[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference rocks::weight_control

Title: Weight Loss and Maintenance
Notice:**PLEASE** enter notes in mixed case (CAPS ARE SHOUTING)!
Moderator:ASICS::LESLIE
Created:Tue Jul 10 1990
Last Modified:Tue Jun 03 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:933
Total number of notes:9931

817.0. "complex carbs?" by ACESMK::GOLIKERI () Fri Jul 23 1993 18:15

    I have seen diets described to be low-fat, high complex carbohydrates.
    But I don't have a list of foods that can be categorized as 'complex
    carbs'. Anyone help me out?
    
    Thanks
    
    Shaila
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
817.1complex carbs = starch - does that help?GOLLY::CARROLLsomething inside so strongFri Jul 23 1993 19:2510
    Complex carbs used to be known in common language as "starch".
    
    Complex carbohydrates are found in grains and vegetables.  So bread,
    pasta, cereal, rice, pototoes, beans, peas, corn etc are all high in
    complex carbohydrates.
    
    Simple carbohydrates are sugars, and are found in large quanities in 
    fruits and, of course, sugar.
    
    Diana
817.2Thanks and more..ACESMK::GOLIKERIFri Jul 23 1993 21:1110
    SOunds simple. Thanks
    
    Now to "Why eating more complex carbs (within limits I am sure) is
    better for weight loss?". Not sure "more" compared to what but I have
    seen this reference in more than 1 articles. 
    
    The number of starches/breads in a WW plan are never enough for me - I
    am starch-lover :-)
    
    Shaila
817.3GOTTA KNOWACESMK::GOLIKERIFri Jul 23 1993 23:026
    I was jsut browsing for the 1st time in the FLEX notesfile and saw
    references to complex carbs, lo-fat. Since flour is considered simple
    carbs (right?) white bread is not complex carb? Sorry for being so
    ignorant but I GOTTA KNOW!
    
    Shaila
817.4more complex carbs = more energy, less hungerGOLLY::CARROLLsomething inside so strongMon Jul 26 1993 19:3422
    No, white flour, as all flours, is primarily complex carbohydrates. 
    But it isn't nutritionally as good as whole wheat flour (and all whole
    grains) because it has less nutrients, less fiber and less protein. 
    But, calorically and carbohydrately it is more or less the same.
    
    One reason a diet high in complex carbohydrates is good is that
    carbohydrates (both simple and complex) as well as protein have 4
    calories/gram, whereas fat has 9 calories/gram - so the same amount of
    food provides fewer calories if you eat less fat.  A good way to eat
    less fat is to replace high fat foods with high carb foods - and high
    complex carb foods tend to be more filling and substantial and
    nutritious.  Complex carbs are digested more slowly than simples carbs,
    so they provide a more steady stream of energy, instead of the high-low
    cycle that can happen with sugars (mostly with processed sucrose [ie:
    table sugar] but also fructose [fruit sugars] and other simple carbs.)
    So if you eat more complex carbs you have more energy and are hungry
    less often.
    
    The figures I have heard say that 55-60% of your calorie intake should
    come from carbs, 12-15% from protein and 25-30% (max) from fats.
    
    D!
817.5ACESMK::GOLIKERIMon Jul 26 1993 20:541
    Thanks a buzzzzzzzzilion :-)
817.6HDLITE::ZARLENGAMichael Zarlenga, Alpha P/PEGTue Jul 27 1993 06:159
    It's not just calories.
    
    New evidence suggest that it may be next to impossible for carbohy-
    drates (both simple and complex) to be converted into fats in the human
    body.
    
    If that turns out to be the case (and it may be, chemically, fats and
    carbs are failry dissimilar)  then, only dietary fat can cause you to
    ever gain body fat.
817.7CNTROL::JENNISONJohn 3:16 - Your life depends on it!Tue Jul 27 1993 18:0218
	Interesting, Mike.

	What I just read (and was taught in a course two weeks later) 
	was that carbohydrate intake that is in excess of your body's needs 
	would be converted to body fat, but that it requires energy for your 
	body to do the conversion.  So, your body actually uses calories to store
	the excess carbohydrates as fat.  (You may actually use some calories
	to store excess ingested fat as body fat, but I think the carbo 
	conversion used some 30% more calories).

	I'd like a pointer to the "new research" if you have one.  I'll
	try to remember where I read the above.

	D!, your guidelines for daily intake are pretty close, although	
	I believe ADA recommendation is 10-12% protein, not 12-15%.

	Karen
817.8Chee, it is getting clearer :-)ACESMK::GOLIKERITue Jul 27 1993 18:137
    I finally visited the local library and got some books on nutrition to
    better understand this debate about low-this, high-that diets. I did
    read that excess complex carbs (excess = f(intake versus output in
    terms of energy expensed in exercise)) are converted to fat and that
    doing this some calories are used up.
    
