Oh we know plenty. Everyone these days is a self-proclaimed nutrition expert, just like you. There’s plenty of poor information without nuance being peddled all around.
You do you, and try not to launch into gratuitous personal attacks against people with whom you disagree.
You think burgers and fries are healthy for someone with GERD or other stomach issues?
Depends on whether or not that food is a trigger for them and in what portion sizes, but I don’t know why you are throwing that at me as if I claimed anything in particular about GERD.
Ok. You just go on believing that oatmeal is good for you just because you have always thought that. I DO agree that dietary requirements are very individual. Some people have issues absorbing certain vitamins and minerals (B6 is common there). Some people absorb more than the norm. Also, I never said oatmeal might cause you to have a problem with low iron or zinc. Depends on how often you eat it, what you eat at other times of the day, etc. It's just not really the great thing that many have thought now for decades.
I looked into this more. Oatmeal causes insulin spikes only in so far as instant oatmeal is concerned. Steel cut and old fashioned oats are significantly lower in this regard, and there is no need to avoid them unless someone has some unusual health profile, which could be said for any food, for that matter. Oats are a healthy food and while what you said may apply to the processed version of oats, it is easily avoided by steering towards the healthier versions, though you are spot on about adding other things to it like fats or protein to slow insulin uptake even more.
But don't take our word for it. From Livestrong.com:
"Although most oatmeal varieties, such as steel cut or old-fashioned oats, do not significantly elevate blood-glucose levels, the ingredients found in instant oatmeal may cause insulin levels to spike. Instant oatmeal sometimes contains sugar or sweetened dried fruits that may impact the rate at which insulin is released. The glycemic index rating of instant oatmeal is between 69 and 83, more than 10 glycemic points higher than old-fashioned oats. Incorporating protein, such as soy milk or almond butter, to the oatmeal may help to reduce its glycemic index and regulate insulin levels."
Yes, steel cut oats are literally just whole oats that are cut, so once you chew and swallow them, there’s little difference in your stomach.
Oats have been scientifically shown to be good for diabetics reducing blood sugar: not just not spiking insulin too much, but literally acting like insulin regulators, ie a healing effect. For healthy people, high glycemic index grains are really not worth worrying about much. White rice is one of the worst in that respect but Asian countries with rice dominant cuisines don’t have higher rates of diabetes than the US. Once you are already diabetic, it’s a different story and it’s better to avoid high glycemic foods including white rice.
I looked into this more. Oatmeal causes insulin spikes only in so far as instant oatmeal is concerned. Steel cut and old fashioned oats are significantly lower in this regard, and there is no need to avoid them unless someone has some unusual health profile, which could be said for any food, for that matter. Oats are a healthy food and while what you said may apply to the processed version of oats, it is easily avoided by steering towards the healthier versions, though you are spot on about adding other things to it like fats or protein to slow insulin uptake even more.
But don't take our word for it. From Livestrong.com:
"Although most oatmeal varieties, such as steel cut or old-fashioned oats, do not significantly elevate blood-glucose levels, the ingredients found in instant oatmeal may cause insulin levels to spike. Instant oatmeal sometimes contains sugar or sweetened dried fruits that may impact the rate at which insulin is released. The glycemic index rating of instant oatmeal is between 69 and 83, more than 10 glycemic points higher than old-fashioned oats. Incorporating protein, such as soy milk or almond butter, to the oatmeal may help to reduce its glycemic index and regulate insulin levels."
Yes, steel cut oats are literally just whole oats that are cut, so once you chew and swallow them, there’s little difference in your stomach.
Oats have been scientifically shown to be good for diabetics reducing blood sugar: not just not spiking insulin too much, but literally acting like insulin regulators, ie a healing effect. For healthy people, high glycemic index grains are really not worth worrying about much. White rice is one of the worst in that respect but Asian countries with rice dominant cuisines don’t have higher rates of diabetes than the US. Once you are already diabetic, it’s a different story and it’s better to avoid high glycemic foods including white rice.
Agreed,
There are many very healthy grains, and whole grains are an excellent place to start.
Quinoa is a really good one due to the protein content - it's a complete protein and my go-to grain.
Funny thing is, my son, who i believe is getting a lot of his info from the bro science guys online, eats a lot of white rice. I don't get what they see in it at all. Though he does also work in the oatmeal/oats on a daily basis, so that must be on the bro-trition radar as well.
If you followed every piece of advice on this thread we would all starve to death.
Nutrition science is nothing more than semi-educated guesses based on very limited studies. "We followed 30 people for 6 months, therefore we know for sure that xxxx diet is the best" You can easily find a study that proves whatever you are interested in. Its insanely frustrating and no wonder we have such issues with obesity/diseases of affluence these days. There is literally no clear cut, indisputable evidence of anything in the world of nutrition.
I would say that you should just eat a balance of all things, trying to stay as whole as possible. Sounds like reasonable and sound advice, right? People would argue with that as well. Flagpole is here arguing that oatmeal is bad for you for crying out loud. People will argue that fruit is bad for you, and that meat is bad for you, and that fat is bad for you. Just count your calories, just track your food, just eat to your hunger cues... all of these arguments have been made on this thread alone.
Just count your calories, just track your food, just eat to your hunger cues... all of these arguments have been made on this thread alone.
