Do you eat junk food?

greenmachine88

And find it manageable to maintain a good level of fitness and stay in shape?

I don't mean on a regular basis but say every few days, a bag of crisps or a can of coke for instance. I want to get in shape and build muscle can I still do this or should I cut sweets and bad food out completely! I've thought about doing this but it requires quiet a bit of will power and conditioning.

I'm not overweight but I could lose a few pounds

squod

I've been on a bulk since 1998. I reject the term ''junk''. If it's not moving.........

cormie

As long as you're burning more calories than you're putting into you, you'll lose weight. But what's your goal? To lose weight, or to be healthy? If your goal is to be healthy, which I would advise, everything else will come with it and you'll feel much better for it too. There are plenty of healthy alternatives to satisfy a sweet and snack tooth but it's more just getting out of the habit. Something small every few days shouldn't hinder progress too much, but try avoid it if you can.

Here's the first result I got on youtube for a great alternative to crisps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_DFPdQ5XjA

You might also find that it's the simple carbonated liquid effect you've developed a liking to as opposed to the coke itself so you could substitute for something much healthier.

G86

Haven't eaten chocolate or crisps etc., in 10 years now. I cut them out when I was 15 and I just never have a desire for them now. I can't say I miss it - it would never even cross my mind to have a bar of choc now. Also, I know I can't moderate, so it's a case of all or nothing for me.

greenmachine88

cormie wrote: »

As long as you're burning more calories than you're putting into you, you'll lose weight. But what's your goal? To lose weight, or to be healthy? If your goal is to be healthy, which I would advise, everything else will come with it and you'll feel much better for it too. There are plenty of healthy alternatives to satisfy a sweet and snack tooth but it's more just getting out of the habit. Something small every few days shouldn't hinder progress too much, but try avoid it if you can.

Here's the first result I got on youtube for a great alternative to crisps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_DFPdQ5XjA

You might also find that it's the simple carbonated liquid effect you've developed a liking to as opposed to the coke itself so you could substitute for something much healthier.

I'd like to lose some weight but also build muscle and get that "lean" look, but yes overall I want to start eating healthier, exercising more and reaping the reward, It's about balancing cardio workouts with muscle training, because I don't want to lose too much weight and have no muscle definition.

cormie

Have a look here for what's amongst the healthiest chocolate you'll get in Ireland: http://www.natashaslivingfood.ie, you can see samples on the facebook link. They also supply the kale crisps I mentioned above.

Things like the above are expensive, but there's a very good reason, the ingredients themselves are expensive and I believe the price is reflected as such.

cormie

greenmachine88 wrote: »

I'd like to lose some weight but also build muscle and get that "lean" look, but yes overall I want to start eating healthier, exercising more and reaping the reward, It's about balancing cardio workouts with muscle training, because I don't want to lose too much weight and have no muscle definition.

Weight training, cardio and a healthy diet are the main factors. I'm not too up to speed on "bulking up" and would be more into a natural healthy approach myself but if you just want to look lean then focussing on the 3 factors above should achieve this.

AntiVirus

I have an indian take away with my girlfriend every friday and a bottle or 2 of wine. I head into town for a session at least once a month. I tend to eat what I want and its done me no harm but I don't pig out.

Lucky for me I have a high metabolisim oh and going to the gym/running hard 5/6 times a week helps as well.

d'Oracle

greenmachine88 wrote: »

And find it manageable to maintain a good level of fitness and stay in shape?

I don't mean on a regular basis but say every few days, a bag of crisps or a can of coke for instance. I want to get in shape and build muscle can I still do this or should I cut sweets and bad food out completely! I've thought about doing this but it requires quiet a bit of will power and conditioning.

I'm not overweight but I could lose a few pounds

Yes.

If you cut the sweets and crap it might be easier to control your calorie intake, but at the same time you can reduce you calorie intake while still eating "junk".

Desire.

How big an effect would drinking coke have on fitness? I'm not trying to lose weight or anything, I'm just trying to get fitter.

AntiVirus

Desire. wrote: »

How big an effect would drinking coke have on fitness? I'm not trying to lose weight or anything, I'm just trying to get fitter.

