If I cut out bread will that help loosing weight?
Options
Replies
-
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »
A calorie is simply a measurement of a chemical reaction within your body - fats, carbs and proteins all have a calorific value to them as a base minimum and then are generally surrounded by other content factors.ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »I'm going to be the one to tell you that a calorie is not always a calorie. I have cut down on carbs in general and have lost 23 pounds with out changing my calories at all. So I am saying yes, as long as you do not replace those carbs with other carbs but rather with healthy fats and protein you will see positive results on the scale.
Chicken might be majorly protein, however the substance coating the chicken will likely be carbohydrate based (BBQ glaze, etc - chicken skin mainly consists of fats).
A calorie can never be anything other than a calorie because it isn't a nutrient, it's a way to measure the body's ability to displace energy.
Excess energy that isn't used as ATP and released is stored by the body as added bodyfat.
No mater how you choose to attain a calorie deficit, it will still be a calorie deficit regardless consistency of protein, fats or carbs.
Body composition is an entirely different beast but calories are relatively simple when you see them as what they are.
This is not in any way related to what I said at all. I said I did NOT change my calories. I continued with the same intake that I had previously when I was NOT losing weight. The only thing I changed was carbs, and obviously that made a difference in my protein and fat intake. But calories did not change.
Out of curiosity were you calorie counting when you were not losing weight and for how long did you maintain that diet while calorie counting and not losing weight before you made the change?
Yes I was calorie counting when I was actually sometimes gaining. I was at 187 lbs and rising slowly. This went on for the better part of the last 6 years. I was frustrated and decided to keep up with everything from fat to sodium. I reduced my carbohydrate intake from around 400 (sometimes more) to 200 and started seeing a slow weight loss. Still doing between 1450-1500 calories, but I have changed what those calories come from. I could get into some long discussion as to all the ways all those carbs were affecting me in my day to day but I will spare you the speech. I know people who may not have the same experience would have a difficult time understanding this or even believing it. I spent such a very long time hearing and believing that "a calorie is a calorie, it's not what you eat but how much". This never rang true for me in any way. For what ever the reason.
With that, It's time for bed. Good night.
so you gained weight and lost weight on 1500 calories a day???0 -
peaceout_aly wrote: »If I try cutting out bread will that help me loose weight and not be bloated anymore? I'm having a hard time loosing weight. I'm trying to incorporate more meat and chicken. I'm trying to loose a pound a week. Any suggestions? Thanks!
I limit my carbs for the most part if I'm not getting in good lift sessions, however it's not necessary to cut them out completely. The better alternative is to sub out basic carbs for complex carbs. Choose whole wheat over white bread, eat quinoa instead of rice, oatmeal instead of sweetened cereal. Also, try to minimize the intake, have carbs with only one meal instead of all three, don't snack on them, etc.
I do notice a bit more bloat on days when I eat a ton of carbs, but it could be all in my head. Who knows!
wait, why would you limit carbs when not having good lifting sessions????0 -
If I try cutting out bread will that help me loose weight and not be bloated anymore? I'm having a hard time loosing weight. I'm trying to incorporate more meat and chicken. I'm trying to loose a pound a week. Any suggestions? Thanks!
Maybe try studying your daily diary to see how many calories bread contributes to your overall total. That should help you decide if to stop it, or reduce the amount you use.3 -
I found that limiting my day to one serving of bread works for me. But I am a pescatarian, so I only eat seafood if I do have a meat.
That tends to make me feel leaner anyway, it has helped me.2 -
Aside from the debate that has popped up about carbs, the biggest thing is if eating bread is making it hard for you to limit calorie intake then limiting bread will help you. I do find that it is easy to eat a lot of calories in bread without really realizing a lot of fullness. That is one of the main reasons I am pretty stingy on my bread consumption.1
-
A calorie is a calorie. You don't change units of measurement just because what you're measuring differs from something else.ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Last post on this thread. I have a busy day ahead of me. If "a calorie is a calorie" was in any way true NO ONE here would be tracking macros. IT MATTERS where those calories come from. So to all the people who are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this you need to stop and really think. Calories (as has been stated by someone further up I do not remember who) are not a nutrient or component of food such as carbohydrates, fat or protein. They are not a "thing". They are the energy required to burn up that food. What is IN the food that requires burning matters. Your insulin levels matter, and carbohydrates DO affect your insulin directly. Too many carbs (as anything else) are not going to help you. No one said a person could NOT lose weight by consuming bread or carbohydrate, and I NEVER said that what applies to me absolutely applies to every other human being in the whole wide world. Because it may not apply to every other human being in the whole wide world does not exclude me from the freedom to post my thoughts. I gave my take on the issue posted here by the original poster. The same as everyone else. I am sure the original poster does not need 700 posts of people quoting and battling one another. The info being sought gets lost in the argument and in no way does it benefit those who wish to have an answer to the question they are asking. Anyone else who has something to say in any effort to twist my words or to put words into my mouth is welcome to PM. I am no longer following this thread and any comments will go unseen by me. Have a nice day!
Not really about what's in food that matter much either. I've used this example lots of times, but if you go to a penitentiary, the food there is the LOWEST quality you'll find. Processed to hell, with the exception of some fruit here or there. And "commissary" in the pen isn't "health food". It's chips, soda, etc. So why isn't there an obesity epidemic in penitentiaries? Because they eat "portioned" amounts. They are basically limited to options of how much they can eat. So that's just CICO at work.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
0 -
Reduced carbs will help with calorie deficit if one isn't substituting the calorie value with protein or fats. Many Asian countries use white rice as a staple in their diets. 3 meals a day many times. They are just eating controlled portions which is why the don't have the obesity problems that many other countries do.goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.2 -
goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
i dont reduce carbs and I have no issue with adherence.0 -
If you cut bread, you will eventually die.7
-
Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.
I agree with this.
Calories for weight loss. Micronutrients for health, minimum macros for health, macro split for adherence. The first three are for everyone, the last one is personal.3 -
-
6
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
But eventually, you will die.1 -
oh goddammit....I was wondering why someone like you would say something like that, smartass. Kicking myself that I fell for that ;-)12 -
goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
i dont reduce carbs and I have no issue with adherence.
I thought I recalled that you do reduce your carb macro when you are cutting, and obviously, increase it when you are bulking. Have I got you confused with someone else? Either way, there are plenty of dieters who DO have adherence issues that may benefit from reducing their carb levels.
As I said up thread, my carb macro is at 50%, I'm not a low carber, but I had to reduce the carbs in my diet (I was eating waaaay too many) to get down to 50%. It's a big factor in helping me stay feeling full. If I wanted to lose weight even faster, I would probably set my carb macro closer to 40%.
0 -
0
-
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »I'm going to be the one to tell you that a calorie is not always a calorie. I have cut down on carbs in general and have lost 23 pounds with out changing my calories at all. So I am saying yes, as long as you do not replace those carbs with other carbs but rather with healthy fats and protein you will see positive results on the scale.
How do you know your calories didn't change? Were you logging calories both before and after you decided to cut carbs?
Personally I find that as soon as I decide to cut out some food that is supposed to be bad, I start craving it like nobody's business and end up binging on it within a few weeks. I love bread. I have it less often now and in smaller amounts but I like to treat myself regularly to some really good artisan bread. And usually have a loaf or two of the 40 cal per slice stuff in the freezer.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions