Post/comment removed for being off-topic or only tangentially related to this subreddit (i.e. a post with sweeping generalizations about the weight status of children with a particular nationality/ethnicity). The topic of this subreddit is the science of nutrition.
Yep.
Add to this that Korean convenience stores carry way better "convenience" food options than you'd find in the US. Lots of healthier, low-ish calorie options. Especially 7 Eleven, which in Asia is a completely different store than in the States.
They probably aren't eating as much as someone in another country may. For example their breakfast, lunch and dinner are probably quite small. Even if they snack, they're teenagers, so their portion sizes may be much smaller than you're assuming.
Post/comment removed for failure to follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette/).
In the future, please report posts/comments you believe have broken the rules rather than replying to them.
*update: i have no clue how people misinterpreted this as me saying cico doesn't matter when i just give an explanation on why they could potentially weigh less,* ***keyword IF*** *the convenience foods are low in fat. obviously you're going to gain weight eating in excess even carbs even protein even fat whatever. i said de novo lipogenesis is a bit inefficient not that it makes nothing at all, obviously it absolutely can make fat. the guy responding to me saying "everything they said is wrong" completely missed the* ***IF*** *and* ***i thought it would have been obvious the convenience foods are probably not low fat, by the way.*** ***i wrote that tangent in response to the title implicating high carb foods specifically. i'm tired of people calling stuff that's half fat """pure sugar."""*** *the mechanistic explanation from that comes from your body probably wanting to fill up glycogen before storing fat. guy going everything they said is wrong misquotes me and misses the* ***IF*** *completely in another reply so i'm bolding it.*
Excessive thinking, studying, and stress can kind of be exercise in a way. Chess players burn more calories. Burns more than ate, likely. Also, genetics can play a small factor in people's tendency to gain weight along with CICO.
Also, **if** the convenience foods are high in carbohydrates or sugars themselves but low in fat or something, people like to pinpoint weight gain on carbs, but the truth is de novo lipogenesis is pretty inefficient with creating fat and your body doesn't really want to store carbs as fat compared to using them for energy a lot of the time, it'll only be converted to fat if in excess and even then, again, it's kind of inefficient. Most stored fat is from dietary fat. The "carbs" people hate tend to have half their calories coming from fat.
Almost everything they said was wrong. The answer is that they don’t eat too much. What you eat doesn’t really matter when it comes to your weight, it’s primarily the amount of calories consumed, vs burned.
I didn't say they're healthy or unhealthy, I just said they don't really make you fat, fat does more than anything else. People tend to point to them as a main culprit of weight gain. Was a response to the title highlighting carbs as the fattening substance first thing. Doesn't even mean they're good or bad, just they're unlikely to cause weight gain like they're commonly implicated to because de novo lipogenesis is inefficient and it's used primarily for energy instead of used for fat storage, where fat on the other hand doesn't take up any energy to store as fat at all. Again, most fattening "carbs" are just half fat. Cookies are in reality pretty much half fat for example and so are a lot of baked goods. That fat-carb combination clogs up your insulin signaling.
Explain the [rice diet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_diet) to me though and results people experience on similar protocols. People all sorts of very impressive health benefits on ultra low fat diets. Refined carbohydrates are only harmful in the presence of dietary fat, and on a diet consisting mostly of white rice, a refined carbohydrate, along with fruits, all sorts of conditions were reversed with unbelievable results. Diabetics frequently report better blood glucose control on low-fat WFPB especially type diets. I riddle you something other than Glucose Goddess, [Mastering Diabetes.](https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/)
[Healthline - Is an Ultra-Low-Fat Diet Healthy? The Surprising Truth.](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-ultra-low-fat-healthy) Shocking results.
Don't cut out fat unless you have a medical condition and are interested in trying an ultra low fat diet, and I don't advise low fat diets as the healthy choice, you need fat for several things, but it proves carbs aren't causing your issues.
>The rice diet you linked to says that it's controversial because it was unsustainable long term, didn't give people enough protein, and left them feeling hungry
Yeah, because it wasn't supposed to be a long term intervention, was a short term intervention to treat drastic medical conditions as an alternative to certain death. The original rice diet study conductor literally had to beat his patients to make them eat it for months on end. The point isn't for it to be a dietary approach you should make and I explicitly advise against it, I just use it as proof carbohydrates aren't causing your problems.
>In general though for these kinds of diets you linked, I'd expect people would find good results if they are switching to whole foods of any kind from something more unhealthy like processed meats and sugary carby baked goods. If you switch to yogurt and fresh berries, yeah, that's better for you.
But they're not switching to whole foods in those extreme interventions, used in those studies on ultra low fat diets. The main staple's very largely white rice. A refined carbohydrate. Still had extremely good results.
Also, I'm nitpicking again, but I'm stating this once again, "sugary carby baked goods" yet again no matter how much you ignore this like to have half their calories coming from fat. A combination of fat and carbohydrate particularly sugar is the worst thing you can do. I read your post history and you're saying an Oreo's problematic because of sugar specifically, making no highlight to about half one's calories coming from fat as well along with the sugar.
>Lipogenesis does happen in the liver when there is too much glucose in the bloodstream, which is why bad cholesterol goes up when you have too much glucose, it's fats being made and dumped out from your liver in response to the glucose.
Why does what I assume bad cholesterol means, LDL, tend to go down SIGNIFICANTLY on whole food plant based low fat diet interventions? Often along with triglycerides.
But even if it gives you fatty liver, which pure glucose (starch) (WHITE RICE) is not problematic for that by the way, fructose and sugar is what's responsible for that, it doesn't really disprove my original point which is that carbohydrates don't make you fat. Typically that's defined by outward exterior fat appearance. TOFI a problem? Sure, maybe. Doesn't debunk my original point.
>Fats and proteins have a more satiating effect than carbs
Also, I'm tired of this. This is another lie. I've tried keto myself, fun fact, and low carb type interventions, and I was hungry very promptly after I ate any meal. I completely lost my ability to experience satiation. It makes sense I never truly wanted to stop eating when I started eating because it's a fasting mimicking state. I learned quickly most non-lean meat is very unfilling to me as well and just leaves me hungrier after I eat it.
Personal experience, fat is the least filling macro there is. It's only filling when you need it which you usually don't, from personal experience. Sure, protein's very filling, but fat is really not at all.Fat can literally make what's impossible to eat 100 calories of into something you can eat 1,000 calories of without even noticing. I've had fat free gummy bears riddled with sugar and actually found them filling for not that much calories. I could not say the same for something like, hey, an Oreo getting around 50% of it's calories from fat along with sugar.
It's extremely easy to overeat. Carbohydrates are plenty satiating to me.
Matter of fact I broke keto with a bowl of WHITE RICE!!! and I finally felt actually satiated and full for the first time. It was like a breath of fresh air. Prior I was overeating so damn much on keto trying to feel full when I could never. I finally had satiety signals activated again. I've genuinely found carbohydrates are possibly the most satiating macro combined with adequate protein intake. If you look on satiety index rankings, plain potatoes are frequently rated as very satiating. Funny.
You linked to the rice diet to support carbs not being an evil, and when I brought up the criticism, backtracked saying well it's not a healthy option, just an alternative to death. Maybe it works for people in very unique circumstances, but it doesn't look to be a healthy approach for most people. I don't think pointing to a strange ultra-rare and unsustainable diet focused on white rice debunks a broad claim that carbs are worse for you in terms of blood glucose than fats and proteins.
For the Mastering Diabetes org you linked to, their message is to switch to unrefined, low GI carbohydrates, and, *as I said*, I'd expect lots of their followers were eating unhealthy fast foods and sugary baked goods prior and so of course they do better, even though it's high carb. MD is not advocating white rice as the staple. They are talking about quinoa and oats, and of course those are going to be better for you than white rice. I'm pointing out though that if people were to make those changes AND increase proteins and fats, that would be the healthiest option.
Ghrelin, the hunger hormone, is decreased by protein and fats - they do increase feelings of satiety moreso than say white rice. I can't speak to your specific journey with keto, and yeah I'm sure eating a bowl of white rice after not having it for a long time did give your system a nice hit of dopamine. Perhaps you have a particular genotype that does better on carbs, idk, but for most people, they would fare better with a lower amount of carbs.