It all depends on how much you drink? Coke contains a lot of sugar and one of the side effects of too much sugar is diabetes.

cormie

Well it's polluting your body with crap basically, it may not have any immediate effects but certainly won't aid in a goal to get fitter.

boomtown84

AntiVirus wrote: »

It all depends on how much you drink? Coke contains a lot of sugar and one of the side effects of too much sugar is diabetes.

too much sugar does NOT cause diabetes mate.

@desire-drinking coke in moderation will not have an effect on your fitness.

@op- if you are strict with your overall caloric intake you can fit crap food into your diet no problem. if you're not so strict it will be harder to eat the crap and still lose weight.

deadlybuzzman

boomtown84 wrote: »

too much sugar does NOT cause diabetes mate.

@desire-drinking coke in moderation will not have an effect on your fitness.

@op- if you are strict with your overall caloric intake you can fit crap food into your diet no problem. if you're not so strict it will be harder to eat the crap and still lose weight.

type II diabetes is caused by insulin insensitivity caused by chronically elevated insulin levels and sugar spikes your insulin levels-that said its gotta way over normal consumption to cause it

deadlybuzzman

To the OP Id not sweat the odd coke or bar of chocolate, most in shape people have the odd thing here and there thats less than ideal. Like someone said earlier I used to have an indian and a bottle of wine every weekend but I did more than enough to work it off during the week

boomtown84

deadlybuzzman wrote: »

type II diabetes is caused by insulin insensitivity caused by chronically elevated insulin levels and sugar spikes your insulin levels-that said its gotta way over normal consumption to cause it

type II diabetes is caused by being overweight and living an unhealthy lifestyle. whether it was sugar, fat or protein that led you to become overweight doesn't matter...you can still end up with type II.

Lago

I have junk food literally every day. Usually in the form of a Dairy Milk bar and still maintain a very good level (in my opinion) of fitness.

One thing I have cut out of my diet largely is Coke. I used to have about 500ml of Coke nearly every day and still had a good level of fitness. However, I've no doubt that getting rid of it has made a big difference

Desire.

Lago wrote: »

One thing I have cut out of my diet largely is Coke. I used to have about 500ml of Coke nearly every day and still had a good level of fitness. However, I've no doubt that getting rid of it has made a big difference

My Achilles heel without a doubt.

jive

boomtown84 wrote: »

type II diabetes is caused by being overweight and living an unhealthy lifestyle. whether it was sugar, fat or protein that led you to become overweight doesn't matter...you can still end up with type II.

No it's not. These are risk factors, yes, and most people who get type II diabetes are overweight or elderly. You can still get it when you are thin but your chances of getting it are much less than that of some fat ape

ferike1

S&V Pringles or kinder chocolates once on a weekend or once every two weeks.

I cut out crisps (not on a big 'no more crisps' kick, just eating more healthily in general) a while ago, it must be over a month at least. I can honestly say I have no desire whatsoever for them now. I had a packet once in the meantime and found them awful and greasy.
If you get used to eating healthily for a while I would say you might find your appetite for them waning as well. I think I'm going the same way with choc...

AntiVirus

boomtown84 wrote: »

too much sugar does NOT cause diabetes mate.

Looks like I was lied to just so I would stop taking 2 sugars in my coffee!!! :mad:



"American Diabetes Association, WebMD and the Diabetes Be aWare campaign managed by the Singaporean government all state that it is a myth that excess sugar can lead to diabetes. What they do state is that excess sugar can lead to weight gain, which can increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes"

I suppose you could say sugar can lead to diabetes :pac:

newby.204

tea and biscuits kill me, have easily sat down with a cuppa and gone through a packet of cookies etc, im tryin to knock it on the head and cut down on the tea due to sugar intake 10-16 spoons a day!!!

Sephiroth_dude

I've cut out crisps over the last yr haven't had a packet in ages,pringles and popcorn I have once at the weekend sometimes but I only have one or the other,chocolate and sweets (bon bons) are my downfall,trying to replace them with nuts though.

themandan6611

i train hard, 6 days a week so i deserve my cheats :P :

weekly I will consume one large salt & vinegar crisps, 2 chocolate bars, a burrito and an indian - no guilt, sure you have to enjoy life.

DribblingRobot

I get really bad cravings for sweet stuff. I don't generally buy anything like that for myself, except maybe a packet of ginger snaps every couple of weeks to have with a cup of tea. But every time I go out to the ma's and see that big bowl of Roses/Quality Street I can't control myself and I just stuff my face.

