5 ms·

The problem is not just sugar, it's refined carbs in general. The idea that sugar is bad in great amount seems to have gone mainstream, but many people I know

The problem is not just sugar, it's refined carbs in general. The idea that sugar is bad in great amount seems to have gone mainstream, but many people I know who seem to be aware that sugar is bad and have lowered their intake are still just fine with pasta, rice, flour etc. This is the message we need to get out now. Not saying you need to completely drop your favorite refined carbs (pasta etc) but at least try to lower your intake like you do with sugar and prioritize unrefined carbs and green veggies instead.

markdown 6y ago
What happens in the refining process that turns a good carb into a bad carb? Why would cassava be good for you while cassava flour not be? Why would brown rice be good for you but not white rice? Personally, I find it hard to cut down on carbs because it's expensive to do so. Refined carbs are the cheapest source of energy.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Wheat feeds the world, and has for millennia.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  The husks of grains contain more fibre. Refined carbs are metabolised faster by your body into glucose, which goes rapidly to fat. Have you tried fresh food eg salads? They are delicious and filling in a way that keeps you sated longer than carbs without the highs and lows of energy and mood. It takes a bit of organisation to make a big salad every day, but once you get the hang of it, you feel better, big time.
  - markdown 6y ago
    > Have you tried fresh food eg salads? I love fresh veggies. I just can't afford to replace carbs with them. Veggies are expensive.
usrnm 6y ago
Rice is one of the main ingridients of various Asian cuisines, e.g. the Japanese one. And somehow Japan is one of the healthiest nations in the world. We've been eating bread for millenia, but, somehow, obesity has never been a major health problem until modern times. How do you explain all this?
- NullPrefix 6y ago
  >obesity has never been a major health problem until modern times I would suggest a link between abundance of food and obesity. Also sedentary lifestyle
  - carlmr 6y ago
    But we've had abundance of food in the 20th century long before the obesity epidemic.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      The US left subsistence farming behind around 1800 and had consistent surpluses ever since. You can see this in statistics of average height, they shoot up in the 1800's.
    - tremon 6y ago
      how "long"? Several studies have indicated (sorry, no sources) out that a person's diet during childhood affects the expressed genes of its offspring. There may be a generational lag (say, 20 years) between a change in diet and how it affects the population, it doesn't have to occur instantly.
    - blaser-waffle 6y ago
      We also had factory jobs, hands-on farm jobs, and plenty of other physical labor.
- andi999 6y ago
  I remember when talking to another tourist in Japan, he was like: this food is all crap, it is mostly carbohydrates. Nowadays I think, it probably doesnt matter what you eat, but how much.
tener 6y ago
Do you have a comprehensive study on refined carbs then? Somehow I don't think they are all quite as bad as the sugar is. Let's start with fixing the low hanging fruit before we step up the efforts.
A12-B 6y ago
The only difference between refined carbs and unrefined carbs is that the outer hull is milled off the grains. This makes refined carbs less nutritious, but it doesn't make them bad for you any more than unrefined carbs are.
pizza234 6y ago
Grains are entirely different beasts from simple sugars (sucrose/corn syrup), and lumping them together (which is what the Paleo advocates) is pretty much scaremongering to me. In practical terms, anybody who eats 100g of sugar, and 100g of pasta, will notice a huge difference. Paleo is very fashionable, but I wonder how many people will actually follow through in the long term (years), since eating very large amounts of meat is not realistically sustainable, in different ways (I have firsthand experience on this).
- carlmr 6y ago
  >In practical terms, anybody who eats 100g of sugar, and 100g of pasta, will notice a huge difference. I agree with you, but pasta is only 37% carbs. So 270g pasta (that's enough for 2 people!) and 100g sugar would need to be compared. However I still think this will be unfavorable to the sugar, since you won't be satiated for long, and the insulin crash will make you eat again soon. We can't ignore psychology on this, too. In the long run your hormones will beat your rational thinking, so you can of course theoretically lose weight on a high sugar diet, but you won't.
  - pizza234 6y ago
    > I agree with you, but pasta is only 37% carbs. So 270g pasta (that's enough for 2 people!) and 100g sugar would need to be compared. Curiously, we're mixing cooked vs. uncooked. I've always been using dry pasta weight as reference (as the pasta is weighted before), but in context, your observations are more precise :)
    - carlmr 6y ago
      I looked up dry, for cooked it would be 25% from what I found. But then it depends on how long you cook it.
rando14775 6y ago
Why though? They specifically suspect fructose of causing this, and starchy grains contain no fructose.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
That's needlessly absolute. A healthy diet consists of a good *balance* between the macronutrients carbs, fat and protein. Absolutism isn't doing anyone any good. That said, the average American diet is imbalanced in favor of carbs, with pretty much everything sweetened. My European diet is a lot more balanced out, we eat brown bread, regular pasta and rice, etc, all part of a balanced diet (can't beat a brown bread, ham and cheese sandwich. Real butter, because margarine is shit) The other problem the US diet has is portion sizes. American portions are big. As an occasional tourist I can appreciate it, but at the same time it's one reason behind the obesity crisis. The UK has a similar problem. Compared to where I'm from (NL), eating 'out' is affordable, and you can load up on a full English or a carvery for around 6 pounds. Drinking a ton of beer also seems to be normalized with a big percentage of the population.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  > "Real butter, because margarine is shit" I agree with your post, I just want to add something to this. Aside from just choosing between butter and margarine, there are also "spreadable butter" products, which mix butter with vegetable fats, for a spreadable consistency and a better saturated:unsaturated fats ratio. The one I have in my fridge right now tastes exactly like butter, but has ~500kcal per 100g instead of the ~700kcal in pure butter. The only downside is that it melts faster on warm toast. The ingredients are butter, rapeseed oil, water and salt, so it's not some weird industrial concoction. Do avoid the types with palm oil and such, though. They're less sustainable and I find them to have a slightly garlicky off taste.
- timbit42 6y ago
  We do not need carbs. We can live without any. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1vvigy5tQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1vvigy5tQ
marcyb5st 6y ago
Agreed. What worked wonders for me is buying a steamer. Now I add to every meal some steamed broccoli, cauliflower, Brussel sprouts, ... . The fibers in them keep me satiated for longer and I stopped snacking thanks to that. Additionally, those veggies help counter the estrogen-like hormones and after 2y of doing this my physique improved considerably without any major change in my exercise schedule / routine.
globular-toast 6y ago
Refined carbs aren't a problem, but what you do with them might be. Eating 200g of pasta with a low fat sauce is not good. But in France and Italy they eat bread and pasta a lot, but it always comes with butter or oil. 125g of pasta is enough for a man as a main meal if it's prepared the Italian way.
clairity 6y ago
for sure. i love sugar and eat entirely too much of it, but i'm not a big fan of other refined carbs like rice and pasta. a number of extended family members are the opposite, eating significant quantities of other refined carbs (but perhaps less sugar) and deal with obesity and other health issues. as bad as sugar can be, i suspect the other refined carbs are possibly even worse (other things being equal, of course).