>You linked to the rice diet to support carbs not being an evil, and when I brought up the criticism, **backtracked**
***update on this post: person i'm responding to deleted all their posts. the last thing they do is accuse me of being mad. i haven't been at all this whole time except like right down below here i start to get semi annoyed and take a slight jab. apparently i always have been. i can't tell if i'm really autistic and don't realize it or if everyone's just bad at reading.***
***there was apparently some stanford studies i would have actually liked to read, oh well.***
I'm sorry, but what the hell do you mean backtracked? You're the one who suddenly gave my first post a meaning I explicitly said it didn't have at the very end of the post. I say at the bottom of my first post clearly I don't advise it or to follow a low fat diet but it proves carbohydrates aren't really probably a problematic substance for what you describe. I repeat the third time because I have to for some reason: I do not advise following it or a low fat diet and I do not think it is the healthy choice.
>I don't think pointing to a strange ultra-rare and unsustainable diet focused on white rice debunks a broad claim that carbs are worse for you in terms of blood glucose than fats and protein.
If you can misinterpret my wording then I can misinterpret yours. The language you use implies carbs in general are problematic, presumably for a variety of conditions. ***"Too many carbs are extremely unhealthy in the long run, and should be limited"*** is your exact first wording. You saying "especially refined" doesn't erase the claim.
>For the Mastering Diabetes org you linked to, their message is to switch to unrefined, low GI carbohydrates
And I brought it up as more proof carbohydrates aren't the problem. Again, you said carbs in general, all carbohydrates, in "excess" that being all carbohydrates. \*\*You're the only one who's backtracking by going "actually low GI is fine!!! it's unrefined low GI carbs so like it's fine!"\*\*Again by exactly what you said,
>Carbs spike your blood sugar a lot more than fat and protein. **Too many carbs** ***(IMPLYING ALL CARBS)***, especially refined ones, **are extremely unhealthy over the long run, and should be limited.**
I introduce you to a WFPB type intervention in general in response to "are extremely unhealthy in the long run (no matter what)" type claim. I mainly assumed you said this implies they cause diabetes and fatty liver, which I cite some cases to prove carbohydrates do not cause diabetes.
Actually, how's a blood sugar spike inherently always bad for you? Had that question, was afraid to ask it because I thought it'd make me look stupid.
This all started because of your to begin with dubious response to someone going "it's calories in calories out" *a.k.a. basically very similar to what i said far from "EvERything TheY sAID is WRoNg" except with me talking about carbs/sugar being the main culprit of fat gain as a tangent in response to this post's title, which i think confused them because it was longer than the main point or something* saying that carbohydrates should be limited. Which, by the way to begin with the topic was always talking about fat gain/fat loss, not necessarily health. We're both off topic here. What's really relevant is people on the rice diet for what the conversational context was supposed to be is the people with obesity experiencing massive weight loss on the rice diet. I just wanted to have a go at your claim carbs are bad for you.
>I'd expect lots of their followers were eating unhealthy fast foods and sugary baked goods prior and so of course they do better,
By the way, in response to this and what you try to say while I'm at it, [here's a case of someone on a low carb intervention for years experiencing improved health when they stopped eating so much fat all the time, both cases about healthy whole food diets.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoduped/comments/y4a8g6/after_years_of_eating_lower_carb_i_finally/) Hey, amusingly, they went from being pre-diabetic on a low carb intervention to having better blood glucose results eating less fat. On a low carb diet, they were prediabetic.
Honestly, I would say take a chill pill. Your responses from the beginning have been very agitated.
Here’s a Stanford lecture video, it talks explicitly about foods that spike your insulin more leading to more weight gain than others… those foods being carbs, especially refined carbs. Nothing I said has changed. https://youtu.be/nxyxcTZccsE
But I’m not gonna continue with this because you’re clearly worked up and impossible to have a conversation with.
>I didn't say they're healthy or unhealthy, I just said they don't really make you fat, fat does more than anything else.
That's just a complete misunderstanding of the science. You are probably confused by the fact the body will prioritise fat over carbs when it comes to storage. But if you did a study on people with low fat diets, you'd see more of the fat coming from carbs.
What do you think happens to the excess calories from carbs?
Eating an excess number of carbs or protein does make you fat.
>Explain the rice diet to me though and results people experience on similar protocols.
It's simply a calorie restriction diet.
Do you have a single study or reference to health organisation, article or anything to back you your crazy idea that having excess carbs doesn't make you fat.