    Shaila
817.9what about protein?GOLLY::CARROLLsomething inside so strongTue Jul 27 1993 18:3613
    Mike, if you have any information on the carb->fat research you
    mentioned, I also would appreciate reading about it.
    
    Seems to me (and I'm no nutritional scientist, for sure) that even if
    carbs can't be converted in to fat, it's still not a good idea to eat
    more carb calories than your body consumes, because if there are excees
    carb-calories then fat-calories (which every diet must contain in
    *some* quantities) will *all* be "in excess" and converted in to fat. 
    
    Maybe the impossibility of carb->fat is only "useful" if you eat a
    virtually fat free diet...which has it's own dangers.
    
    D!
817.10HDLITE::ZARLENGAMichael Zarlenga, MRO AXP BPDAThu Jul 29 1993 23:5813
.7> I'd like a pointer to the "new research" if you have one.
    
    Oh boy, that might be next to impossible.  It was probably from the
    Harvard Medical School or Edell or COnsumer Reports Health Letters.
    It was in that format, not a magazine.
    
    Problem is, I saw it maybe 8 or 9 months ago, so it's long gone.
    
    These things usually appear in one place and then all over the place 
    when they're proven (or they disappear forever without a peep when
    disproven).
    
    I'll keep my eyes open.
817.11a "simple" questionNOVA::FINNERTYlies, damned lies, and the CAPMTue Oct 25 1994 23:3112
    
    I have a complex carb question.  Actually two.  The first is, why
    aren't there any breakdowns of %simple and %complex carbohydrates? 
    It's not even in the nutrition almanac, and if not there, where?
    
    Second question is: I've read that fruits contain a
    significant amount of complex carbos in addition to the fructose that
    makes them taste so sweet.  E.g. apples and banannas are supposed to
    have a fair amount of complex carbos despite the sweetness.  Does
    anyone here have the facts about this? 
    
       /jim
817.12"simple" guess...BPSOF::NEWBERGWed Oct 26 1994 17:4611
    Please don't be offended at a guess, but my guess is that if there is
    more than one process to metabolize a carbo it is complex. Sugars have
    one process, starches have at least two (the first being into sugar).
    Perhaps the two types of fiber add more processes. 
    
    Along those lines, it's feasible to assume apples and bananas have a 
    starch and/or fiber content.
    
    Sound right?
    
    Amy
817.13need a better reference, I guessNOVA::FINNERTYlies, damned lies, and the CAPMWed Oct 26 1994 18:2113
    
    yes, that sounds right to me.  That's what I figure also.  I just wish
    I could find a source that lists how much simple vs complex carbos
    foods contain.  I recently noticed, e.g., that raisins are very carbo-
    rich.  But then I wondered if this was mostly simple sugar; is it a
    good source of carbos or not?  I don't know and none of my reference
    books or calorie counters offer any information about this.
    
    I happened to notice that Total cereal now puts #grams simple carbos,
    #grams fiber, and total #grams carbos on their label.  Maybe they have
    for some time.  I wish more products were labelled that way.
    
    /jim
817.14Still guessing, but...BPSOF::NEWBERGThu Oct 27 1994 11:4928
    Another source of the information is in the ingredients list.
    Ingredients are listed in order of the amount in the food (highest to
    lowest). This is probably based on volume. Look to see if sugars are
    high on the list. This is not always reliable because there could be
    many forms of sugars in small doses (corn syrup, fructose, even
    sorbital which metabolizes like sugar, only slower). But if you see
    one or several of these sugars before or directly after any grains or
    other complex carbs are listed, it's best to avoid. One of the more
    confusing packages may be tomato products (sauce, paste), which are 
    naturally high in carbos; there could be extra sugar snuck into the
    recipe. I would think that with the program you're on, your main goal
    would be to avoid those fat supporting sugars.
    
    I'm kind of lucky where I live, there's not a lot of packaged food like
    I'm used to back home. I buy fresh food and I know what's in it. I sure
    miss the convenience of Healthy Choice dinners, though.
    
    As for the raisins, since they are only grapes without the water, treat
    them as you would fruit. I learned in Weight Watchers that 20 small
    grapes is one portion of fruit, as is two small plums and one small
    apple. So a tablespoon of raisins is probably 20 grapes. If it helps at
    all, Weight Watchers recommends about half the amount of fruit to the
    amount of breads. They seem to be keeping up with the latest nutrition
    trends and adjust their program each year with the newest information.
    
    Hope that helps!
    
    Amy
817.15GOLLY::CARROLLa life of quiet desperationMon Oct 31 1994 19:444
    check the barnes and noble nutrition section.  i remembered seeing at
    least one food-value books that contained that info...
    
    Diana