Should I cut out pasta and bread to lose belly fat?

Lollipop95

Hi there,

I'm a female and have always stored most of my weight on my stomach. Recently I've started combining resistance training with cardio and while I find it effective for loss/toning, the fat on my belly will not shift.
I tend to eat pasta with garlic bread once a week after my workout. I also have sandwiches with bread for lunch. If I cut both of these out, would I see possible shrinkage? Thanks!

bladespin

Nope and you can't target reduce either, training won't change that.

Cut you calories (however you choose to) to below your maintenance requirement and your weight (bodyfat) will drop, it's that simple.

GooglePlus

I'd reduce your intake and switch to wholegrain pasta. Much better for disgestion and your gut but pretty much the same calorie/carb wise.

jaykhunter

Yeppers, the only way to reduce fat in one area is the lose weight overall, your body decides where to take it from (sadly!). To do that you'll need to burn off more calories than you take in. You can do that by reducing the amount of bread/carbs or reduce meats, or anywhere else in your diet!


Just as an aside, carbs in general cause water retention, as every 1g needs 2g of water to be broken down. But that's weight from water, not fat, if ya get me. But I'd recommend not having carbs with every meal if possible so you're not carrying lots of extra water.

ksceniaonegina

Yup wholegrain is key

wakka12

You should eat whole grains regardless of weight loss targets, the extra fibre and other nutrients appears to have good health benefits. But no, it wont necessarily get rid of your belly fat, reducing calories will, it doesnt matter if the calories reduced are in the form of fat, protein, or carbs

wakka12

They have plenty of nutrition really. Just 300 calories worth of cooked whole grain pasta has 22% of all nutrients you need in a day. Thats more than reasonable nutrient density.

Vegetables are nutrient dense but its largely because of how low their calorie count is. Most people dont consume them in way that amounts to any kind of calorie count you could thrive on and so also lose out on the potential for a large nutrient benefit.Obviously 300 calories of spinach or mushrooms or tomatoes will supply you with more nutrients than an equivalent amount of rice or pasta but its a silly comparison because eating that amount of vegetables is not just unenjoyable but would become very expensive.

Promotion of whole grains and legumes is the only actual feasible way that the population have a possibility of consuming the recommended amounts of fibre daily. And even at that, the majority of the world's population fall well below the advised amount of fibre they should be consuming daily. So maybe in theory youre right but in reality telling people to avoid whole grains will do far more harm than good. Youre forgetting how unhealthy the average person is really, switching from refined to whole grains is a stretch many Irish people are not even willing to make, never mind changing their entire diet to a paleo one as you are suggesting.

Theres also no evidence that the lectins or phytates are harmful in practice. If they were, whole grain consumption wouldnt be negatively associated with mortality, and yet it is. What about methionine in meat and it's effects on mortality? Or fructose in fruit? Or oxalate in vegetables like spinach? or the omega 6 in nuts? Every food has something bad about it on paper and yet all the foods I just listed are associated with improved health and lifespan. Basically, youre demonising one of the few healthy things the majority of the population are even willing to eat, for no actual justifiable reason.

waffleman

Firstly cut all sugar except naturally occuring sugar. For me this makes it much easier to lose fat around my waste.

A rule that works well for me is only have 2 meals per week that include sugar, meat and dairy. For example if you know you are going out for a meal with family / friends go all out for it. Nachos to start, steak chips and cheesecake to finish is a favourite of mine. Or a fish supper with 500ml coke or milkshake.

People wonder how I keep so lean when they see me eating like a pig. But they dont see the smoothies for breakfast, chickpea thai green curry or rice cakes with peanut butter before bed the rest of the week.

waffleman

Social Medium wrote: »

I would recommend cutting out wholegrains as much as you can, they have little nutritional benefit and contain phytates and lectins which are harmful. Focus on foods such as meat, seafood, offal, fruit and vegetables.

Ive seen you commenting on a few threads. Genuine question: how do you get your carbs besides fruit n veg?

wakka12

waffleman wrote: »

Ive seen you commenting on a few threads. Genuine question: how do you get your carbs besides fruit n veg?

