If you’re looking for a list of good carbs and bad carbs, you might need to change your ideas about dieting a little. While certain carbs that are worse for your body than others, there aren’t really good carbs and bad carbs, just good amounts and less healthy amounts.

Counting Carbs
It seems like more and more people are counting carbs, or at least paying more attention to the amount and type of carbs they eat. Popular diets such as the Atkins Diet have convinced people that there are good carbs and bad carbs, and the bad carbs need to be avoided and the good carbs limited.

While it’s a good idea to keep your intake of “bad” carbs in check, many health experts recommend that carbohydrates should make up at least 55 percent of a person’s total caloric intake, while others say that number should be as high as 65 percent.

This is fairly high so you don’t want to discount carbs. At the same time, it’s clear these people aren’t talking about the carbs you’ll find in candy, cookies and other highly processed foods, so that’s where the idea of a list of good carbs and bad carbs comes from.

A List of Good Carbs and Bad Carbs
If you had to make a list of carbs that you should eat more of versus carbs you should avoid, it basically breaks down into simple carbs being “bad” and complex carbs being “good.”

Complex and simple are terms that have to do with how the food is broken down into energy (sugar) in the body. Simple carbs are broken down quickly, giving your blood sugar a spike and sending you running back to the kitchen or snack machine within hours of your last fix.

Complex carbs are the ones that give your body the best fuel. They are usually found in foods high in fiber, which break down more slowly, giving you a more steady blood sugar level through the day and making you feel less hungry and irritable when mid-afternoon rolls around.

It’s a great idea to get more of these carbs into your daily diet.

Here is a list of good carbohydrates :
- Fruit
- Vegetables
- Whole grains and foods made from whole grains, such as bread and cereal
- Beans
- Nuts
- Legumes

Bad carbohydrates are :
- Refined grains like white bread and white rice
- Processed foods such as cake, cookies and chips
- Soft drinks
- Alcohol

Just because these foods have less desirable carbs does not mean you should kick them out of your life forever. A list of good carbs and bad carbs should not be seen as a strict rule. Yes, you should get most of your carbs each day from the “good” list, but you certainly don’t have to cut our alcohol or skip the birthday cake, as long as you don’t make it an every day or every meal thing.

Cutting carbs for Weight Loss
Cutting back on the bad carbs can help you lose weight, as well as give you a feeling of more energy and less irritability. Carbs are the fuel that makes your body run. Putting the right fuel in your engine makes a world of difference.

Because the good carb foods tend to have higher fiber and lower calories than many processed bad carb foods, you’ll find yourself feeling fuller while eating fewer calories though it’s possible you’ll be eating a bigger volume of food.

If you think about the kinds of foods you’re adding and the ones you’re giving up, then this makes sense.

It would take a lot more fruit to equal the same number of calories you’d eat in a candy bar, and you’ll probably feel satisfied after one piece or serving of fruit which is much lower in calories than the candy bar. Even better, you’ll feel satisfied for a long period of time and won’t feel the need for another unhealthy snack later in the day.

Postcode lottery
Thousands of people with cancer are dying prematurely because they live in the “wrong” part of the country, a government report revealed a few days ago.
Charities and MPs condemned the variations, which mean that sufferers in some parts of the country have significantly less chance of surviving at least a year after diagnosis of cancer.
Although overall cancer survival rates have improved, almost all NHS primary care trusts (PCTs) in England are failing to match the best cancer survival rates in Europe despite the introduction of a national Cancer Reform Strategy two years ago.

A real problem
Patients in Herefordshire are more than three times more likely to die within a year of diagnosis of lung cancer compared with patients in Kensington and Chelsea, according to the progress report published by the Department of Health.
Cancer Research UK called for urgent action from the Government, adding that there was “no excuse” for the differences in life expectancy between different areas.
The second annual progress report on the Cancer Reform Strategy comes after Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director, estimated that late diagnosis of cancer causes at least 10,000 premature deaths a year.
In an article for the British Journal of Cancer, Professor Richards writes: “These delays in the patient presenting with symptoms and cancer being diagnosed at a late stage inevitably costs lives.
“The situation is unacceptable so the first big step has been to understand why the delays occur.”

Patients not being treated / diagnosed early enough
Every year more than 290,000 people in Britain have some form of cancer diagnosed, and about 150,000 people die.
But while eight out of ten patients with bowel cancer live for more than a year after diagnosis in Telford and Wrekin in the West Midlands, less than six out of ten (57.9 per cent) do so in Waltham Forest, North London.
Ninety-nine per cent of all patients in Torbay, Devon, survive at least a year after a diagnosis of breast cancer, but this figure is 89 per cent in Tower Hamlets.
Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research, said: “These shocking statistics confirm that the cancer postcode lottery remains a real problem.
“Patients are undoubtedly not being diagnosed early enough in large parts of the country, nor are they getting equal access to the best treatments, such as surgery for lung cancer.
“It’s a disgrace that such a small proportion of primary care trusts have survival rates that match the best figures in Europe, or even the best rates in Europe ten years ago.
“This needs urgent action.”