Mellor

cormie wrote: »

Have a look here for what's amongst the healthiest chocolate you'll get in Ireland: http://www.natashaslivingfood.ie, you can see samples on the facebook link. They also supply the kale crisps I mentioned above.

Being made from natural ingredients is going to have zero effect on how "healthy" something is. Those chocolates are jsut as bad for you weight and any other.
"Natural' is just marketing. It sounds healthy, so does "organic".

AntiVirus wrote: »

I suppose you could say sugar can lead to diabetes :pac:

yup, it can, but "corelation does not imply causation" wouuld be apropriate here

cormie

Mellor wrote: »

Being made from natural ingredients is going to have zero effect on how "healthy" something is. Those chocolates are jsut as bad for you weight and any other.
"Natural' is just marketing. It sounds healthy, so does "organic".

I'm not saying saying they are better for weight at all, infact, they would have a very high fat %, but the individual ingredients are much better than what you would find in a typical bar of chocolate.

Hanley

cormie wrote: »

Well it's polluting your body with crap basically, it may not have any immediate effects but certainly won't aid in a goal to get fitter.

Deductive reasoning at its worst. Just because it won't help you get fitter doesn't mean it will prevent or impair an increase in fitness levels.

Hanley

themandan6611 wrote: »

i train hard, 6 days a week so i deserve my cheats :P :

weekly I will consume one large salt & vinegar crisps, 2 chocolate bars, a burrito and an indian - no guilt, sure you have to enjoy life.

Ding ding ding - thread winner

If you're training hard the odd cheat every now and again won' hurt. That being said, if you cut stuff out for a long time, often times you'll find you don't even want it anymore when you do try it again.

Mellor

cormie wrote: »

I'm not saying saying they are better for weight at all, infact, they would have a very high fat %, but the individual ingredients are much better than what you would find in a typical bar of chocolate.

Why much better?
Can you give an example? Say verses good dark chocolate for example.

I don't put much weight in the whole organic, natural, raw, sourced by elves in the rain forest approach to food and marketing.
It's sugar and fat.

TommyKnocker

I think when the poster says a "typical bar of chocolate" they mean the likes of dairy milk etc (which is actually not chocolate) rather than a good dark 80%-90% dark chocolate

Mikeblack

greenmachine88 wrote: »

I'd like to lose some weight but also build muscle and get that "lean" look, but yes overall I want to start eating healthier, exercising more and reaping the reward, It's about balancing cardio workouts with muscle training, because I don't want to lose too much weight and have no muscle definition.

I suggest the following foods for building muscle.
First meal - 80 grams rolled oats + banana + 200 ml milk 0.5%
Second meal - Cocktail Strawberry - Cheese (100 gram strawberry + 250 gram a semifat cheese)
Thirtd meal - Cocktail apple - cheese - oatmeal (cottage cheese 150 grams , 150 grams of oatmeal, an apple, a tablespoon of honey.
To loose weight,recommend the following foods.
Beans, lentils, vegetables and whole grains, the ones which loose fat.

LINK REMOVED Read the charter, you cannot shill for your own benefit here.

Zamboni

A large popcorn and a Pepsi Max in the cinema once a month. Nyom.
Other than that I'm strictly paleo + beer.

cormie

Hanley wrote: »

Deductive reasoning at its worst. Just because it won't help you get fitter doesn't mean it will prevent or impair an increase in fitness levels.

The poster asked how big an effect would drinking coke have on fitness, my answer was simple so I'm not sure why the negative response to it? I know people who drink 2 litres of coke a day and although they may appear fine, I wouldn't be so confident that would be the case in a few years down the line. If the posters aim is to be fit for the next few years and accept falling into a slump during their later years then yes it probably won't have any effect on this goal, if the posters goal is to remain in good health and fitness indefinitely, then I feel it would be best to cut as much amounts of such substances to the body as possible.

Mellor wrote: »

Why much better?
Can you give an example? Say verses good dark chocolate for example.

I don't put much weight in the whole organic, natural, raw, sourced by elves in the rain forest approach to food and marketing.
It's sugar and fat.

TommyKnocker wrote: »

I think when the poster says a "typical bar of chocolate" the mean the likes of dairy milk etc (which is actually not chocolate) rather than a good dark 80%-90% dark chocolate

Thanks, yes, I would have been talking about the typical bar of chocolate you might see somebody buy with a bottle of coke in a shop, which wouldn't typically be 80-90% dark chocolate.

