CARB CONTROL

Iragen

Hello everyone,

I was plugging food into my calculator and even though I have the unpaid version it still tells me that my sodium, carbs or fats are "this close to the daily limit", but it got me thinking if when I burn calories am I "burning" proteins, carbs and fats?

Ex. I had a bottle of soda (terrible yes, but I caved) and it had 69g of sugar. If I do a 30 minute HIIT session or run for an hour I get told I burned 300-450 something calories. I wonder am I safe to assume that part of what makes up those calories is coming from my carbs since those are the "quick access" energy reserves or I does it not work that way?

thanks to any and all help.

lynn_glenmont

I don't understand why it matters, or what your aim is that you care about this. People might be able to give more useful answers if you clarified that.

However, to take a stab at it, you "burn" the energy in the proteins, carbs, and fats (which are physical things, which have mass, i.e., proteins, carbs, and fat are matter, not energy). Energy within your body is, more or less, fungible. Determining the exact source of the energy you're burning at any given moment is impossible. But, yes, other things being equal, blood sugar is relatively easily accessed, so if it's available in sufficient amounts for your current energy needs, it's likely to be the source your body will use. 69 g of sugar, even if it has already made it into your bloodstream but has not yet moved into your cells while you're doing your workout, won't be sufficient to fuel a 300 to 450 cal workout (it only provides 276 cals).

VUA21

Iragen wrote: »

Hello everyone,

I was plugging food into my calculator and even though I have the unpaid version it still tells me that my sodium, carbs or fats are "this close to the daily limit", but it got me thinking if when I burn calories am I "burning" proteins, carbs and fats?

Ex. I had a bottle of soda (terrible yes, but I caved) and it had 69g of sugar. If I do a 30 minute HIIT session or run for an hour I get told I burned 300-450 something calories. I wonder am I safe to assume that part of what makes up those calories is coming from my carbs since those are the "quick access" energy reserves or I does it not work that way?

thanks to any and all help.

Doesn't quite work that way.

Yes simple sugars are great for quick energy access, complex for longer (but lower energy). While everyone should eat mostly nutritiously, a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss.

When you're doing anything, your body is using energy (BMR is what you use in energy to simply exist). The human body doesn't "burn" the stuff floating around your digestive tract. Digesting food breaks it down into it's simplest forms so it can be absorbed and distributed as needed (different organs and cell types need different nutrients). When we use that energy, we use out energy stores (mainly fat, that's one of the purposes for our fat - unless you go too far into a deficit then our bodies will take energy from fat, muscle, bone and wherever else it can get it from). It's a cyclic process. We eat stuff with various nutrients that have energy (calories) our body uses. We use the already broken down and stored energy (fat). The new stuff we eat gets distributed throughout our body (including as fat) as dictated by our bodies. The reason for the quick/slow energy from different foods is due to how quickly our bodies can turn it into usable energy (simpler chemicals break down more easily, some are already in the form needed by the body).

Hopefully that makes sense, I'm trying to summarize Human Physiology 3302 as best I can in one paragraph.

jogetsgains

The answer to that is so complex. It depends on how depleted the carbs in your muscles are, how long before or after exercising, what your macros are, your insulin sensitivity, so many things!
Long story short though, you cannot out-exercise unhealthy food choices' affect on your health and weight boils down to calories in versus calories out.

AnvilHead

The simple version of the answer - Substrate utilization during exercise isn't really relevant to weight loss, it doesn't matter whether you're burning primarily fats or carbs during a workout.

What is used when is explained much more thoroughly here: https://exrx.net/Nutrition/Substrates

Iragen

Thanks to everyone who responded.

This was a crackshot of a question that I kind of just tossed out as a thought, but to clarify my thinking... it was less about weight loss and surprisingly about sugar itself. I remember reading that men are supposed to have no more than 30-40 grams of sugar and our average drink/food has so much already mixed in.

So im thinking "I wonder if I drink this soda thats 69 grams BUT if I workout hard doing HIIT training will that balance it out or negate the negative effects?"

I'll review this and obviously just stick to less sugat the better within reason rule, but that was my mindset.

COGypsy

Iragen wrote: »

Thanks to everyone who responded.

This was a crackshot of a question that I kind of just tossed out as a thought, but to clarify my thinking... it was less about weight loss and surprisingly about sugar itself. I remember reading that men are supposed to have no more than 30-40 grams of sugar and our average drink/food has so much already mixed in.

So im thinking "I wonder if I drink this soda thats 69 grams BUT if I workout hard doing HIIT training will that balance it out or negate the negative effects?"

I'll review this and obviously just stick to less sugat the better within reason rule, but that was my mindset.

What negative effects do you expect from drinking one bottle of soda?

I always like to go back to the gasoline analogy for questions like this. How do you tell whether your car is using the "fresh" gas you just topped off the tank with or the "old" gas that was already in there? Moreover, how much does it really matter as long as the car has enough gas in the tank to get you reliably to where you want to go?

AnnPT77

Iragen wrote: »

Thanks to everyone who responded.

This was a crackshot of a question that I kind of just tossed out as a thought, but to clarify my thinking... it was less about weight loss and surprisingly about sugar itself. I remember reading that men are supposed to have no more than 30-40 grams of sugar and our average drink/food has so much already mixed in.

So im thinking "I wonder if I drink this soda thats 69 grams BUT if I workout hard doing HIIT training will that balance it out or negate the negative effects?"

I'll review this and obviously just stick to less sugat the better within reason rule, but that was my mindset.

The reason for that guidance about added sugar is that when you eat much more of it, it tends to drive other (more necessary) nutrition out of your eating, or to make you exceed a reasonable number of calories thus gain weight.

It's not that sugar is poison. It's that well-rounded nutrition and appropriate calories are the important things. Overdoing sugar can make it too hard to get both well-rounded nutrition and appropriate calories at the same time.

Don't worry about trying to drive sugar out of your system by exercising. Just try to get well-rounded nutrition (enough protein; enough fats; plenty of varied colorful fruits & veggies) within your calorie goal, and you'll be fine.

Appropriate calories for weight management + balanced/well-rounded eating for nutrition + exercise for fitness = best odds of long-term good health.

Best wishes!

WeWalters31

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

I don't understand why it matters, or what your aim is that you care about this. People might be able to give more useful answers if you clarified that.

However, to take a stab at it, you "burn" the energy in the proteins, carbs, and fats (which are physical things, which have mass, i.e., proteins, carbs, and fat are matter, not energy). Energy within your body is, more or less, fungible. Determining the exact source of the energy you're burning at any given moment is impossible. But, yes, other things being equal, blood sugar is relatively easily accessed, so if it's available in sufficient amounts for your current energy needs, it's likely to be the source your body will use. 69 g of sugar, even if it has already made it into your bloodstream but has not yet moved into your cells while you're doing your workout, won't be sufficient to fuel a 300 to 450 cal workout (it only provides 276 cals).

when I burn calories am I "burning" proteins, carbs and fats?

IT MATTERS VERY MUCH and is a very good question

sijomial

Iragen wrote: »

Thanks to everyone who responded.

This was a crackshot of a question that I kind of just tossed out as a thought, but to clarify my thinking... it was less about weight loss and surprisingly about sugar itself. I remember reading that men are supposed to have no more than 30-40 grams of sugar and our average drink/food has so much already mixed in.

So im thinking "I wonder if I drink this soda thats 69 grams BUT if I workout hard doing HIIT training will that balance it out or negate the negative effects?"

I'll review this and obviously just stick to less sugat the better within reason rule, but that was my mindset.

99.9% of the time it doesn't matter what fuel substrates are used during exercise, your body sorts itself out very well.
Today I'm doing a multi-hour cycle ride so it is in the 0.1% of the time when it does matter - but it matters for exercise performance and not for weight loss. Not really an issue for more sensible people!

Think much longer term than just today, your calorie balance over a very extended period of time matters, drinking one can of soda is an irrelevance and you don't need to pay a penance.

I remember reading that men are supposed to have no more than 30-40 grams of sugar and our average drink/food has so much already mixed in.

Context matters, you can't just take statements like that at face value - not everyone is the same size, has the same activity level, exercises the same or has the same diet or goals. My normal diet sure doesn't have a load of sugar mixed in, it's very informative to read nutrition labels rather than headlines aimed at a general population.