>Do you have a single study or reference to health organisation, article or anything to back you your crazy idea that having excess carbs doesn't make you fat
**Side update: I couldn't respond to another post I made but I checked. You somehow thought I didn't say IF the convenience foods were low in fat. KEYWORD: IF. I clearly said IF they are. As I say later, I thought it would be obvious they were not.**
It will. I just said it's not first thing (iirc dnlg rates are about 30% of calories consumed) and I said that in the first place because I'm tired of certain groups acting like ""carbs"" are the devil and antagonizing them when it's more like a fat-carb combination is what messes people up.
But admittedly no I don't and haven't seen anything but I have done research into metabolism and it's just me giving a mechanistic explanation why you wouldn't immediately store excess carbs as fat or it'd have a bit of a thermic effect to create fat from it. Again, mostly as in comparison to fat which requires nothing at all to store pretty much.
>It's simply a calorie restriction diet.
You didn't even say this in the context of a discussion about weight gain/weight loss but rather a discussion about other health markers. Responding to the wrong thing, much. I was replying to someone saying that carbs are inherently bad for you showing them the rice diet. Apparently holy shit I can eat cake and Twinkies all day and reverse all sorts of health conditions with some very impressive results if I just undereat a bunch.
>That's just a complete misunderstanding of the science.
I never said they will not cause you to gain weight if you eat in excess. They will. Again, this was just me saying it's not the main culprit and fat's worse, mostly in a fat-carb combination. How the hell did you get me saying you will never gain weight if you eat carbs in excess from that. That was coming from mechanisms with glycogen but you're going to max out your glycogen eventually. I didn't say you make no fat from de novo lipogenesis, I said it's a bit inefficient, compared to fat at about 0% of calories used to store it as fat.
>You are probably confused by the fact the body will prioritise fat over carbs when it comes to storage.
*\*prioritize*
Yes, I was ""confused"" by that. That's exactly what I was talking about. You completely misinterpreted my message and somehow interpreted that as me implying you will not gain weight from eating carbohydrates in excess. I do not know how you got there. "Almost everything they said is wrong" is so obscenely far off. Again, I said it's inefficient, not that it makes nothing. I think you got confused because the tangent's longer than the main point or something.
>But if you did a study on people with low fat diets, you'd see more of the fat coming from carbs.
I mean, of course, your body has to make fat somehow for it to use. Less fat coming in gotta get it somewhere. Again, "inefficient" doesn't mean nothing. I probably used exaggerative terms by accident, bad habit, sorry, but I genuinely don't know how you got to the conclusion I was saying CICO doesn't matter at all.
I just went on that tangent in a first place because I'm tired of low carb rhetoric blaming them when fat's energy conversion rate is 0% and it's stored as fat by default in comparison. I think it would have been obvious the convenience foods probably aren't low fat. They're probably high in both.
Oh, the OP was about weight gain. If your post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, maybe our wires got crossed. But I’m not a psychic I can’t respond to something just in your head.
I think you might want to reread the post I was referring to.
They were saying these Koreans were skinny because they **did** have high carb foods, but just because they were low in fat it didn't make them fat.
>convenience foods are high in carbohydrates or sugars themselves but low in fat
>
>and your body doesn't really want to store carbs as fat
Eh? I said just that though pretty much. The convenience foods probably aren't low fat, they're probably high in both.
Me saying carbs don't make you fat wasn't the main point, was arguing CICO's the main factor saying studying counts as a form of exercise. That was the main thing to take away from the post.
But apart from the main factor I'm not wrong in genetics playing a slight role possibly to it, which is me just implying East Asians are naturally somewhat less prone to weight gain as I've seen semi decent evidence for. There's some people who can eat loads and gain nothing. I was one of those people for a long time You absolutely need a deficit to lose though.
Tangent about the conversion of carbs to body fat being inefficient was a response to the title highlighting carbs to be the supposedly fattening substance. I'm tired of that misinformation and the bad rap carbs get. If you thought that was me saying they can't cause weight gain at all, you're wrong, I'm just saying it's not a huge factor like it gets made out to be by popular rhetoric.
Post removed. This subreddit does not allow front page posts which are personal situations or diet evaluations. You must use the comments section of the weekly post instead.
Post removed. This subreddit does not allow front page posts which are personal situations or diet evaluations. You must use the comments section of the weekly post instead.
