We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Why counting calories could be making you fatter.

12346»

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    ana3067 wrote: »
    CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.

    I wouldn't want to put money on that
    8jow3zp01vff.png
    dyson-et-al-2007.jpg
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    I probably ought to watch the actual show - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05nhyt8/the-truth-about-2-calories
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.

    I wouldn't want to put money on that
    8jow3zp01vff.png
    dyson-et-al-2007.jpg

    Weight loss and fat loss are not synonyms when you're studying body composition. I wonder how much additional "weight loss" in the low-carb group was water and glycogen.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,517 Member
    edited March 2015
    Zedeff wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.

    I wouldn't want to put money on that
    8jow3zp01vff.png
    dyson-et-al-2007.jpg

    Weight loss and fat loss are not synonyms when you're studying body composition. I wonder how much additional "weight loss" in the low-carb group was water and glycogen.
    True for the first month, maybe. Most of these studies that like to compare high carb to low carb are really comparing a higher protein diet in disguise, with protein having a definite TEF advantage and why we should compare studies with protein held as a constant, put that never happens it seems. Also the low carb participants are generally directed to eat without restriction while the high carb group is calorie restricted. What normally happens is the low carb group eat fewer overall calories for the first few (6) months where satiety factors in but then normally the carbs start to creep back into their diets and aren't really consuming the same low carb diet and consuming more overall calories and hence the weight loss over longer comparisons don't pan out as well.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    I don't understand what is so hard to get about if you just want to lose weight and do not care about recomp and what not then calorie deficit is all that matters; however, if you have body recomp goals (build muscle/lose body fat/recomp/etc) then macros, coupled with calorie intake becomes more important...

    MFP taking simple concepts and making them complex, just because since 1990....geez
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    I don't understand what is so hard to get about if you just want to lose weight and do not care about recomp and what not then calorie deficit is all that matters; however, if you have body recomp goals (build muscle/lose body fat/recomp/etc) then macros, coupled with calorie intake becomes more important...

    MFP taking simple concepts and making them complex, just because since 1990....geez
    +1
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    A whole bunch of citations lacking from the last few replies.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,517 Member
    edited March 2015
    Zedeff wrote: »
    A whole bunch of citations lacking from the last few replies.
    Just an observation on all the studies I've looked at over the years, there's plenty of them. I assume water weight (glycogen storage) was the only effect you've come across then?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories