Re: comparing carbs in vegetables

[Guest guest]

I do know that I have been known to have a dinner of 3-4 oz chicken

1/2C rice, and 2cups of broccoli, or turkey bean chilli with broccoli

instead of with salad. For me of the no/slow weight loss, that's 1.5 or

2x the carbs

And a snack of turkey and rice is different than a snack of 1/c

cottage cheese and 4 strawberries.

Especially when I felt too full on the 6 meals of denser foods

I am learning how to eat

I am learning when I am hungry

I get hungry after 3 hours; never used to notice that

I am learning when I'm not hungry

YEA~!

- Etana

[Guest guest]

The broccoli is not what got us in the shape we're in today. Even the 2

cups of broccoli, and the corresponding 18 grams of carbs, are not the

culprits. Even if we have the 2 cups of broccoli with 1/2 cup of brown rice.

I think the carb increase from the vegetables is built into the inherent

carb-cycling, or zig-zagging, of BFL. I believe the ratio that we follow

(40-40-20) excludes the vegetables, intentionally. I think eating the

vegetables in excess is self-regulating - when I eat too much broccoli or

lettuce or spinach at meal 3 or 5, I am still 'full' by meal 4 or 6. Next

time, I try to remember and adjust the portion size down. Thru the weeks,

I have naturally decreased my 'accessory' vegetable; my lettuce/spinach has

stayed voluminous. I make each member of my family a salad in an

individual salad bowl. I then throw mine into a big deep bowl, and my

starchy carb, accessory vegetable, and protein go on top.

Is it interesting that broccoli has more carbs than lettuce? Sure.

Is eating 2 cups of broccoli causing slow weight loss? I don't think so.

On a different-but-related note, Tom Venuto (burn the fat, feed the muscle)

recommends that we eat the higher carb items earlier in the day. So oats,

brown rice, yams, potatoes would be eaten by meal 3 (or 4?), and then meal

(4)-5-6 are focused on the green, fibrous carbs (he includes vegetables as

carbs, but you start out with 50%/carbs, 30%/protein, 20%/fat). That might

be an interesting variation to try, but I'm not willing to give up my

healthy starchy carb at Meal 5.

n

At 03:19 AM 1/30/2006, you wrote:

>I'm comparing carbs: calories and carbs

>I found this very interesting.

[Guest guest]

n:

Sorry if this was mentioned before and I missed it. But, what is

a 'usual' menu for you? Do you stray from it often and do you eat 5

or 6 meals daily? Breaking foods into many small meals is proving

very difficult for me. Any hints would be helpful.

Thanks,

> >I'm comparing carbs: calories and carbs

> >I found this very interesting.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I believe the ratio that we follow (40-40-20) excludes

> the vegetables, intentionally.

I will have to disagree on that point .. its not 40% protein, 40%

starch carbs, as much as you want vegetable carbs, and then 20% fats.

Call me a stickler, it is what it is and thats 40/40/20. Not to be

crabby but ya know its a sticky point with me ;-)

> I think eating the vegetables in excess is self-regulating

> - when I eat too much broccoli or lettuce or spinach at meal

> 3 or 5, I am still 'full' by meal 4 or 6. Next time, I try to

> remember and adjust the portion size down.

Well yeah .. youre overstuffed with carbs, no wonder youre not

hungry for the next meal. Way smaller portions, or have either the

rice OR the denser vegetable portion but not both if you want to

even consider what I am trying to tell you.

> Thru the weeks, I have naturally decreased my 'accessory'

> vegetable; my lettuce/spinach has stayed voluminous.

Water vegetables can be eaten in larger amounts. Just because they

have so low of calories. But be wary of the stuff you add to them -

it adds up quickly. Again its knowing thy carbs which was my point

to begin with.

> Is it interesting that broccoli has more carbs than lettuce?

> Sure. Is eating 2 cups of broccoli causing slow weight loss?

> I don't think so.

For those who are not losing, its one more place to look at after

excessive free days. For some people (you and others) it may not be

an issue at all, but for others it just might - so my point in all

this thread was to scrutinize combinations and dont think that

vegetables are a fourth food group - be knowledgable about how many

carbs are in those vegetables because altho sometimes lower in

calories, they can add up alot in a days worth (they are not made of

air). Btw two cups of broccoli is only 12grams of carbs, but one cup

sweet potato (boiled/no skin)is 58grams carbs - so there is a big

difference there (and alot of perople would eat both of these

together thus having over 70grams of carbs plus their protien

portion for a way too big of a meal).

