Calories vs. Carbs

2

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited September 2015
    ceoverturf wrote: »
    hcumplido wrote: »
    ceoverturf wrote: »
    hcumplido wrote: »
    High carb foods are usually very caloric, so cutting back on them is a good tool for keeping calories low.

    As a general rule - no. Carbs have 4 calories per gram. Fat has 9 calories per gram. High FAT foods are (by definition) the most caloric for a given weight. The "very caloric" high carb foods you're referring to either probably a) are also very high in fats or b) you're not comparing similar serving sizes.
    A large salad will have the same amount of calories as a serving of rice, with the salad being more filling. On a 1200 calorie diet, you must be VERY selective with your food and choose filling options.

    The dressing alone on a large salad would have more calories than a serving of rice.

    I did not say Carbs were the most caloric, just that they were very caloric.

    But that's not true at all. Carbs are no more caloric than protein (each at 4 calories per gram), and both are less caloric than fat.
    The salad I eat almost daily has 300 calories, and it fills a very large bowl. It's about 4 cups of food. ti42doc058c7.png

    A cup of white rice has 200 calories. I can eat an entire meal for 100 calories more. The goal is to eat enough to satisfy you within your calorie limits.

    That's great, but anecdotal evidence does not prove an assertion. Also, your claim was that a serving of rice was equal calorically to a salad, which your own follow up disproves.
    When I am picking side dishes for dinner (or any other meal really) I tend to avoid "carbs" like pasta and rice for no other reason other than I can get a greater volume of food for less calories by choosing other things. You can have 4 cups of Pictsweet green beans and still be eating less calories than that 1 cup of rice. This is true for many other low starch vegetables.

    Again, anecdotal. If you're limited to 1200 calories a day, yes, you often have to choose low calorie per volume foods. But that has nothing to do with carbs (for the record, the vast majority of the calories in those 4 cups of green beans are from ...gasp...carbs!)


    That's what's so weird about this discussion sometimes.

    I thnk what the poster is trying to say is that starches are more calorie dense than non-starchy vegetables, but of course both are carbs.

    For me, including some starches can add to my satiety, and I don't find them all that calorie dense. For example, 100 grams of red potatoes=70 calories, or 100 grams of sweet potatoes=86 calories. I'd eat that, or maybe a bit less (or more, if I have the calories) with my green beans and spinach. If I was really low on calories I'd be less likely to include it or perhaps decrease the amount, but I find I am more satisfied overall when I do add something like that (or perhaps some fresh local corn when in season) to dinner.

    Clearly not everyone is the same, but that's the point.
  • lyndahh75
    lyndahh75 Posts: 124 Member
    I find a good balance of both fat and fiber work. Empty foods like sugar, as delicious as they are, definitely leave me feeling empty
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member
    edited September 2015
    A *sustained* low carb diet, while eating at a deficit, can be an excellent way to lose weight, especially if you find fats more satiating than carbs. It's not for everyone. The sudden weight loss you might have after a day or two of not eating carbs is the water you're losing from splitting glycogen into glucose, as your body tends to use glycogen before switching to fatty acid metabolism.

    But yes, if you stick with it, and eat at a caloric deficit, you'll lose body fat on low carbs. If your only reason for eating low carb is weight loss, then it is strictly a matter of preference.
  • TiaGia101
    TiaGia101 Posts: 51 Member
    TeaBea wrote: »
    TiaGia101 wrote: »
    I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?

    11 pounds to go - weight loss will be slow. Carbs have nothing to do with it.

    1200 before exercise is a default minimum. If you had picked a weekly goal of 1/2 pound a week (more appropriate) .....you would have gotten more than 1200 calories. Your choice.

    I did pick a 1/2 pound a week weight loss and 1200 calories is what it gave me.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    edited September 2015
    TiaGia101 wrote: »
    TeaBea wrote: »
    TiaGia101 wrote: »
    I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?

    11 pounds to go - weight loss will be slow. Carbs have nothing to do with it.

    1200 before exercise is a default minimum. If you had picked a weekly goal of 1/2 pound a week (more appropriate) .....you would have gotten more than 1200 calories. Your choice.

    I did pick a 1/2 pound a week weight loss and 1200 calories is what it gave me.

    I think you might need to re-enter all your info. At 5'10, 165, with 15 lbs to lose and rate of loss 0.5 lbs/week even at Sedentary your calorie goal should be higher than 1200.

    ETA I put those stats in at Sedendary and got 1620 cals as a goal.

  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    TiaGia101 wrote: »
    TeaBea wrote: »
    TiaGia101 wrote: »
    I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?

    11 pounds to go - weight loss will be slow. Carbs have nothing to do with it.

    1200 before exercise is a default minimum. If you had picked a weekly goal of 1/2 pound a week (more appropriate) .....you would have gotten more than 1200 calories. Your choice.

    I did pick a 1/2 pound a week weight loss and 1200 calories is what it gave me.

    I think you might need to re-enter all your info. At 5'10, 165, with 15 lbs to lose and rate of loss 0.5 lbs/week even at Sedentary your calorie goal should be higher than 1200.

    ETA I put those stats in at Sedendary and got 1620 cals as a goal.