But taking a 90% bar as an example here: http://www.lindtusa.com/product-exec/product_id/216/category_id/5/nm/Excellence_90_Cocoa_Bar

Contains only five pure ingredients: Chocolate, cocoa powder, cocoa butter, sugar and vanilla.

I believe you can go even better by using all organic, unprocessed ingredients, which would typically be in the raw chocolate I linked to above (although I'm not sure if it's organic ingredients she uses) and the same result can be gotten from:

cacao powder, cacao butter, agave syrup and vanilla. Want a milk chocolate and you just need to add some ground cashew nuts.

If you're not bothered, then the likes of the 90% lindt is a great alternative to what additional stuff might be in the likes of your typical milk chocolate.

I know there's not much (any?) evidence to say organic is better, but my intuition tells me it probably is.

metamorphosis

Lindt 99% is really nice too - real burnt taste from it. You have to build up your taste buds for it though. I don't consider 80-90% dark chocolate 'junk' food though. Id have a little every day.

ragg

Im going to blow your mind here OP. But it's perfectly possible to eat Pizza, chocolate, crisps etc and still lose weight.

The internet will tell you ito do the cave man diet and eat woolly mammoth all day with some brocolli but, imo there is no substitute for common sense (and protein powder)

Mellor

TommyKnocker wrote: »

I think when the poster says a "typical bar of chocolate" the mean the likes of dairy milk etc (which is actually not chocolate) rather than a good dark 80%-90% dark chocolate

What he said first was healiest in ireland, which implies its better than all bars not just a dairy milk

cormie wrote: »

Thanks, yes, I would have been talking about the typical bar of chocolate you might see somebody buy with a bottle of coke in a shop, which wouldn't typically be 80-90% dark chocolate.

Not what you said

I believe you can go even better by using all organic, unprocessed ingredients, which would typically be in the raw chocolate I linked to above (although I'm not sure if it's organic ingredients she uses) and the same result can be gotten from:

cacao powder, cacao butter, agave syrup and vanilla. Want a milk chocolate and you just need to add some ground cashew nuts.

The only difference there is that natural sugar is swapped for agave syrup (which is a type of sugar). I'm sure they are very good, but my point was that the are plenty of reletively pure chocolate bars available. I don't believe there is anytihng about the above that makes it the healthiest in ireland.

I know there's not much (any?) evidence to say organic is better, but my intuition tells me it probably is.

Studies have shown its not any differnent. There are other reasons to do it, just as environmental ones, but when they are shipped from the other side of the world its doing more harm than good.

rocky

cormie wrote: »

cacao powder, cacao butter, agave syrup and vanilla.

Except agave syrup is 90% fructose, the simple sugar that people don't like, see Robert Lustig's talk on it. Sugar is better than agave syrup, so boo

cormie

Mellor wrote: »

What he said first was healiest in ireland, which implies its better than all bars not just a dairy milk

I said "amongst" the healthiest and I specifically added amongst to avoid any debates, ah well

Mellor wrote: »

Not what you said

I'm not sure what you're saying I said?

Mellor wrote: »

The only difference there is that natural sugar is swapped for agave syrup (which is a type of sugar). I'm sure they are very good, but my point was that the are plenty of reletively pure chocolate bars available. I don't believe there is anytihng about the above that makes it the healthiest in ireland.

Again, I said the amongst the healthiest. I believe agave is a better sweetener to use than the processed sugars along with all the other ingredients I've listed, I believe they are better in organic, unprocessed form.

Mellor wrote: »

Studies have shown its not any differnent. There are other reasons to do it, just as environmental ones, but when they are shipped from the other side of the world its doing more harm than good.

I've read reports of such studies and it did prove quite inconclusive to me, in that the chemicals used in non organic growing haven't been around long enough to study the long term effects of them etc. But if somebody put 2 apples in front of me, one that had been grown organically and one not, I'd definitely choose the organic one as I can't help but feel chemicals to kill of insects and pests may have some negative effect on my own body.

cormie

rocky wrote: »

Except agave syrup is 90% fructose, the simple sugar that people don't like, see Robert Lustig's talk on it. Sugar is better than agave syrup, so boo

Haven't seen the talk, but there's not only agave, there is also Yacon syrup which is supposed to be one of the best sweeteners but I've never seen that for sale here.

boomtown84

rocky wrote: »

Except agave syrup is 90% fructose, the simple sugar that people don't like, see Robert Lustig's talk on it. Sugar is better than agave syrup, so boo

surprised ya missed this rocky-good read:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Lou.m

boomtown84 wrote: »

type II diabetes is caused by being overweight and living an unhealthy lifestyle. whether it was sugar, fat or protein that led you to become overweight doesn't matter...you can still end up with type II.