You dont need carbs, anyway theres plenty of carbs in fruit. But you need a high fibre intake to maintain good health, and I doubt the poster gets enough from just fruit and vegetables

And again , @ Social Medium, I dont understand how it makes any sense to criticise the purported benefits of one food because studies havnt been causal and then promote foods like meat for good health when there is also no causal studies to prove what you claim.That is a complete contradiction of your own advice. A correlational result is surely better than nothing . When people increase their whole grain intake, they live longer, and this has been evident in so many studies that it has become the common advice of so many health care practitioners worldwide. The longest live cultures on earth all consume large amounts of whole grains. At the VERY least whole grains have a neutral impact on health, but much more likely is , they are healthy, and you should eat them

Spencerfreeman

Lollipop95 wrote: »

Hi there,

I'm a female and have always stored most of my weight on my stomach. Recently I've started combining resistance training with cardio and while I find it effective for loss/toning, the fat on my belly will not shift.
I tend to eat pasta with garlic bread once a week after my workout. I also have sandwiches with bread for lunch. If I cut both of these out, would I see possible shrinkage? Thanks!

The short answer is yes. Please have a look at Dr. William Davis and Dr. Gundry.
Dig deep don't believe the posts that are going to pop up after this one that disagree without proof.
Dr. Davis is a cardiologist who has cured himself of type2 diabetes.
He makes his money from diet weight and loss advice but go deeper and you will find what you need.
Dr. Gundry is also a cardiologist.

Spencerfreeman

Social Medium wrote: »

Based on the studies I've read increasing wholegrains does not increase longevity, reducing refined grains reduces longevity.

People tend to live longer when they switch from the guillotine to the electric chair, it doesn't mean the electric chair is good for you.

One slice of wholegrain bread = 6 teaspoons of sugar according to Dr. Davis.

wakka12

Social Medium wrote: »

Based on the studies I've read increasing wholegrains does not increase longevity, reducing refined grains increases longevity.

People tend to live longer when they switch from the guillotine to the electric chair, it doesn't mean the electric chair is good for you.

People who eat wholegrains tend to make healthier choices than people who eat refined grains. They smoke less, drink less, get more exercise and are usually higher status and higher income.So to conclude that wholegrains are good for you simply because those who eat more wholegrains live longer than those who don't is a logical fallacy.

Ok then you havnt read a lot of studies.
bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2716

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476805/

The meta-regression model made it possible to estimate the decrease in T2D risk corresponding to various changes in whole grain intakes, and the results contribute to setting up quantitative recommendations. For instance, consuming three servings of whole grain foods (45 g of whole grain ingredients) daily would induce a 20% relative reduction in the T2D risk as compared to consuming a half serving (7.5 g of whole grain ingredients). These results should be considered for future recommendations, by considering the actual whole grain intake of the concerned populations. The systematic review protocol was published on the PROSPERO register (CRD42013006925).

When a person ate more whole grain, their risk of diabetes was reduced relative to their risk when they were eating less whole grains. What other evidence do you need exactly? Youre starting to sound like a food conspiracy theorist, really.

Alf Veedersane

The OP doesn't need to give up X, Y or Z unless they held her reduce her caloric intake in a way that is sustainable and gets them the results they want.

Let's not overcomplicate it for them.

wakka12

Social Medium wrote: »

I addressed this in my last post, when people eat more wholegrains they eat less refined grains. It is eating less refined grains that is reducing the incidence of diabetes, eating more wholegrains is not the causal factor. The causal factor is eating less refined grains.

You could perform a study that shows that people with moustaches are more likely to die of a heart attack. You can't therefore conclude that having a moustaches causes a heart attack. What causes the greater likelihood of the heart attack is being older. People with a moustache tend to be older than people without. Therefore having a moustache is correlated with having a heart attack, however it is not the causal factor.

The study does not say that the increased whole grain consumption replaced prior habit of eating refined grain. For all you know, the participants of the study may have not been eating any grains whatsoever before the study, refined or whole. If that is the case, then whole grain consumption directly causes improvements in risks of forming diabetes.

wakka12

Social Medium wrote: »

The study doesn't say water is wet either, the majority of people eat grains. Those who eat more wholegrains tend to eat less refined grains.

The study says those who eat more wholegrains are less likely to get diabetes, you can't therefore conclude that eating wholegrains causes the health benefit just like you can't conclude that people who have a moustache are more likely to have a heart attack because of the moustache.

Thats not convincing, youre making two assumptions, that the participants in the study all eat grain, and secondly that they replaced their refined grains with whole grains, with no evidence to support either. And youre using those two assumptions as claims of evidence of your belief, which you just cant do, especially when youre using those unsubstantiated beliefs to advise people other than yourself about what not to eat

Also that is not a directly comparable analogy. A comparable analogy would be that whole grain consumption was associated with lower risk of diabetes but when consumption was increased it had no effect on risk of diabetes.But in this case increasing whole grain consumption was directly associated with lower risk of diabetes so a relevant analogy would be that moustaches were correlated with higher risk of heart attack which you would think is because more older people have moustaches but surprisingly when the moustaches were shaved off the risk of heart attack was reduced

wakka12

Social Medium wrote: »

The simple fact is this, you can't conclude that wholegrains are the causal factor based on the study. When people eat more wholegrains they eat less refined grains. This wasn't controlled for.