A lack of proper diagnostic tests and understanding of symptoms
A separate report by MPs on the All Party Parliamentary Group for Cancer, also published today, suggests that older patients may also be at risk of dying earlier due to a lack of proper diagnostic tests or symptoms.
Mark Simmonds, MP, a Conservative health spokesman, said: “We are concerned by this data, which demonstrates the unacceptable inequalities in treatment and care for cancer patients. In 2000 the Government pledged that reducing health inequalities was a key aim, yet nearly a decade on the gap has widened and five-year cancer survival rates still lag behind those of comparable European countries.”

Andy Burnham’s pledge
Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, responded: “Cancer treatment in Britain has improved vastly in recent years and this is shown in the falling mortality rates and increasing survival rates.
“However, we know that survival rates vary across the country, particularly in deprived areas, so this year’s report has deliberately focused on local variations so we can highlight to the NHS where they need to take action.
“I hope that the publication of this data combined with the Prime Minister’s pledge to give patients key diagnostic tests within just one week of seeing their GP will save thousands more lives.”

Can you go for more than a day without eating sugar in any form? Do you drink soft drinks or milkshakes, eat Danish pastry, fruit yogurt (a 6 oz. cartoon has 7 teaspoons of sugar or honey), donuts, bagels, cakes, cookies, most bran muffins or many other sugary items. Can you go without any other foods that contain words ending in “ose” such as sucrose, fructose, etc., or contain corn syrup, corn sweetener, honey, barley malt, maple syrup, sugar cane solids, or rice syrup? Do you pig out on a carton of ice cream or a bag of cookies? If you find that sugar is part of your diet every day, you may have a problem.

The problem with sugar
The average person eats 153 pounds of sugar a year. That is equivalent to over 1/2 cup of sugar a day. The teenage boy eats twice that much. So you say, “Who cares?” What is wrong with sugar?
There is much scientific evidence written in many medical journals showing that sugar can ruin your health. Do you have any of the following symptoms? Do you fall asleep after meals, have allergies, gas, bloating, extended stomach after meals, joint pains, headaches, chronic fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, over weight, skin problems, high blood pressure or other symptoms? These all can be signs of a sugar problem.

Here’s the problem: The human body was simply not designed to handle refined sugars.Refined sugar is new to the human diet. Metabolizing refined sugar is quite a challenge, but if forced to, the body will struggle to cope with it. This struggle causes serious disturbances, and after time, disease is the guaranteed result.
We have evolved from early man having digestive mechanisms to digest foods. We do not have the digestive mechanisms to digest the glut of sugar that we are eating on a daily basis!

Sugar in your body
Recently, information has emerged as to what happens to the minerals in the body when sugar and other abusive foods are eaten.
Sugar throws body chemistry into biochemical chaos lasting for six to eight hours after consumption. During this period, hormone, fat, carbohydrate, and protein metabolism are greatly disrupted.

After consumption, refined sugar is rapidly absorbed by the body, which dangerously increases the sugar content of the blood. Excess sugar causes production of excess insulin, which signals cells to take up sugar. Cells then absorb sugar, to get it out of the bloodstream. This solves one problem but creates another: Now the body’s cells have too much sugar. To correct this imbalance, cells turn the sugar into saturated fats and cholesterol.

Increased insulin levels not only tell the body to store fat, but they also tell it not to release fat. This makes people get fat and stay fat. It causes fat to be deposited in our cells and organs, resulting in atherosclerosis, fatty liver and kidneys, and obesity.

These fats cause blood cells to become sticky thereby increasing the chances of blood clots, strokes and heart attacks. Sugar increases “bad” LDL cholesterol, decreases “good” HDL cholesterol, and increases triglyceride levels in the blood. If antioxidant vitamins and minerals are deficient, these triglycerides can be oxidized causing serious health problems. In addition, red blood cells are choked by the saturated fats and this reduces their ability to carry oxygen to our tissues.

Hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) is another problem caused by sugar consumption. When insulin is secreted into the blood, it makes blood sugar levels fall rapidly. Insulin levels remain high however, so the body continues to take up sugar beyond the point where it needs to. The result is hypoglycemia. Symptoms include weakness, dizziness, crying spells, insomnia, aggression, and depression.

Sugar in breakfasts or lunches can cause children to do poorly in school. They become hypoglycemic about 60 minutes after eating sugar and this affects brain function. Many teachers claim that their students are “brain dead” after lunch, and this is why.

Sugar-induced hormone imbalances tax and weaken the immune system to the point where it can no longer defend the body. When insulin causes blood sugar to fall excessively low, the adrenal glands secret hormones that pump blood sugar back up. Daily consumption of sugar causes an overworked biochemical balancing act resulting in adrenal exhaustion, which in turn decreases the body’s ability to respond to future stress. Adrenal exhaustion is now a common problem in the chronically ill.