Today I will be eating /drinking 60 - 90 grams of sugar an hour for 4+ hours so my context is very unusual and very different to an office worker looking to lose weight.

rheddmobile

VUA21 wrote: »

Iragen wrote: »

Hello everyone,

I was plugging food into my calculator and even though I have the unpaid version it still tells me that my sodium, carbs or fats are "this close to the daily limit", but it got me thinking if when I burn calories am I "burning" proteins, carbs and fats?

Ex. I had a bottle of soda (terrible yes, but I caved) and it had 69g of sugar. If I do a 30 minute HIIT session or run for an hour I get told I burned 300-450 something calories. I wonder am I safe to assume that part of what makes up those calories is coming from my carbs since those are the "quick access" energy reserves or I does it not work that way?

thanks to any and all help.

Doesn't quite work that way.

Yes simple sugars are great for quick energy access, complex for longer (but lower energy). While everyone should eat mostly nutritiously, a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss.

When you're doing anything, your body is using energy (BMR is what you use in energy to simply exist). The human body doesn't "burn" the stuff floating around your digestive tract. Digesting food breaks it down into it's simplest forms so it can be absorbed and distributed as needed (different organs and cell types need different nutrients). When we use that energy, we use out energy stores (mainly fat, that's one of the purposes for our fat - unless you go too far into a deficit then our bodies will take energy from fat, muscle, bone and wherever else it can get it from). It's a cyclic process. We eat stuff with various nutrients that have energy (calories) our body uses. We use the already broken down and stored energy (fat). The new stuff we eat gets distributed throughout our body (including as fat) as dictated by our bodies. The reason for the quick/slow energy from different foods is due to how quickly our bodies can turn it into usable energy (simpler chemicals break down more easily, some are already in the form needed by the body).

Hopefully that makes sense, I'm trying to summarize Human Physiology 3302 as best I can in one paragraph.

A sugary drink will hit your bloodstream in faster than 15 minutes, in my experience. Quick carbs (by which I mainly mean carbs without other fiber or other nutrients slowing them down, not just simple sugars) get digested very quickly and blood sugar after a meal peaks in about 45 minutes. And your body does preferentially use the stuff in your blood first. I can very quickly bring my blood glucose levels down by doing squats, for example.

The OP's question is basically a restatement of the "does fasted cardio increase weight loss?" question, and the answer to that is, even scientists don't agree, and different studies have found different answers. One thing everyone agrees on, however, is that eating in a deficit overall will cause weightloss regardless of what else you do or don't do concerning timing.

rsclause

Iragen wrote: »

Hello everyone,

I was plugging food into my calculator and even though I have the unpaid version it still tells me that my sodium, carbs or fats are "this close to the daily limit", but it got me thinking if when I burn calories am I "burning" proteins, carbs and fats?

Ex. I had a bottle of soda (terrible yes, but I caved) and it had 69g of sugar. If I do a 30 minute HIIT session or run for an hour I get told I burned 300-450 something calories. I wonder am I safe to assume that part of what makes up those calories is coming from my carbs since those are the "quick access" energy reserves or I does it not work that way?

thanks to any and all help.

Iragen wrote: »

Hello everyone,

I was plugging food into my calculator and even though I have the unpaid version it still tells me that my sodium, carbs or fats are "this close to the daily limit", but it got me thinking if when I burn calories am I "burning" proteins, carbs and fats?

Ex. I had a bottle of soda (terrible yes, but I caved) and it had 69g of sugar. If I do a 30 minute HIIT session or run for an hour I get told I burned 300-450 something calories. I wonder am I safe to assume that part of what makes up those calories is coming from my carbs since those are the "quick access" energy reserves or I does it not work that way?

thanks to any and all help.

This reminds me of when I started down the path of weight loss and healthy eating. I went to a McDonalds with the intention of getting something better than usual but found myself staring at the big mac combo meal. It had a calorie range that went over 1000 calories. I than thought about my run that morning and at about the seven mile mark "you have burned 1000 calories". I got a chicken wrap and water and haven't been to McDonalds since. If I have to work that hard to burn of one meal it just isn't worth it. Once you get used to drinking only water or eating foods that fit your goal it becomes habit and not a struggle anymore.