If people who shave their moustache also eat more fast food then you can't conclude that shaving the moustache increases the risk of heart attack.

I know that based on that evidence it cant be consclusively proven... but my whole point is that likewise you also have no evidence to prove they are unhealthy and in fact you have even less evidence to support the fact you think theyre unhealthy because there isnt even correlational evidence suggesting an association between poorer health outcomes and whole-grain consumption. So you have no leg to stand on , at all, so I dont understand , at all, why youre so insistent on it. When you have even find a shred of some correlational evidence to support your theories, maybe then come back giving people lectures about nutrition and youll have some credibility

wakka12

Social Medium wrote: »

I've read scores of studies on the subject and I don't confuse causation with correlation.

You're still hanging on to this idea of correlation, correlation is not causation. That very mistake has resulted in millions of people taking harmful advice from Doctors over the last 40 years based on spurious studies.

so PLEASE post just one of these many studies showing proof that whole grain consumption directly results in poorer health then. Or Ill take it this is trolling now

Spencerfreeman

Social Medium wrote: »

https://bmcendocrdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6823-5-10

https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/129/7/1434S/4722584

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21794776

Thank you for posting these.

silverharp

wakka12 wrote: »

I know that based on that evidence it cant be consclusively proven... but my whole point is that likewise you also have no evidence to prove they are unhealthy and in fact you have even less evidence to support the fact you think theyre unhealthy because there isnt even correlational evidence suggesting an association between poorer health outcomes and whole-grain consumption. So you have no leg to stand on , at all, so I dont understand , at all, why youre so insistent on it. When you have even find a shred of some correlational evidence to support your theories, maybe then come back giving people lectures about nutrition and youll have some credibility

the way I'd look at it that if you got someone who was eating an awful diet and put them on a diet heavy in whole grains, their health would improve. This doesn't mean its a optimum health food though. The important factor here was not eating the processed grains and the rest.

wakka12

silverharp wrote: »

the way I'd look at it that if you got someone who was eating an awful diet and put them on a diet heavy in whole grains, their health would improve. This doesn't mean its a optimum health food though. The important factor here was not eating the processed grains and the rest.

Again , theres just no evidence of that. Youre making an assumption about the participants of the survey. How do you know they all ate refined grains before the survey began? You dont, so its entirely possible that the introduction of whole grain to the dietdirectly resulted in better health outcomes regardless of any prior habits of grain consumption. There is no mention made that the participants reduced their refined grain consumption during the study or that they ever ate refined grain.

Its a lot like you posting a study showing the purported health benefits of say some random food like almonds. And then me being like oh almonds...they actually have no health benefits guys...the people in the study obviously just experienced improved health because they swapped their usual snack of crisps with almonds.. almonds arent healthy, just healthier than crisps. But theres absolutely no evidence to make me think that

Anyway I wish they could just do a study of the effect of increased whole grain consumption specifically on groups that never ate any grain at all in their life to put the arguments to bed. I cant believe there hasnt been one done, does anyone know of a study like this?

silverharp

wakka12 wrote: »

Again , theres just no evidence of that. Youre making an assumption about the participants of the survey. How do you know they all ate refined grains before the survey began? You dont, so its entirely possible that the introduction of whole grain to the dietdirectly resulted in better health outcomes regardless of any prior habits of grain consumption. There is no mention made that the participants reduced their refined grain consumption during the study or that they ever ate refined grain.

Its a lot like you posting a study showing the purported health benefits of say some random food like almonds. And then me being like oh almonds...they actually have no health benefits guys...the people in the study obviously just experienced improved health because they swapped their usual snack of crisps with almonds.. almonds arent healthy, just healthier than crisps. But theres absolutely no evidence to make me think that

Anyway I wish they could just do a study of the effect of increased whole grain consumption specifically on groups that never ate any grain at all in their life to put the arguments to bed. I cant believe there hasnt been one done, does anyone know of a study like this?

