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of
:::: eating enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow
:::: full. That's why broccoli and salad are "good carbs."
:::
::: I think the reason people are balking at calling broccoli a "good
::: carb" is that it makes it sound like the carbs in some foods are
::: better than the carbs in others. Broccoli is good because it has
::: few carbs, not because the carbs in broccoli are superior to those
::: in a potato.
:::
:::
::
:: Yes, that's a goof way of explaining it.

Goof? 🙂

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

That all depends on the type of fiber, etc.

Some fiber is under 2 calories per gram, some is over. You deducted it
as if it weren't present.

Most of these non-starchy

Quoted message said:

veggies just don't have much of anything calorific, but they aren't
exclusively carbs.

Eggs each have a gram of carb, but they're still a protein food, no? If
we can't agree that vegetables are a carbohydrate group, there's no
point in proceeding.

Quoted message said:

Lyle once posted cites for this. The
:: fact that some of it is not digested makes it desirable carbs.

Makes it low in carbs that can convert to glucose in the body....

Not just lower, but slower. You seem to insist that only one thing can
be true at a time. Most things are more complex than you're giving them
credit for.

Quoted message said:

:: Further, I'm talking about more than just broccoli.

Me too, but you didn't expect me to list numbers for all the LC veggies, did
you? 🙂

Most are lower in fat and protein than broccoli. Just sayinzall. :-)

Quoted message said:

::: They are low-calorie foods that take up space in the gut and provide
::: nutrients, but it's unfair to call them "carbs," good or bad.
::
:: Once more; vegetables have lots more nutrition per calorie or gram
:: than starchy or sugary carbs, therefore, they are good carbs.

Once more; they are "good foods" for that reason.

They're good carbs, compared to starch, which isn't even suitable for
animal feed, IMO.

Quoted message said:

:: Ignoring GI/GL and all that for a moment, they are far more nutrient
:: dense, making them a superior nutritional choice, whether or not
:: you're fat, diabetic or skinny and healthy.

Preach on!

I think I'm done.

Quoted message said:

::
:: > They are good
::: foods. How can something that barely contains carbs be called a
::: "good carb"?
::
:: That's why it's a better carb; few calories, but a LOT of
:: phytonutrients.

That's why it's a better food; few calories, but a LOT of
phytonutrients. 🙂

Carb is a subset off food. Saying it's a good food doesn't negate that
it's also a good carb. There you go with that either/or black/white
stuff again.

Quoted message said:

::
:: > It makes no sense unless you consider "no carb = good carb", so we
::: can call meat a good carb, too. 🙂
::
:: I think I'm typing in English... ;-)

Me too! 🙂

Quoted message said:

::
:: Roger, I'm not just counting the carbs, I'm examining the nutritional
:: content.

Me too, Susan.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Foin.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

But, it were just as nutrient dense but contained a packing whollop of carbs
then it wouldn't be so good, by your definition, because it wouldn' be low
carb.

It would still be a "good" carb compared to starch, which isn't nutrient
dense and oxidizes rapidly. I just wouldn't eat it as liberally.

Quoted message said:

Food must provide nutrition as well as energy.

ExSQUEZE moi, but I'm the one who keeps coming back to nutrients, here!
Most folks get too much energy, and too little nutrition.

In that light, some

Quoted message said:

could claim that broccoli is pretty much unless in terms of providing energy
to the body for high-performance activity.

Couldn't parse this sentence...

In that instance, a potato with

Quoted message said:

skin is a lot more useful than broccoli. The carbs in a potato are not
"bad" in and of themselves. They can provide useful energy in the right
physical system (someone producing explosive or long duration bouts of
physical expediture). It's when carbs are excessive and typically combined
with excessive calories that problems begin.

Hey, all, meat is a good carb!

If there's any logic here, it escaped me. Non sequitir.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Yes, that's a goof way of explaining it.

You got THAT right, however unintentially.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: But, it were just as nutrient dense but contained a packing whollop
::: of carbs then it wouldn't be so good, by your definition, because
::: it wouldn' be low carb.
::
:: It would still be a "good" carb compared to starch, which isn't
:: nutrient dense and oxidizes rapidly. I just wouldn't eat it as
:: liberally.
::
:: > Food must provide nutrition as well as energy.
::
:: ExSQUEZE moi, but I'm the one who keeps coming back to nutrients,
:: here! Most folks get too much energy, and too little nutrition.

Come on, you're not the only one talking nutrients.

::
:: In that light, some
::: could claim that broccoli is pretty much unless in terms of
::: providing energy to the body for high-performance activity.
::
:: Couldn't parse this sentence...

Replace "unless" with "useless".

::
:: In that instance, a potato with
::: skin is a lot more useful than broccoli. The carbs in a potato are
::: not "bad" in and of themselves. They can provide useful energy in
::: the right physical system (someone producing explosive or long
::: duration bouts of physical expediture). It's when carbs are
::: excessive and typically combined with excessive calories that
::: problems begin.
:::
::: Hey, all, meat is a good carb!
:::
:::
::
:: If there's any logic here, it escaped me. Non sequitir.

Meat provides nutrients and is low in carbs.

::
:: Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: But, it were just as nutrient dense but contained a packing whollop
::: of carbs then it wouldn't be so good, by your definition, because
::: it wouldn' be low carb.
::
:: It would still be a "good" carb compared to starch, which isn't
:: nutrient dense and oxidizes rapidly. I just wouldn't eat it as
:: liberally.
::
:: > Food must provide nutrition as well as energy.
::
:: ExSQUEZE moi, but I'm the one who keeps coming back to nutrients,
:: here! Most folks get too much energy, and too little nutrition.