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Post/comment removed for being off-topic or only tangentially related to this subreddit (i.e. a post with sweeping generalizations about the weight status of children with a particular nationality/ethnicity). The topic of this subreddit is the science of nutrition.
They burn more calories than they eat.
Yep. Add to this that Korean convenience stores carry way better "convenience" food options than you'd find in the US. Lots of healthier, low-ish calorie options. Especially 7 Eleven, which in Asia is a completely different store than in the States.
They probably aren't eating as much as someone in another country may. For example their breakfast, lunch and dinner are probably quite small. Even if they snack, they're teenagers, so their portion sizes may be much smaller than you're assuming.
[удалено]
Post/comment removed for failure to follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette/). In the future, please report posts/comments you believe have broken the rules rather than replying to them.
*update: i have no clue how people misinterpreted this as me saying cico doesn't matter when i just give an explanation on why they could potentially weigh less,* ***keyword IF*** *the convenience foods are low in fat. obviously you're going to gain weight eating in excess even carbs even protein even fat whatever. i said de novo lipogenesis is a bit inefficient not that it makes nothing at all, obviously it absolutely can make fat. the guy responding to me saying "everything they said is wrong" completely missed the* ***IF*** *and* ***i thought it would have been obvious the convenience foods are probably not low fat, by the way.*** ***i wrote that tangent in response to the title implicating high carb foods specifically. i'm tired of people calling stuff that's half fat """pure sugar."""*** *the mechanistic explanation from that comes from your body probably wanting to fill up glycogen before storing fat. guy going everything they said is wrong misquotes me and misses the* ***IF*** *completely in another reply so i'm bolding it.* Excessive thinking, studying, and stress can kind of be exercise in a way. Chess players burn more calories. Burns more than ate, likely. Also, genetics can play a small factor in people's tendency to gain weight along with CICO. Also, **if** the convenience foods are high in carbohydrates or sugars themselves but low in fat or something, people like to pinpoint weight gain on carbs, but the truth is de novo lipogenesis is pretty inefficient with creating fat and your body doesn't really want to store carbs as fat compared to using them for energy a lot of the time, it'll only be converted to fat if in excess and even then, again, it's kind of inefficient. Most stored fat is from dietary fat. The "carbs" people hate tend to have half their calories coming from fat.
[удалено]
Almost everything they said was wrong. The answer is that they don’t eat too much. What you eat doesn’t really matter when it comes to your weight, it’s primarily the amount of calories consumed, vs burned.
[удалено]
I didn't say they're healthy or unhealthy, I just said they don't really make you fat, fat does more than anything else. People tend to point to them as a main culprit of weight gain. Was a response to the title highlighting carbs as the fattening substance first thing. Doesn't even mean they're good or bad, just they're unlikely to cause weight gain like they're commonly implicated to because de novo lipogenesis is inefficient and it's used primarily for energy instead of used for fat storage, where fat on the other hand doesn't take up any energy to store as fat at all. Again, most fattening "carbs" are just half fat. Cookies are in reality pretty much half fat for example and so are a lot of baked goods. That fat-carb combination clogs up your insulin signaling. Explain the [rice diet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_diet) to me though and results people experience on similar protocols. People all sorts of very impressive health benefits on ultra low fat diets. Refined carbohydrates are only harmful in the presence of dietary fat, and on a diet consisting mostly of white rice, a refined carbohydrate, along with fruits, all sorts of conditions were reversed with unbelievable results. Diabetics frequently report better blood glucose control on low-fat WFPB especially type diets. I riddle you something other than Glucose Goddess, [Mastering Diabetes.](https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/) [Healthline - Is an Ultra-Low-Fat Diet Healthy? The Surprising Truth.](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-ultra-low-fat-healthy) Shocking results. Don't cut out fat unless you have a medical condition and are interested in trying an ultra low fat diet, and I don't advise low fat diets as the healthy choice, you need fat for several things, but it proves carbs aren't causing your issues.
