Carbs or fat? Totally confused

Options
135

Replies

  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Options
    gonetothedogs19 wrote: »
    ClementinaRusso wrote: »
    It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.

    You're posting on the wrong site.

    Not than anyone here believes or is suggesting that you eat donuts for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But just about everyone here believes that if you eat 1,800 calories of donuts for one year, five years or ten years, and exercise X amount, your weight will be exactly the same if you eat 1,800 calories of a balanced diet for one year, five years or ten years and exercise X amount.

    Just intuitively, it makes no sense.

    You seem to say that a lot. Have you researched what CICO is? Because last posts I saw from you, you seemed to be unclear on how that worked, too.
  • Jcl81
    Jcl81 Posts: 154 Member
    Options
    I see people outrun a bad diet all the time, I actually did it in High-school myself.
  • cgvet37
    cgvet37 Posts: 1,189 Member
    Options
    It comes down to feeding your body with what it needs. You can eat what you want. I can eat 2,600 calories in fast food, or 2,600 in food I prepared myself. It's still 2,600 calories. However, which is better nutrient wise, the food I prepared. I eat a lot of carbs so I have the energy to make it through my workouts. When I was eating in a higher defecit, I started feeling weak in the gym. So I upped my caloric intake. Which was mostly carbs. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    @aashish14914 I'm going to suggest you start over on your research and put the top ten Google hits on "how to lose weight fast" in the trash bin. Then I suggest you read a few expert articles (from a university or government agency website).

    You will lose weight if you eat less than you burn daily. It can be any combination of macros but you will likely feel better if you eat a variety of foods.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    gonetothedogs19 wrote: »
    ClementinaRusso wrote: »
    It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.

    You're posting on the wrong site.

    Not than anyone here believes or is suggesting that you eat donuts for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But just about everyone here believes that if you eat 1,800 calories of donuts for one year, five years or ten years, and exercise X amount, your weight will be exactly the same if you eat 1,800 calories of a balanced diet for one year, five years or ten years and exercise X amount.

    Just intuitively, it makes no sense.

    For your intuition it might not make sense

    But scientifically it does

    So perhaps your intuition has been completely destroyed by tabloid, magazine, and celebrity money making weight loss schemes...I would almost bet that has happened to you, because it happens to everyone and you have to fight against it

    Weight is scientifically relevant to calorie intake over calorie expenditure

    The majority here advocate a balanced diet to hit nutritional markers, most people have just found success by following a way of eating that suits them, appeals to them and they can stick to long term ..but the overriding feature is calories in vs calories out


  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    ClementinaRusso wrote: »
    It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.

    And yet we still have to remind people that weight loss and fitness are two separate things. You can be skinny and unfit. The "bad fuel" you're referring to doesn't change your weight loss, it changes your fitness. You're blending together two goals, that while commonly worked on together, are still two separate goals.

    Whoa ... that isn't always true. There have been plenty of people experimenting and blogging about process food diets vs eating the same or more calories with healthier food. A lot of processed foods are loaded with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats and sometimes they are metabolized in unhealthy ways.

    In my own case, just cutting back on added sugar in my diet made huge changes, although at least according to MFP I should be probably gaining weight most of the time. Maybe there are different triggers for different people. I wasn't having any problems with building muscle with the bad fuel, but dropping the bad fuel started my stalled weight loss again. The amount of calories involved were minor and now that I'm making progress I've been adding back calories. (Some extra calories helps with building muscle.)

    Bad fuel can also impact weight loss as well as fitness. (Noted building muscle and gaining performance may not be the same as internal fitness.)
  • cityruss
    cityruss Posts: 2,493 Member
    Options
    ClementinaRusso wrote: »
    It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.

    Evidence?
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    Options
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    ClementinaRusso wrote: »
    It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.

    And yet we still have to remind people that weight loss and fitness are two separate things. You can be skinny and unfit. The "bad fuel" you're referring to doesn't change your weight loss, it changes your fitness. You're blending together two goals, that while commonly worked on together, are still two separate goals.