Most research in this area is pretty suspect, its observation, questionnaire based, by definition there is little in the way of clinical trial standards of evidence because there are too many variables and you cant exactly lock people in a lab for years, meanwhile its companies like Kelloggs that have research dollars to push so they are paying for the answers they want

I just don't see why grains are an essential food group, an anthropologist would certainly have an interesting input here if you were to look back in human history when looking at hunter gatherers versus farmers say, or if the proposition is that people need grains to be healthy then there are certainly plenty of counter examples.
I’d personally punt for aiming to eat a zero grain zero sugar diet, in that context you would need to convince me and tell me what markers I'd expect to improve over what I am doing?

wakka12

silverharp wrote: »

Most research in this area is pretty suspect, its observation, questionnaire based, by definition there is little in the way of clinical trial standards of evidence because there are too many variables and you cant exactly lock people in a lab for years, meanwhile its companies like Kelloggs that have research dollars to push so they are paying for the answers they want

I just don't see why grains are an essential food group, an anthropologist would certainly have an interesting input here if you were to look back in human history when looking at hunter gatherers versus farmers say, or if the proposition is that people need grains to be healthy then there are certainly plenty of counter examples.
I’d personally punt for aiming to eat a zero grain zero sugar diet, in that context you would need to convince me and tell me what markers I'd expect to improve over what I am doing?

I never said they were an essential food group. Or that you needed them to be healhy. Never ever. And I dont think that. But youre saying theyre unhealthy and should be avoided ,which is a totally different discussion, you are both the ones making the bold claims that stand in contrast to the claims of most science today. Legumes are not essential to health either, obviously, does it mean theyre not healthy?That they should be avoided? Many foods that arent essential to survival or good health can still be healthy foods.That is an awful argument
So you eat hardly any vegetables then other than maybe some leafy greens? Zero sugar ,really? It would be extraordinarily difficult to eat a zero sugar diet, not to mention a lot of time and energy for very questionable benefits with no proven science behind it. I understand that there could be issues with wholegrains, and that we cannot conclusively prove they are healthy because of the lack of clinical trials.That is totally fair. But the thing that totally bugs is that you are both advocating for a paleo diet despite the fact it also has absolutely no clinical trials behind it either to support the theory. So what gives? It is a complete contradiction of what you are saying

Ill take correlational science, over well, nothing. Which is what you seem to prefer, a complete lack of scientific proof favouring a paleo diet, over potential proof in favour of health benefits of whole grain consumption

Macy0161

Lollipop95 wrote: »

Hi there,

I'm a female and have always stored most of my weight on my stomach. Recently I've started combining resistance training with cardio and while I find it effective for loss/toning, the fat on my belly will not shift.
I tend to eat pasta with garlic bread once a week after my workout. I also have sandwiches with bread for lunch. If I cut both of these out, would I see possible shrinkage? Thanks!

As others have said, you can't target weight loss in specific areas.

Calories in v calories out is what science says on losing weight. Portions and overall volume are likely to be the issue rather than individual foods or food groups. The only reason to exclude some foods or food groups is because they make you sick, or you don't like them.

There are other reasons you may want to switch to wholegrains (fibre, feeling fuller for longer) and reduce sugar. But ultimately, it's calories in v calories out.

iguana

It might be worth reducing your simple carb intake. When I ate big portions of simple carbs at every meal I was hungry faster and ate more. When I upped my protein intake and reduced simple carbs (and eliminated processed sugar) I found I felt full for longer. And when I got hungry it was a different type of hunger. A healthy sort of eagerness for dinner rather than the lightheaded and headachey way I used to experience hunger. I still eat plenty of simple carbs but now it’s more like a small portion of oats or sweet potato with a protein heavy breakfast and one normal portion of rice/potatoes with dinner. And I’m extremely physically active with a job that means lots of walking about and a physically intensive hobby I practice as many days of the week as I can, for several hours at a time. If I was less active I’d eat less carbs.

That said I have found that pasta and a lot of bread makes me extremely uncomfortably bloated very quickly. Less than an hour after eating them my whole tummy is distended and I feel awful for most of the rest of the day. So I eat pasta made from lentil flour now and am careful with bread and try to stick to bread that doesn’t cause that issue. So you could be experiencing bloating a lot of the time but aren’t aware of it if it’s very regular.

iguana

And are you only exercising once a week? If so I’d try to increase that. And focus on strengthening your core. You can’t spot target fat reduction but you can work on building the muscle behind the fat. If your core is slack it will add to the appearance of excess tummy fat. A strong core will improve the appearance of your tummy. But beyond that it will improve most aspects of your physicality. As a skater I’ve built a really strong core and it just makes nearly everything I do easier.