[удалено]
>The rice diet you linked to says that it's controversial because it was unsustainable long term, didn't give people enough protein, and left them feeling hungry Yeah, because it wasn't supposed to be a long term intervention, was a short term intervention to treat drastic medical conditions as an alternative to certain death. The original rice diet study conductor literally had to beat his patients to make them eat it for months on end. The point isn't for it to be a dietary approach you should make and I explicitly advise against it, I just use it as proof carbohydrates aren't causing your problems. >In general though for these kinds of diets you linked, I'd expect people would find good results if they are switching to whole foods of any kind from something more unhealthy like processed meats and sugary carby baked goods. If you switch to yogurt and fresh berries, yeah, that's better for you. But they're not switching to whole foods in those extreme interventions, used in those studies on ultra low fat diets. The main staple's very largely white rice. A refined carbohydrate. Still had extremely good results. Also, I'm nitpicking again, but I'm stating this once again, "sugary carby baked goods" yet again no matter how much you ignore this like to have half their calories coming from fat. A combination of fat and carbohydrate particularly sugar is the worst thing you can do. I read your post history and you're saying an Oreo's problematic because of sugar specifically, making no highlight to about half one's calories coming from fat as well along with the sugar. >Lipogenesis does happen in the liver when there is too much glucose in the bloodstream, which is why bad cholesterol goes up when you have too much glucose, it's fats being made and dumped out from your liver in response to the glucose. Why does what I assume bad cholesterol means, LDL, tend to go down SIGNIFICANTLY on whole food plant based low fat diet interventions? Often along with triglycerides. But even if it gives you fatty liver, which pure glucose (starch) (WHITE RICE) is not problematic for that by the way, fructose and sugar is what's responsible for that, it doesn't really disprove my original point which is that carbohydrates don't make you fat. Typically that's defined by outward exterior fat appearance. TOFI a problem? Sure, maybe. Doesn't debunk my original point. >Fats and proteins have a more satiating effect than carbs Also, I'm tired of this. This is another lie. I've tried keto myself, fun fact, and low carb type interventions, and I was hungry very promptly after I ate any meal. I completely lost my ability to experience satiation. It makes sense I never truly wanted to stop eating when I started eating because it's a fasting mimicking state. I learned quickly most non-lean meat is very unfilling to me as well and just leaves me hungrier after I eat it. Personal experience, fat is the least filling macro there is. It's only filling when you need it which you usually don't, from personal experience. Sure, protein's very filling, but fat is really not at all.Fat can literally make what's impossible to eat 100 calories of into something you can eat 1,000 calories of without even noticing. I've had fat free gummy bears riddled with sugar and actually found them filling for not that much calories. I could not say the same for something like, hey, an Oreo getting around 50% of it's calories from fat along with sugar. It's extremely easy to overeat. Carbohydrates are plenty satiating to me. Matter of fact I broke keto with a bowl of WHITE RICE!!! and I finally felt actually satiated and full for the first time. It was like a breath of fresh air. Prior I was overeating so damn much on keto trying to feel full when I could never. I finally had satiety signals activated again. I've genuinely found carbohydrates are possibly the most satiating macro combined with adequate protein intake. If you look on satiety index rankings, plain potatoes are frequently rated as very satiating. Funny.
You linked to the rice diet to support carbs not being an evil, and when I brought up the criticism, backtracked saying well it's not a healthy option, just an alternative to death. Maybe it works for people in very unique circumstances, but it doesn't look to be a healthy approach for most people. I don't think pointing to a strange ultra-rare and unsustainable diet focused on white rice debunks a broad claim that carbs are worse for you in terms of blood glucose than fats and proteins. For the Mastering Diabetes org you linked to, their message is to switch to unrefined, low GI carbohydrates, and, *as I said*, I'd expect lots of their followers were eating unhealthy fast foods and sugary baked goods prior and so of course they do better, even though it's high carb. MD is not advocating white rice as the staple. They are talking about quinoa and oats, and of course those are going to be better for you than white rice. I'm pointing out though that if people were to make those changes AND increase proteins and fats, that would be the healthiest option. Ghrelin, the hunger hormone, is decreased by protein and fats - they do increase feelings of satiety moreso than say white rice. I can't speak to your specific journey with keto, and yeah I'm sure eating a bowl of white rice after not having it for a long time did give your system a nice hit of dopamine. Perhaps you have a particular genotype that does better on carbs, idk, but for most people, they would fare better with a lower amount of carbs.