All I know is, whatever I do, I gain weight.
ok, rant over.
Have you tried actually eating less than you burn as opposed to just tracking calories and presumably just watching them with admiration?
Yes, I absolutely have. The problem with that is accuracy. How accurate is the calories burned you see? How accurate is the calories consumed that you have? The answer is neither is very accurate at all. I know what you are going to say, "well you are just eating more than you think". That's very likely, that's why I stayed an extra 500 under my goal for the day, just to be sure I'm in a deficit.
End result - same weight. Which makes me think maybe I'm not eating enough, you'll find plenty of evidence to suggest that. and down the rabbit hole we go...
Have you tried actually eating less than you burn as opposed to just tracking calories and presumably just watching them with admiration?
Yes, I absolutely have. The problem with that is accuracy. How accurate is the calories burned you see? How accurate is the calories consumed that you have? The answer is neither is very accurate at all. I know what you are going to say, "well you are just eating more than you think". That's very likely, that's why I stayed an extra 500 under my goal for the day, just to be sure I'm in a deficit.
End result - same weight. Which makes me think maybe I'm not eating enough, you'll find plenty of evidence to suggest that. and down the rabbit hole we go...
You have to keep a meticulous food log and try different things. You will eventually stumble onto something that works.
Yes, I absolutely have. The problem with that is accuracy. How accurate is the calories burned you see? How accurate is the calories consumed that you have? The answer is neither is very accurate at all. I know what you are going to say, "well you are just eating more than you think". That's very likely, that's why I stayed an extra 500 under my goal for the day, just to be sure I'm in a deficit.
End result - same weight. Which makes me think maybe I'm not eating enough, you'll find plenty of evidence to suggest that. and down the rabbit hole we go...
You have to keep a meticulous food log and try different things. You will eventually stumble onto something that works.
I agree, and that's what I do, which is kind of my point. Where do you even start? There a diet and a study behind whatever you want to think on a given day. Think of it like this, if you have diabetes, there's a more or less standard treatment plan that everyone goes on. No one is saying "here's 1000 different options, and each one has been proven and disproven a many times over, let's do some trial and error.", but this is exactly what happens with nutrition. There's a lot of theories out there, but very little in the way of conclusions.
Also important to note that what works only works for now. What worked well for me 10 years ago does not work now.
You have to keep a meticulous food log and try different things. You will eventually stumble onto something that works.
I agree, and that's what I do, which is kind of my point. Where do you even start? There a diet and a study behind whatever you want to think on a given day. Think of it like this, if you have diabetes, there's a more or less standard treatment plan that everyone goes on. No one is saying "here's 1000 different options, and each one has been proven and disproven a many times over, let's do some trial and error.", but this is exactly what happens with nutrition. There's a lot of theories out there, but very little in the way of conclusions.
Also important to note that what works only works for now. What worked well for me 10 years ago does not work now.
Well I think weight loss success is largely hormonal and if I need to lose weight I will do a keto diet.
Keto removes insulin from the picture and allows your body to access fat stores more easily.
If you eat a high carb diet and then restrict calories your body will go into survival mode eventually. It seems to me like it will lower your metabolism to make up for the reduction in calories rather than going to the fat stores to make up the difference. Obviously, it's more complicated than this but that's generally what happens.
On a keto diet your body switches to fat as the primary calorie source so if you're in a caloric deficit the body wants energy it goes straight to your fat stores to get.
There's also the thermogenic effect to consider. It takes 4-6 times more energy to digest protein versus carbohydrates. If you eat 100 calories of chicken your body will use 20-30 calories just to digest it. If you eat 100 calories of simple carbohydrates your body will only need 5-10 calories to digest it. Doesn't seem like much but it really adds up.
Have you tried actually eating less than you burn as opposed to just tracking calories and presumably just watching them with admiration?
Yes, I absolutely have. The problem with that is accuracy. How accurate is the calories burned you see? How accurate is the calories consumed that you have? The answer is neither is very accurate at all. I know what you are going to say, "well you are just eating more than you think". That's very likely, that's why I stayed an extra 500 under my goal for the day, just to be sure I'm in a deficit.
End result - same weight. Which makes me think maybe I'm not eating enough, you'll find plenty of evidence to suggest that. and down the rabbit hole we go...
Counting calories is pointless if you want to manage weight precisely because of accuracy as well as inherent dynamic unpredictable bodily fluctuations, and is no more accurate than eating by hunger as below that involves no prediction:
1) measure weight first thing in the morning every day, say after using the restroom, and rely only on weekly averages, say using the handy iPhone heath app or many others;
2) if your weight trend isn’t doing what you need it to do, increase or decrease hunger/satiety signals throughout the day in small increments.
The above involves only ground-truth weight data and hunger signals, is not susceptible to day-to-day fluctuations, and absorbs all intermittent uncertainty as your weekly averaged weight is the net effect of all that, but you do need to be carefully tuned in to your hunger signals, which is very difficult for people who are munching all day just for kicks.
Been a LONG time since I worked out at a level that required additional calories above and beyond a normal healthy diet. When I did I ate rice cakes with peanut butter or cups of frozen yogurt (not the TCBY type but the individual containers of Yoplait). Oatmeal cookies on occasion. Not sure 25 mpw qualifies as needing additional calories but that's your call.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.