This mostly correct, also people with type two are more likely to have chronically low levels of insulin not high levels along with insulin resistance.

The vast majority of cases are caused by simply being obese.

But gestastional diabetes for women may lead them to have type two without or without being overweight later in life.

And although being obese is the cause statistically it is linked more with a diet high in bad fats rather than high sugar , meaning that more overweight people with a diet with more bad fats .

Thats according to the Irish diabetes association
http://www.diabetes.ie/website/content/living-with-diabetes/living-with-type-2/what-is-diabetes.aspxhttp://www.diabetes.ie/website/content/living-diabetes/living-with-type2/what-is-diabetes.aspx

But obesity is the main issue that people with type two to tackle to get it under control.

Fat cells have fewer insulin receptore than muscle cells , also fatty acids released by fat cells

I know a woman though who got gestational diabetes during her pregnancy and after giving birth it went although a few years later although she was not overweight nor unhealthy it returned apparently it is not that uncommon.

Also alcoholics sometimes suffer from diabetic like symptoms due to the damage they have done to their pancreas. There is an elavated insulin response to foods in alcoholics in the same way as there is to prediabetics.

Something like 95% of alcoholics are hypoglycemic (hypoglycemia on its own does not lead to diabetes )

Although moderate alcohol consumtion actually has been proven to improve insulin issues as has moderate consumption of some healthy sugars such as honey.

I think the problem with junk food is if you eat it rarely enough so that it is not harmful then you become hyper sensitive to it and then you feel awful after eating it because your body is not used to it.....ie if you have not eaten take away or any junk for months then get a take away your going to feel pretty bad maybe worse than someone who has one once a week. But if you eat it often enough for your body to be used to it then you might be eating it often enough for it to do damage or at least often enough for you to crave it more.

Eat it less frequently you raise your sensitivity to it...eat it often enough to be less sensitive then some people crave it or it does damage.

Everyone has to find a balance that works for them.

And some people just have a really good constitution and can handle things like that better if it is only now and again.

Everyone is different and your whole lifestyle would affect things too like exercise your sleeping patterns etc ...the rest of your lifestyle was pretty good then maybe some people can handle it.

It is really about what makes you feel good and feel healthier and works psychologically for you and your body.


By the way i eat way too much junk food and i am UNDERWEIGHT:o so i really cant say anything!:o

angie16ab

im trying to lose weight at the minute, so trying not to eat junk food if i can help it! however once a week ill get a takeaway and i generally have a few beers at the weekend

rocky

boomtown84 wrote: »

surprised ya missed this rocky-good read:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Haven't missed it, but I still prefer sugar to agave syrup. Why? Because it's 50% glucose, and I like glucose. Muscle glycogen also prefers glucose. Only place for fructose is in the liver glycogen, after that's full, say hell to triglycerides in the blood.

I like my fructose to be in fruit, not concentrated under a 'health' pretense.

rocky

and to answer the OP, I normally cook my own food from scratch. Even bread, I make my own. But in the last couple of days I'm on a sugar buzz, apparently it can increase metabolism when replacing starch in a diet. And potatoes make me very sleepy, dunno why yet.

So yesterday I had gingercake and custard, a Bounty and half a pint of Haagen Dasz praline and cream.

Not bad.

Needless to say, my metabolism went through the roof

Still sweating today

Lou.m

rocky wrote: »

Haven't missed it, but I still prefer sugar to agave syrup. Why? Because it's 50% glucose, and I like glucose. Muscle glycogen also prefers glucose. Only place for fructose is in the liver glycogen, after that's full, say hell to triglycerides in the blood.

I like my fructose to be in fruit, not concentrated under a 'health' pretense.

I thought it preffered starch? Am i wrong??

Or is it that more starch makes its way there as its more slow releasing in comparison to sugar.

Or am i wrong there too?

I thought most sugar that was not immediately used was stored as fat as it is released quickly does not stay in the bloodstream long and that most of your glycogen stores came from starch.


