refined carbs and refined sugar aren't healthy, no doubt. your point that they make you "overeat" because they are nutrient deficient is well taken... still, will the body store these foods as FAT?
i can eat fruit and even steamed, starchy foods (like potato and rice) in massive quantities and it won't make me FAT.
what if i ate a big huge bag of white sugar... it's junk, but will it make me FAT?
(just so no one hates me, i'm asking these questions to get a complete understanding, not because i'm questioning the ideal nature of a hcrv diet. i work hard to make sure i never eat refined carbs and i tell everyone who asks me about nutrition to stay away from refined carbs completely, or as much as possible. still - i want to know if they're making anyone FAT.)
I'd love to know the answer to this as well, ie, "if you eat 500 calories' worth of white sugar, will it make me fatter than eating 500 calories of fruit?" This is why I posed the question below, because I too don't understand from a scientific standpoint how the body treats some calories different than others... only that I know it does.
For an example of how the body treats foods and calories differently, refined sugar specifically contributes to belly fat around the mid-section, whereas other sugars don't seem to contribute to fat production in this crucial area (belly fat = risk of heart disease).
Empirically (and admittedly, anecdotally), I restricted calories to appx 1300 a day in high school on a non-vegan diet. I also kept my fat low. Around college I became mostly raw (high fat, high carb at that!) and ate appx 2,500 calories--I LOST weight; about 15 lbs.
I really can't help but think the body treats raw foods differently than processed foods; independent of the fat/carb content. I know this is blasphemy around here, and I'm not promoting high fat over high carb. But I definitely think the body treats an avocado more kindly than pasta drizzled with olive oil (in roughly the same proportion of calories/fat as the avocado).
Seems right to me - nuts or an avocado is going to be kinder on the body than cooked foods with an equivalent carb/fat ratio. A higher-fat raw diet may even have advantages over a somewhat lower-fat cooked diet. That doesn't sound like blasphemy, just the truth.
Chris, when people talk to you about carbohydrates making us fat, ask them to list out specific food that they consider as carbohydrates. Usually they are talking about processed refined carbs, not simple carbs as in natural fruit which is processed easily by the body and converted into energy.
I think they mean carbs from things like bread, cookies, cakes, etc,. Refined stuff, you know? There are lots of people who assume that all carbohydrates are created equal.
I completely understand why the mainstream thinks carbs can make a person fat. Nutritionally, scientifically and otherwise.
Basic understanding of mainstream nutrition is this: EVERYTHING you eat gets broken down into simple carbohydrates (ultimately glucose) for your body to use as fuel. If you consume excess food that your body doesn't need, it gets stockpiled as fat in case the body needs fuel later. Only in the event that the body doesn't have any fat does it turn to protein (ie muscle) to function--aka ketosis. So really, ketosis only happens when your body has no fat to burn.
I'm at a loss for why 3,000 calories of fruit does not cause the same effect as 3,000 calories of junk in terms of gaining weight. Before I always figured 1,500 calories satiates the body far more than 3,000 calories of junk thanks to the fruits' nutrient-density and fiber which contributes to satiety. This is still true, I believe.
And yet, 3,000 calories of fruit does not cause weight gain, whereas 3,000 calories of junk will easily cause weight gain. This does not make any sense based on my understanding of nutrition.
The accepted "truth" that a calorie is a calorie, be it from fruit or anything else, is NOT true.
Why? No freaking clue.
Excess carb calories get burned off thermogenically. That is why a calorie is not a calorie.
3,000 calories of fruit would cause a lot of weight gain if coupled with 1,000 calories of fat.
3,000 calories of protein would not even be digested.
It's not really that complicated IMO. Just stop thinking of calories as "calories" and start thinking of them as "protein calories" "carb calories" and "fat calories." Think of what each one does, how many steps must be undertaken to convert it to glucose, how easy/hard it is to digest each one, how each one affects metabolism, etc.
Sure, but my confusion stems from this:
Fruit is a carb calorie food. A simple refined item like bread is also a carb calorie food.
Are you saying if I eat 3,000 calories of fruit, it will have the same effect--weight-gain wise--as if I ate 3,000 calories of bread? I believe the protein and fat content of both types of food (fruit and bread) are about equal, no?
And yes, the health merits of both foods are clearly not equal, obviously. My question is purely on weight gain/loss from both items.
Simple: Because carbs in combination with fat make you fat.
Most people have no idea that they overeat on fat - because fat is so calorically dense, just a small amount of it in volume compared to the rest of their food is not noticeable.
Also, it is easy to sneak in. For instance, banana chips sold at many health food stores are coated in coconut oil. Most bread has a good amount of fat, and people consider bread to be a solid carb food.
So since people cannot comprehend that they are eating too much fat, they point to carbs because that is the caloronutrient with the highest volume and therefore the most noticeable. It is also the least addictive, flavor-wise. It is easier for a Standard American to go on a low-carb diet than a low-protein or low-fat diet.
If someone was addicted to heroin, caffeine, and also ate bananas, which would their addiction circuits more readily give up? Which would their addiction circuits, with the help of the left brain, justify giving up via confusing pseudo-science?