Come on, you're not the only one talking nutrients.

Well, yeah, my point was that they're the difference between good and
bad carbs. It's the whole distinction, a distinction you don't make.

I also distinguish between protein, fat and carbs.

Quoted message said:

::
:: In that light, some
::: could claim that broccoli is pretty much unless in terms of
::: providing energy to the body for high-performance activity.
::
:: Couldn't parse this sentence...

Replace "unless" with "useless".

Okay... but we weren't talking about energy, which also comes from
protein converted to glucose, we were talking about quality.

Quoted message said:

::
:: In that instance, a potato with
::: skin is a lot more useful than broccoli.

Then one would want to eat fruit rather than broccoli, not a potato.
Broccoli isn't the only non starchy carb.

The carbs in a potato are

Quoted message said:

::: not "bad" in and of themselves.

Well, yeah, they are. They are higher GI than table sugar, and
relatively nutritionally impoverished.

They can provide useful energy in

Quoted message said:

::: the right physical system (someone producing explosive or long
::: duration bouts of physical expediture). It's when carbs are
::: excessive and typically combined with excessive calories that
::: problems begin.

I'm not going to argue against controlling calories, but a potato is a
choice to make only if no other, nutritious food is available.

Quoted message said:

:::
::: Hey, all, meat is a good carb!
:::
:::
::
:: If there's any logic here, it escaped me. Non sequitir.

Meat provides nutrients and is low in carbs.

Meat is virtually carb free, but 58% of the protein converts to glucose.
Much more slowly than a potato, so the energy lasts and doesn't do any
physiological damage.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: That all depends on the type of fiber, etc.
::
:: Some fiber is under 2 calories per gram, some is over. You deducted
:: it as if it weren't present.

Right, so being faced with not knowing which is the case for broccoli, I
just treated as it didn't count. Big deal. For all practical matters,
broccoli is a zero carb food. None will get a spike eating it, and it not
because of the type of carb in it, because because there is little carb
there.

::
:: Most of these non-starchy
::: veggies just don't have much of anything calorific, but they aren't
::: exclusively carbs.
::
:: Eggs each have a gram of carb, but they're still a protein food, no?

Eggs are a good source of protein and fat, yes.

:: If we can't agree that vegetables are a carbohydrate group, there's
:: no point in proceeding.

We're already into this now. Obviously, veggies span a wide range of carbs.
Some are way more carby that others, so saying veggies are carbs is, again,
silly. Do we get to say that fruits are carbs, too? Is meat protein or fat?

::
:::
::: Lyle once posted cites for this. The
::::: fact that some of it is not digested makes it desirable carbs.
:::
::: Makes it low in carbs that can convert to glucose in the body....
::
:: Not just lower, but slower.

I'm not convinced of that. That claim is made for lots of fiber-rich grain
based foods, too. And IFAIC, it wrong to call them carbs, too.

You seem to insist that only one thing
:: can be true at a time. Most things are more complex than you're
:: giving them credit for.

I don't think I'm insisting that only one thing can be true at a time...The
fact is, most foods don't have that much fiber anyway.

::
:::
::::: Further, I'm talking about more than just broccoli.
:::
::: Me too, but you didn't expect me to list numbers for all the LC
::: veggies, did you? 🙂
::
:: Most are lower in fat and protein than broccoli. Just sayinzall.
:: :-)
::
:::::: They are low-calorie foods that take up space in the gut and
:::::: provide nutrients, but it's unfair to call them "carbs," good or
:::::: bad.
:::::
::::: Once more; vegetables have lots more nutrition per calorie or gram
::::: than starchy or sugary carbs, therefore, they are good carbs.
:::
::: Once more; they are "good foods" for that reason.
::
:: They're good carbs, compared to starch, which isn't even suitable for
:: animal feed, IMO.

That really depends. One couldn't survive for long on just brocolli or just
the inside of a potato. One provides nutrients other other energy. The
body needs both.

::
:::
::::: Ignoring GI/GL and all that for a moment, they are far more
::::: nutrient dense, making them a superior nutritional choice,
::::: whether or not you're fat, diabetic or skinny and healthy.
:::
::: Preach on!
::
:: I think I'm done.
::
:::
:::
:::::
::::: > They are good
:::::: foods. How can something that barely contains carbs be called a
:::::: "good carb"?
:::::
::::: That's why it's a better carb; few calories, but a LOT of
::::: phytonutrients.
:::
::: That's why it's a better food; few calories, but a LOT of
::: phytonutrients. 🙂
::
:: Carb is a subset off food. Saying it's a good food doesn't negate
:: that it's also a good carb. There you go with that either/or
:: black/white stuff again.

A carb is a carb in the body. We don't eat them as food in isolation. We eat
combinations of food, which provides carbs, protein, fat and nutrients. LC
veggies provide carbs that act the same way in the body as the carbs from an
egg, do. They simply provide very few carbs, good nutrition, and few
calories. Saying they are a "good carb" (a black/white argument) is just
wrong, as they aren't only carbs, and they've very little of that. Last
time I checked, *foods* weren't labeled strictly as fats, carbs, and
protein (unless there some serious processing going on). It's more complex
than that.

::
:::
:::::
::::: > It makes no sense unless you consider "no carb = good carb",
::::: so we
:::::: can call meat a good carb, too. 🙂
:::::
::::: I think I'm typing in English... ;-)
:::
::: Me too! 🙂
::
::
:::
:::::
::::: Roger, I'm not just counting the carbs, I'm examining the
::::: nutritional content.
:::
::: Me too, Susan.
:::
::: I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
:::
:::
::
:: Foin.
::
:: Susan