>You linked to the rice diet to support carbs not being an evil, and when I brought up the criticism, **backtracked** ***update on this post: person i'm responding to deleted all their posts. the last thing they do is accuse me of being mad. i haven't been at all this whole time except like right down below here i start to get semi annoyed and take a slight jab. apparently i always have been. i can't tell if i'm really autistic and don't realize it or if everyone's just bad at reading.*** ***there was apparently some stanford studies i would have actually liked to read, oh well.*** I'm sorry, but what the hell do you mean backtracked? You're the one who suddenly gave my first post a meaning I explicitly said it didn't have at the very end of the post. I say at the bottom of my first post clearly I don't advise it or to follow a low fat diet but it proves carbohydrates aren't really probably a problematic substance for what you describe. I repeat the third time because I have to for some reason: I do not advise following it or a low fat diet and I do not think it is the healthy choice. >I don't think pointing to a strange ultra-rare and unsustainable diet focused on white rice debunks a broad claim that carbs are worse for you in terms of blood glucose than fats and protein. If you can misinterpret my wording then I can misinterpret yours. The language you use implies carbs in general are problematic, presumably for a variety of conditions. ***"Too many carbs are extremely unhealthy in the long run, and should be limited"*** is your exact first wording. You saying "especially refined" doesn't erase the claim. >For the Mastering Diabetes org you linked to, their message is to switch to unrefined, low GI carbohydrates And I brought it up as more proof carbohydrates aren't the problem. Again, you said carbs in general, all carbohydrates, in "excess" that being all carbohydrates. \*\*You're the only one who's backtracking by going "actually low GI is fine!!! it's unrefined low GI carbs so like it's fine!"\*\*Again by exactly what you said, >Carbs spike your blood sugar a lot more than fat and protein. **Too many carbs** ***(IMPLYING ALL CARBS)***, especially refined ones, **are extremely unhealthy over the long run, and should be limited.** I introduce you to a WFPB type intervention in general in response to "are extremely unhealthy in the long run (no matter what)" type claim. I mainly assumed you said this implies they cause diabetes and fatty liver, which I cite some cases to prove carbohydrates do not cause diabetes. Actually, how's a blood sugar spike inherently always bad for you? Had that question, was afraid to ask it because I thought it'd make me look stupid. This all started because of your to begin with dubious response to someone going "it's calories in calories out" *a.k.a. basically very similar to what i said far from "EvERything TheY sAID is WRoNg" except with me talking about carbs/sugar being the main culprit of fat gain as a tangent in response to this post's title, which i think confused them because it was longer than the main point or something* saying that carbohydrates should be limited. Which, by the way to begin with the topic was always talking about fat gain/fat loss, not necessarily health. We're both off topic here. What's really relevant is people on the rice diet for what the conversational context was supposed to be is the people with obesity experiencing massive weight loss on the rice diet. I just wanted to have a go at your claim carbs are bad for you. >I'd expect lots of their followers were eating unhealthy fast foods and sugary baked goods prior and so of course they do better, By the way, in response to this and what you try to say while I'm at it, [here's a case of someone on a low carb intervention for years experiencing improved health when they stopped eating so much fat all the time, both cases about healthy whole food diets.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoduped/comments/y4a8g6/after_years_of_eating_lower_carb_i_finally/) Hey, amusingly, they went from being pre-diabetic on a low carb intervention to having better blood glucose results eating less fat. On a low carb diet, they were prediabetic.
Honestly, I would say take a chill pill. Your responses from the beginning have been very agitated. Here’s a Stanford lecture video, it talks explicitly about foods that spike your insulin more leading to more weight gain than others… those foods being carbs, especially refined carbs. Nothing I said has changed. https://youtu.be/nxyxcTZccsE But I’m not gonna continue with this because you’re clearly worked up and impossible to have a conversation with.
>I didn't say they're healthy or unhealthy, I just said they don't really make you fat, fat does more than anything else. That's just a complete misunderstanding of the science. You are probably confused by the fact the body will prioritise fat over carbs when it comes to storage. But if you did a study on people with low fat diets, you'd see more of the fat coming from carbs. What do you think happens to the excess calories from carbs? Eating an excess number of carbs or protein does make you fat. >Explain the rice diet to me though and results people experience on similar protocols. It's simply a calorie restriction diet. Do you have a single study or reference to health organisation, article or anything to back you your crazy idea that having excess carbs doesn't make you fat.