Sugar quadruples adrenaline levels, while increasing both cholesterol and cortisone. Cortisone is known to depress immune function. Studies show that the ability of white cells to destroy harmful bacteria is reduced as sugar consumption rises. This is why children, who eat lots of sugar, are more susceptible to colds, flu, and other infections.

Another point is Fiber Deficiency : Humans were designed to derive energy from complex carbohydrates, which are naturally high in fiber. By contrast, a high sugar diet provides calories without the fiber that is essential to human health. Insufficient fiber causes materials to move too slowly through the digestive tract. This can cause constipation, which is a big problem in our society. It also causes waste to remain too long in the colon where it can serve as food for harmful bacteria, thereby producing gas and toxins, and promoting intestinal inflammation and bloating.

Conclusion
The bottom line is that sugar upsets the body chemistry and suppresses the immune system. Once the immune system becomes suppressed, the door is opened to infectious and degenerative diseases. The stronger the immune system the easier it is for the body to fight infectious and degenerative diseases.
Sugar is implicated in the following diseases and many more: allergies, arthritis, diabetes, hypoglycemia, osteoporosis, gallstones, kidney stones, headaches, yeast infections, and cataracts.

So if you have any of the symptoms or diseases mentioned, remove all forms of sugar from your diet for two weeks, I think that you will be pleasantly surprised. Not only will some of those symptoms disappear but you will be strengthening your immune system, allowing it to do the job it was meant to, defend you against foreign invaders.

Some of the other effects of sugar on the body are:
* Increases overgrowth of candida yeast organism
* Increases chronic fatigue
* Can trigger binge eating in those with bulima
* Increases PMS symptoms
* Increases hyperactivity in about 50% of children
* Increases tooth decay
* Increases anxiety and irritability
* Can increase or intensify symptoms of anxiety and panic in susceptible women
* Can make it difficult to lose weight because of constantly high insulin levels, which causes the body to store excess carbs as fat.

A child’s never-ending “why’s” aren’t meant to exasperate parents, scientists say. Rather, the kiddy queries are genuine attempts at getting at the truth, and tots respond better to some answers than others.
This new finding, based on a two-part study involving children ages 2 to 5, also suggests they are much more active about their knowledge-gathering than previously thought.

Kids are good at fact finding
“Even from really early on when they start asking these how and why questions, they are asking them in order to get explanations,” lead researcher Brandy Frazier of the University of Michigan told LiveScience.
When explanations came their way, the little ones probed further, they found. “Kids are playing more of an active role in learning about the world around them than we may have expected,” Frazier said.
The new findings, which are detailed in the November/December issue of the journal Child Development, can’t be generalized to all children since the sample sizes were small.

Curious chatter
Past research from the early to mid 1900s on child development had suggested that young children were only aware of temporal relationships between two events and couldn’t differentiate cause from effect until about 7 or 8 years of age. More recent work has suggested otherwise, that as early as age 3 children get causality.
Lacking from such studies are kids’ reactions to the information they get to their causal questions.
To figure out kids’ responses to different questions, Frazier and her colleagues examined transcripts from everyday conversations of six kids, ages 2 to 4, who were speaking with parents, siblings and visitors at home. With just six kids, the researchers analyzed the transcripts, more than 580 of them, as their unit of analysis. Overall, there were more than 3,100 causal how and why questions such as, “Why my tummy so big, mom?” “Why not keep a light on?” and “How can snakes hear if they don’t have ears?”

Fact seeking
Results showed kids were more than twice as likely to re-ask their question after a non-explanation compared with a real answer. And when they did get an explanation, which was about 37 percent of the time, they were more than four times as likely to reply with a follow-up inquiry as if they had received a non-explanatory response.
Preliminary results from a separate new study of Frazier’s suggest there is such a thing as too much information in a response. “It seems like kids might have an optimal level of detail they’re interested in,” Frazier said.

Odd items
The next part of the new study was lab-based and involved 42 preschoolers, ages 3 to 5, who chatted when prompted with toys, storybooks and videos. The items were designed to create surprising, question-provoking situations. For instance, kids were shown a box of all-red crayons, a puzzle with a piece that didn’t fit, and a storybook describing a child who poured orange juice on his cereal.
The adults who showed kids each item had certain explanatory and non-explanatory responses. So as expected, kids asked about the orange-juice scenario: “Why did he do that?” The adult would then respond with the explanation, “He thought it was milk in the pitcher,” or the non-explanation, “I like to put milk on my cereal.”
They found significant differences in types of reactions to the explanatory answers versus the non-explanatory ones. Nearly 30 percent of the time kids would agree, nod or say “oh” after getting a true explanation, compared with just under 13 percent of the time for non-explanations.
For such non-answers, more than 20 percent of the time kids re-asked the original question. Just 1 percent of kids receiving an explanation did the same.
The newly published study was funded, in part, by the National Science Foundation and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Conclusion
If you want your kids to learn you have to make a genuine effort to explain them how the world is.