markdown 6y ago

What happens in the refining process that turns a good carb into a bad carb? Why would cassava be good for you while cassava flour not be? Why would brown rice be good for you but not white rice? Personally, I find it hard to cut down on carbs because it's expensive to do so. Refined carbs are the cheapest source of energy.

WalterBright 6y ago
Wheat feeds the world, and has for millennia.
wombatmobile 6y ago
The husks of grains contain more fibre. Refined carbs are metabolised faster by your body into glucose, which goes rapidly to fat. Have you tried fresh food eg salads? They are delicious and filling in a way that keeps you sated longer than carbs without the highs and lows of energy and mood. It takes a bit of organisation to make a big salad every day, but once you get the hang of it, you feel better, big time.
- markdown 6y ago
  > Have you tried fresh food eg salads? I love fresh veggies. I just can't afford to replace carbs with them. Veggies are expensive.

usrnm 6y ago

Rice is one of the main ingridients of various Asian cuisines, e.g. the Japanese one. And somehow Japan is one of the healthiest nations in the world. We've been eating bread for millenia, but, somehow, obesity has never been a major health problem until modern times. How do you explain all this?

NullPrefix 6y ago
>obesity has never been a major health problem until modern times I would suggest a link between abundance of food and obesity. Also sedentary lifestyle
- carlmr 6y ago
  But we've had abundance of food in the 20th century long before the obesity epidemic.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    The US left subsistence farming behind around 1800 and had consistent surpluses ever since. You can see this in statistics of average height, they shoot up in the 1800's.
  - tremon 6y ago
    how "long"? Several studies have indicated (sorry, no sources) out that a person's diet during childhood affects the expressed genes of its offspring. There may be a generational lag (say, 20 years) between a change in diet and how it affects the population, it doesn't have to occur instantly.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    We also had factory jobs, hands-on farm jobs, and plenty of other physical labor.
andi999 6y ago
I remember when talking to another tourist in Japan, he was like: this food is all crap, it is mostly carbohydrates. Nowadays I think, it probably doesnt matter what you eat, but how much.

tener 6y ago

Do you have a comprehensive study on refined carbs then? Somehow I don't think they are all quite as bad as the sugar is. Let's start with fixing the low hanging fruit before we step up the efforts.

A12-B 6y ago

The only difference between refined carbs and unrefined carbs is that the outer hull is milled off the grains. This makes refined carbs less nutritious, but it doesn't make them bad for you any more than unrefined carbs are.

pizza234 6y ago

Grains are entirely different beasts from simple sugars (sucrose/corn syrup), and lumping them together (which is what the Paleo advocates) is pretty much scaremongering to me. In practical terms, anybody who eats 100g of sugar, and 100g of pasta, will notice a huge difference. Paleo is very fashionable, but I wonder how many people will actually follow through in the long term (years), since eating very large amounts of meat is not realistically sustainable, in different ways (I have firsthand experience on this).

carlmr 6y ago
>In practical terms, anybody who eats 100g of sugar, and 100g of pasta, will notice a huge difference. I agree with you, but pasta is only 37% carbs. So 270g pasta (that's enough for 2 people!) and 100g sugar would need to be compared. However I still think this will be unfavorable to the sugar, since you won't be satiated for long, and the insulin crash will make you eat again soon. We can't ignore psychology on this, too. In the long run your hormones will beat your rational thinking, so you can of course theoretically lose weight on a high sugar diet, but you won't.
- pizza234 6y ago
  > I agree with you, but pasta is only 37% carbs. So 270g pasta (that's enough for 2 people!) and 100g sugar would need to be compared. Curiously, we're mixing cooked vs. uncooked. I've always been using dry pasta weight as reference (as the pasta is weighted before), but in context, your observations are more precise :)
  - carlmr 6y ago
    I looked up dry, for cooked it would be 25% from what I found. But then it depends on how long you cook it.

rando14775 6y ago

Why though? They specifically suspect fructose of causing this, and starchy grains contain no fructose.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

That's needlessly absolute. A healthy diet consists of a good *balance* between the macronutrients carbs, fat and protein. Absolutism isn't doing anyone any good. That said, the average American diet is imbalanced in favor of carbs, with pretty much everything sweetened. My European diet is a lot more balanced out, we eat brown bread, regular pasta and rice, etc, all part of a balanced diet (can't beat a brown bread, ham and cheese sandwich. Real butter, because margarine is shit) The other problem the US diet has is portion sizes. American portions are big. As an occasional tourist I can appreciate it, but at the same time it's one reason behind the obesity crisis. The UK has a similar problem. Compared to where I'm from (NL), eating 'out' is affordable, and you can load up on a full English or a carvery for around 6 pounds. Drinking a ton of beer also seems to be normalized with a big percentage of the population.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
> "Real butter, because margarine is shit" I agree with your post, I just want to add something to this. Aside from just choosing between butter and margarine, there are also "spreadable butter" products, which mix butter with vegetable fats, for a spreadable consistency and a better saturated:unsaturated fats ratio. The one I have in my fridge right now tastes exactly like butter, but has ~500kcal per 100g instead of the ~700kcal in pure butter. The only downside is that it melts faster on warm toast. The ingredients are butter, rapeseed oil, water and salt, so it's not some weird industrial concoction. Do avoid the types with palm oil and such, though. They're less sustainable and I find them to have a slightly garlicky off taste.
timbit42 6y ago
We do not need carbs. We can live without any. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1vvigy5tQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1vvigy5tQ

marcyb5st 6y ago

Agreed. What worked wonders for me is buying a steamer. Now I add to every meal some steamed broccoli, cauliflower, Brussel sprouts, ... . The fibers in them keep me satiated for longer and I stopped snacking thanks to that. Additionally, those veggies help counter the estrogen-like hormones and after 2y of doing this my physique improved considerably without any major change in my exercise schedule / routine.

globular-toast 6y ago

Refined carbs aren't a problem, but what you do with them might be. Eating 200g of pasta with a low fat sauce is not good. But in France and Italy they eat bread and pasta a lot, but it always comes with butter or oil. 125g of pasta is enough for a man as a main meal if it's prepared the Italian way.

clairity 6y ago

for sure. i love sugar and eat entirely too much of it, but i'm not a big fan of other refined carbs like rice and pasta. a number of extended family members are the opposite, eating significant quantities of other refined carbs (but perhaps less sugar) and deal with obesity and other health issues. as bad as sugar can be, i suspect the other refined carbs are possibly even worse (other things being equal, of course).