    Yeah - not at 5'10"
  • TiaGia101
    TiaGia101 Posts: 51 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    TiaGia101 wrote: »
    TeaBea wrote: »
    TiaGia101 wrote: »
    I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?

    11 pounds to go - weight loss will be slow. Carbs have nothing to do with it.

    1200 before exercise is a default minimum. If you had picked a weekly goal of 1/2 pound a week (more appropriate) .....you would have gotten more than 1200 calories. Your choice.

    I did pick a 1/2 pound a week weight loss and 1200 calories is what it gave me.

    I think you might need to re-enter all your info. At 5'10, 165, with 15 lbs to lose and rate of loss 0.5 lbs/week even at Sedentary your calorie goal should be higher than 1200.

    ETA I put those stats in at Sedendary and got 1620 cals as a goal.

    That's strange. I got 1200 again. I also put in for a sedentary lifestyle since I'm at a desk from 8 to 6 everyday. Anyway I do go over 1200 but usually still within my exercise cals. I have been losing at about a rate of 1/2 lb a week which has felt super slow. But then after a few days in which I ate a bit over my limit I gained a few lbs back and then after eating no carbs at dinner, it dropped right off.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    TiaGia101 wrote: »
    I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?



    Do you monitor your sodium intake? That will make a difference in your water retention, and if you ate less of it for a few days, could result in a 'whoosh'.
  • KittensMaster
    KittensMaster Posts: 748 Member
    I am low carb lifestyle and it is just another way of eating nothing magic

    I eliminated high sugar high fat calorie sense foods like brownies and those deserts. I eat lots of filling veggies.

    Just doing that lower my calories. I count calories.

    If you like veggies and meat then low carb within your calorie range may be your choice. I am a carnivore so it works great.

    But don't fall into the myth of eating endless calories as long as they are low carb.

    I have lost 130 in two years and just recently got to 13% body fat. It was moderately low carb and exercise with an eye on calories

    No magic. There are no shortcuts.

    Good luck on whatever eating choice you make.
  • Lovee_Dove7
    Lovee_Dove7 Posts: 742 Member
    Low carb works for me, but also in conjunction with plenty of fiber and I focus on eating a LOT of vegetables every single day. I stalled in my weight loss (25lbs lost in 3months earlier this year), looked over my food diary, and found that it was during the time when I wasn't eating all the veggies and getting all the fiber I should.
  • honkytonks85
    honkytonks85 Posts: 669 Member
    You lost water.
  • CrazyMermaid1
    CrazyMermaid1 Posts: 354 Member
    Carbs such as pasta, bread and rice make me hungrier after I eat them so I avoid them. The worst food for me is Cheerios for some reason.
  • scolaris
    scolaris Posts: 2,145 Member
    Yeah, I'm having a hard time understanding how someone your size would get 1200 calories. Something seems off.
  • TiaGia101
    TiaGia101 Posts: 51 Member
    I'm not a meat eater so doing a carb free diet is not something I could ever do. I'm just talking about skipping the rice or crackers I usually eat with singer because I love my carbs. Tonight I had red snapper.

    I put in to lose a pound a week and MFP gave me 1200 cals. But I've been losing slower than that. I picked a lower calorie count because I do t work out as much as I used to.

    Also, I love my salt but I'm sensitive to sodium so I avoid it or I am all puffy the next day.
  • TiaGia101
    TiaGia101 Posts: 51 Member
    UprightMan wrote: »
    I understand exactly what your saying, I've reduced my carb intake just to see what my results would be and I lost a pound yesterday from today and I don't mind that it's water weight to start it's exciting to see the scale going down!

    If you're excited to see the scale going down, why not just chop your arm off? It has the same beneficial effect - that is to say, you've done absolutely nothing that really helps you but as long as the number is lowered, you're content.

    Your sarcasm is not useful to anyone here.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,228 Member
    scolaris wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm having a hard time understanding how someone your size would get 1200 calories. Something seems off.

    Yes I agree.

    I don't know my starting weight in pounds but was 72 kg and had 10 kg to lose which is about 22lb. Similar to,OP's 15 lb to lose.
    I am over 6 inches shorter than OP and In my 50's.

    Admittedly I put myself as. Lightly active not sedentary but even at 1/2 lb per week rate, I was still given 1460.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    I put in the OPs stats yesterday for my own profile. At sedentary it gave me 1620 to lose 0.5 lb/week.

    OP you said you were 5'10, right? Not 5'1?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    I put in the OPs stats yesterday for my own profile. At sedentary it gave me 1620 to lose 0.5 lb/week.

    OP you said you were 5'10, right? Not 5'1?

    I did the same and got 1590 (kept my age, which is older than OP, which explains the small difference).

    Either OP is putting in at least a loss of 1.5 lb/week as the goal or there's something screwed up about the goal she's getting and she should email support.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    BMR 1486 * 1.2 - 500 = 1283 based on 5'-10" female 160 lbs. 5'-1" would take that to 1112 ie hit the 1200 floor.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    BMR 1486 * 1.2 - 500 = 1283 based on 5'-10" female 160 lbs. 5'-1" would take that to 1112 ie hit the 1200 floor.

    She said she entered 0.5 lb/week rate of loss.