Is that wrong?

I know different sugars are released into the bloodstream at different rates.

rocky

I'm no expert so take this with a grain of salt.... eh sugar.

Starch is just a designation for polymers of glucose, that is, glucose molecules assembled in various ways. All starch is decomposed to glucose and other simple sugars before being absorbed by the body.

So muscle glycogen uses glucose to replenish, cannot use starch directly. Liver glycogen is refilled more efficiently with fructose, although it can also use glucose.

'Sugar that's not immediately used' for energy is not stored as fat. It's mostly stored in glycogen (muscle and liver). If that is full (and it takes a few days of carbohydrate overfeeding to fill it), then it gets converted to fat through DNL (de novo lipogenesis), but this process has a very low efficiency, so for 100g of carbs ingested, the resulting fat stored will be maybe 2-3g. What will happen if you eat carbs in excess, is all the fat you eat will be most likely stored. You can try and eat a zero-fat diet, see how that goes

Lou.m

rocky wrote: »

I'm no expert so take this with a grain of salt.... eh sugar.

Starch is just a designation for polymers of glucose, that is, glucose molecules assembled in various ways. All starch is decomposed to glucose and other simple sugars before being absorbed by the body.

So muscle glycogen uses glucose to replenish, cannot use starch directly. Liver glycogen is refilled more efficiently with fructose, although it can also use glucose.

'Sugar that's not immediately used' for energy is not stored as fat. It's mostly stored in glycogen (muscle and liver). If that is full (and it takes a few days of carbohydrate overfeeding to fill it), then it gets converted to fat through DNL (de novo lipogenesis), but this process has a very low efficiency, so for 100g of carbs ingested, the resulting fat stored will be maybe 2-3g. What will happen if you eat carbs in excess, is all the fat you eat will be most likely stored. You can try and eat a zero-fat diet, see how that goes

Thank you:-)!

Ah!
I see!

Or at least i think i do!
Its really interesting

I have always wondered what makes people think carbs are a bad diet food ...i know some of them are quite calorie dense...but so are most proteins


low fat? :-)
No i am underweight.....not that i want to gain!

I actually dont like fatty oily things at all....

I wonder why people are so caught up in the Atkins fad.

I guess it works for them maybe, and i suppose protein helps preserve muscle with resistence train for those people who need to loose.

Being a veggie that whole thing passed me by.

Food got just WAY too complicated for me in the last few years

Potatoes gram for gram have as many calories as an apple and much nutrient content like potassium etc ...but to lots of people they are now ' Junk Food'.

Oh by the way ....the tiredness with potatoes i heard that if you combine them with a fibrous veggie like cabbage or something it can lower the glycemic index and and it doesn't make your blood sugar levels crash.

Not sure if it would work for you though...but you could try combining them with something you like!

I am not a big fan of potatoe either ( i am SUCH a fussy eater:o)

DL Saint

Anyone heard of these fit-vits? Meant to be a healthy alternative to giving kids sweets? Contains loads of vitamins and omega 3. What do people reckon, would I be better off giving the kiddies these when they deserve a treat? or are they BS?
http://www.pumpupnutrition.com/apps/webstore/products/show/2285642

TheZ

Lou.m wrote: »

Thank you:-)!

Ah!
I see!

Or at least i think i do!
Its really interesting

I have always wondered what makes people think carbs are a bad diet food ...i know some of them are quite calorie dense...but so are most proteins


low fat? :-)
No i am underweight.....not that i want to gain!

I actually dont like fatty oily things at all....

I wonder why people are so caught up in the Atkins fad.

I guess it works for them maybe, and i suppose protein helps preserve muscle with resistence train for those people who need to loose.

Being a veggie that whole thing passed me by.

Food got just WAY too complicated for me in the last few years

Potatoes gram for gram have as many calories as an apple and much nutrient content like potassium etc ...but to lots of people they are now ' Junk Food'.

Oh by the way ....the tiredness with potatoes i heard that if you combine them with a fibrous veggie like cabbage or something it can lower the glycemic index and and it doesn't make your blood sugar levels crash.

Not sure if it would work for you though...but you could try combining them with something you like!

I am not a big fan of potatoe either ( i am SUCHo a fussy eater:o)

I think Low carb works for people in losing weight because if you cut down on carbs then for most people you are taking in less calories rather than carbs being bad for you or anything.