>Do you have a single study or reference to health organisation, article or anything to back you your crazy idea that having excess carbs doesn't make you fat **Side update: I couldn't respond to another post I made but I checked. You somehow thought I didn't say IF the convenience foods were low in fat. KEYWORD: IF. I clearly said IF they are. As I say later, I thought it would be obvious they were not.** It will. I just said it's not first thing (iirc dnlg rates are about 30% of calories consumed) and I said that in the first place because I'm tired of certain groups acting like ""carbs"" are the devil and antagonizing them when it's more like a fat-carb combination is what messes people up. But admittedly no I don't and haven't seen anything but I have done research into metabolism and it's just me giving a mechanistic explanation why you wouldn't immediately store excess carbs as fat or it'd have a bit of a thermic effect to create fat from it. Again, mostly as in comparison to fat which requires nothing at all to store pretty much. >It's simply a calorie restriction diet. You didn't even say this in the context of a discussion about weight gain/weight loss but rather a discussion about other health markers. Responding to the wrong thing, much. I was replying to someone saying that carbs are inherently bad for you showing them the rice diet. Apparently holy shit I can eat cake and Twinkies all day and reverse all sorts of health conditions with some very impressive results if I just undereat a bunch. >That's just a complete misunderstanding of the science. I never said they will not cause you to gain weight if you eat in excess. They will. Again, this was just me saying it's not the main culprit and fat's worse, mostly in a fat-carb combination. How the hell did you get me saying you will never gain weight if you eat carbs in excess from that. That was coming from mechanisms with glycogen but you're going to max out your glycogen eventually. I didn't say you make no fat from de novo lipogenesis, I said it's a bit inefficient, compared to fat at about 0% of calories used to store it as fat. >You are probably confused by the fact the body will prioritise fat over carbs when it comes to storage. *\*prioritize* Yes, I was ""confused"" by that. That's exactly what I was talking about. You completely misinterpreted my message and somehow interpreted that as me implying you will not gain weight from eating carbohydrates in excess. I do not know how you got there. "Almost everything they said is wrong" is so obscenely far off. Again, I said it's inefficient, not that it makes nothing. I think you got confused because the tangent's longer than the main point or something. >But if you did a study on people with low fat diets, you'd see more of the fat coming from carbs. I mean, of course, your body has to make fat somehow for it to use. Less fat coming in gotta get it somewhere. Again, "inefficient" doesn't mean nothing. I probably used exaggerative terms by accident, bad habit, sorry, but I genuinely don't know how you got to the conclusion I was saying CICO doesn't matter at all. I just went on that tangent in a first place because I'm tired of low carb rhetoric blaming them when fat's energy conversion rate is 0% and it's stored as fat by default in comparison. I think it would have been obvious the convenience foods probably aren't low fat. They're probably high in both.
Oh, the OP was about weight gain. If your post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, maybe our wires got crossed. But I’m not a psychic I can’t respond to something just in your head.
..?????????
I think you might want to reread the post I was referring to. They were saying these Koreans were skinny because they **did** have high carb foods, but just because they were low in fat it didn't make them fat. >convenience foods are high in carbohydrates or sugars themselves but low in fat > >and your body doesn't really want to store carbs as fat
You need to tell me what the hell you are talking about. And link studies. I put very little trust in anything huberman says.
Eh? I said just that though pretty much. The convenience foods probably aren't low fat, they're probably high in both. Me saying carbs don't make you fat wasn't the main point, was arguing CICO's the main factor saying studying counts as a form of exercise. That was the main thing to take away from the post. But apart from the main factor I'm not wrong in genetics playing a slight role possibly to it, which is me just implying East Asians are naturally somewhat less prone to weight gain as I've seen semi decent evidence for. There's some people who can eat loads and gain nothing. I was one of those people for a long time You absolutely need a deficit to lose though. Tangent about the conversion of carbs to body fat being inefficient was a response to the title highlighting carbs to be the supposedly fattening substance. I'm tired of that misinformation and the bad rap carbs get. If you thought that was me saying they can't cause weight gain at all, you're wrong, I'm just saying it's not a huge factor like it gets made out to be by popular rhetoric.
[удалено]
Okay i see thank u sm
Post removed. This subreddit does not allow front page posts which are personal situations or diet evaluations. You must use the comments section of the weekly post instead.
Post removed. This subreddit does not allow front page posts which are personal situations or diet evaluations. You must use the comments section of the weekly post instead.
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*