> Tom V ..recommends that we eat the higher carb items

> earlier in the day. So oats, brown rice, yams, potatoes

> would be eaten by meal 3 (or 4?), and then meal

> (4)-5-6 are focused on the green, fibrous carbs (he includes

> vegetables as carbs, but you start out with 50%/carbs,

> 30%/protein, 20%/fat).

Smart guy because this way you use those denser carbs for energy

thruout the day (not as extra fat storage) and the lighter ones are

just fiber fillup with the later meals.

Just my opinions of course, not for a heated debate or nothin ;-)

Nutrional knowledge is the way to never have to 'diet' in that sense

of the word ever again, but it makes your 'diet' your lifestyle.

joni

-------------------------------------

*Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long*

[Guest guest]

Where does Bill say it is 40/40/20?

n

At 07:26 AM 1/31/2006, you wrote:

><SNIP>

>Call me a stickler, it is what it is and thats 40/40/20. Not to be

>crabby but ya know its a sticky point with me ;-)<SNIP>

[Guest guest]

It does here on the front page of the BFL website (under quick tip)

http://bodyforlife.com/

Re: comparing carbs in vegetables

Where does Bill say it is 40/40/20?

n

At 07:26 AM 1/31/2006, you wrote:

><SNIP>

>Call me a stickler, it is what it is and thats 40/40/20. Not to be

>crabby but ya know its a sticky point with me ;-)<SNIP>

[Guest guest]

Bill is actually fairly anti-counting and will hmm and haw if you try

to pry numbers out of him, but in the six years I've been involved

with BFL, every EAS publication pertaining to Body for Life (the web

sites, the brochures, the nutrition guides, the magazine articles) has

recommended 40/40/20 for fat loss and 50/30/20 and for muscle gain.

That's still the way it's shown on the BFL Calorie Calculator:

http://www.bodyforlife.com/exercise/calcalc.asp

If you turn to page 63 in the Eating for Life book, somebody finally

does pin Bill Down and make him recite numbers. :-) He states that if

you look at the average of 2 weeks worth of EFL recipes (slightly more

free-wheeling than straight-up BFL), it breaks down to 1545 calories

38% pro, 44% carb, and 18% fat for the average woman, which is right

in line with the 40/40/20 ratio that Bill/EAS has always recommended.

If I were to go digging around, I probably still have some of Bill's

old articles and interviews from the Muscle Media days when those

numbers were quoted constantly.

On 1/31/06, n <mtpaper@...> wrote:

> Where does Bill say it is 40/40/20?

> n

>

>

> At 07:26 AM 1/31/2006, you wrote:

> ><SNIP>

> >Call me a stickler, it is what it is and thats 40/40/20. Not to be

> >crabby but ya know its a sticky point with me ;-)<SNIP>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

LOL! The quick tip is different now - I think it randomly changes.

But thanks for the link

n

At 03:19 PM 1/31/2006, you wrote:

>It does here on the front page of the BFL website (under quick tip)

><http://bodyforlife.com/>http://bodyforlife.com/

[Guest guest]

Thanks - you made my point very eloquently. That the 40/40/20 is the

recommended approximation for fat loss. It is not a hard-and-fast rule of

Body-for-Life. It is not a determining factor for whether one is, or is

not, following BFL correctly.

I am quite comfortable with my adherence to the program, even tho I do not

include the carb counts of my green vegs in my daily estimate of calories,

carbs, etc. I have no interest in daily counting/measuring beyond looking

at my conveniently located hand, and occasional use of measuring cups or

the foodscale.

n

At 04:33 PM 1/31/2006, you wrote:

>Bill is actually fairly anti-counting and will hmm and haw if you try

>to pry numbers out of him, but in the six years I've been involved

>with BFL, every EAS publication pertaining to Body for Life (the web

>sites, the brochures, the nutrition guides, the magazine articles) has

>recommended 40/40/20 for fat loss and 50/30/20 and for muscle gain.<SNIP>

[Guest guest]

Hussman said earlier, a salad the size

of a TV set was acceptable.

Is that a 13 " TV or a BIG SCREEN TV ? I'm hovering around a 27 " right

now.

dj