    Whoa ... that isn't always true. There have been plenty of people experimenting and blogging about process food diets vs eating the same or more calories with healthier food. A lot of processed foods are loaded with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats and sometimes they are metabolized in unhealthy ways.

    In my own case, just cutting back on added sugar in my diet made huge changes, although at least according to MFP I should be probably gaining weight most of the time. Maybe there are different triggers for different people. I wasn't having any problems with building muscle with the bad fuel, but dropping the bad fuel started my stalled weight loss again. The amount of calories involved were minor and now that I'm making progress I've been adding back calories. (Some extra calories helps with building muscle.)

    Bad fuel can also impact weight loss as well as fitness. (Noted building muscle and gaining performance may not be the same as internal fitness.)

    So I'm supposed to believe random bloggers over peer-reviewed scientific studies? Nope, sorry.

    What peer-reviewed scientific studies?

    There are plenty of studies that show calories from sugar in sweetened beverages are very detrimental to weight loss. Here are just a few:
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493538
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15668676


  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    cityruss wrote: »
    ClementinaRusso wrote: »
    It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.

    Evidence?

    What evidence do you have that all calories are the same? It simply can't possibly be true. There isn't any calorie counting going on in the human body. Different types of molecules are handled differently. If that isn't true there is no validity to many types of diets, however just the fact that changing a diet can cause ketosis proves that all calories are not the same.

    Different types of calories have different effects on human metabolism. There is no doubt that some of the differences impact fitness and some of the differences impact weight loss.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.pt/2015/11/carbohydrate-sugar-and-obesity-in.html

    Neat little chart embedded in that blog piece

    For studies:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11477496

    greater weight loss in the higher added sugar group

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9094871

    (Full text: http://www.conazucar.com/pdf/informes/sobrepeso/Metabolic-and-behavioral-effects-of-high-sucrose-diet-during-weight-loss.pdf)

    "Results showed that a high sucrose content in a hypoenergetic, low-fat diet did not adversely affect weight loss, metabolism, plasma lipids, or emotional affect."


  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    dykask wrote: »
    cityruss wrote: »
    ClementinaRusso wrote: »
    It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.

    Evidence?

    What evidence do you have that all calories are the same? It simply can't possibly be true. There isn't any calorie counting going on in the human body. Different types of molecules are handled differently. If that isn't true there is no validity to many types of diets, however just the fact that changing a diet can cause ketosis proves that all calories are not the same.

    Different types of calories have different effects on human metabolism. There is no doubt that some of the differences impact fitness and some of the differences impact weight loss.

    There is no different types of calories any more than there are different inches, grams or degrees celsius.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    There are no different inches ?

    I am shocked
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    No need to really complicate things. Diving into this whirlpool of carb vs fat would only make things more confusing with opinions playing tug-o-war.

    All you need to know is this: make sure you are eating fewer calories than your body burns, adjusting for your activity level, but put a little bit more effort (without feeling like you are forcing it) into eating nutritious foods because many of these foods tend to be filling in addition to being nutritious. Eat the things you like within reason. See where your macros settle while eating the most comfortable diet to you then tweak from there if you happen to be too low on one of your macros.

    Optimal intake for humans is a range, not a number. That's why we are so resilient and thrive on a variety of foods and macro distributions. If you hit your minimums in protein/fat/carbs you should be good to go regardless where the rest of your calories end up.
  • BiggDaddy58
    BiggDaddy58 Posts: 406 Member
    Options
    I'm sorry..I am in the camp that all calories are not the same.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    Options
    Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYmd8IEHV4

    There is no doubt that many people do loose weight by faithfully following CICO. There is also no doubt that it doesn't work all the time. There is no concept of counting calories inside the human body. The calorie is a concept that didn't even exist before 1824 and wasn't used widely until the mid-twentieth century. (Basically before obesity was a major issue.) The process of determining how many calories are in food doesn't even match how energy is extracted or used in the body. At some point there clearly is an energy balance, but it isn't something that is constant or probably even correctly measured.

    CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.

Categories