Fats vs Carbs - Weight Loss

lukeryanoneplus

Hi all,

I'm trying to go from 97kg to about 89kg in the next 3-4 months. I know MFP gives you a daily target to hit, but it seems rather carb-high and rather fat-low considering I'm also doing cardio 4 days per week based on all the articles/advice online.

Does anybody have any input on whether they follow the recommendations on MFP or whether they choose to change this around to reduce their carb intake (MFP allows me to have 2 slices of sourdough for each meal if I wanted), and slightly increase their fat intake? (i.e. I can't currently have an avocado and 100g of halloumi on the same day across meals, which is hard for a vegetarian).

Any input welcome!

P.S. I'm sure there are 100 threads on this topic throughout the history so sorry if I've missed one I should've jumped on.

Luke

sijomial

Calories determine loss of body fat over time and not the proportion of fat or carbs within that calorie allowance.

If you prefer a higher fat or higher carb allowance then if it makes adherence easier or your food choices more enjoyable then change the defaults, neither eating style has particular weight loss advantages. High carb may be more favourable for big exercisers but even within that demographic you will find people eating very differently.
A low carb choice may induce a loss of water weight initially which sometimes fools people that low carb means more weight loss than other eating styles if they only look at a short timescale.

Personally I preferred to set minimum goals for protein and fat in grams and once those were met the remainder of my calories could come from any of the three macros.

lukeryanoneplus

sijomial wrote: »

Calories determine loss of body fat over time and not the proportion of fat or carbs within that calorie allowance.

If you prefer a higher fat or higher carb allowance then if it makes adherence easier or your food choices more enjoyable then change the defaults, neither eating style has particular weight loss advantages. High carb may be more favourable for big exercisers but even within that demographic you will find people eating very differently.
A low carb choice may induce a loss of water weight initially which sometimes fools people that low carb means more weight loss than other eating styles if they only look at a short timescale.

Personally I preferred to set minimum goals for protein and fat in grams and once those were met the remainder of my calories could come from any of the three macros.

Thanks for the advice, I'm always under calories so that target is fine, I was just always told Carbs stay with you much longer than Fats unless your body is in repair mode. Maybe that's misinformation if it really does come down to Calories.

Dante_80

lukeryanoneplus wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, I'm always under calories so that target is fine, I was just always told Carbs stay with you much longer than Fats unless your body is in repair mode. Maybe that's misinformation if it really does come down to Calories.

As far as losing body fat is concerned, it really does come down to calories.

Jacq_qui

I'm pretty much always at the limit of my fat intake each day and if I'm going to be over on any of the macros, it's that. I used to eat very low fat diet not quite sure how I did it, I definitely didn't eat better back then.

dragon_girl26

Dante_80 wrote: »

lukeryanoneplus wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, I'm always under calories so that target is fine, I was just always told Carbs stay with you much longer than Fats unless your body is in repair mode. Maybe that's misinformation if it really does come down to Calories.

As far as losing body fat is concerned, it really does come down to calories.

^^this

When it comes to weight loss, calories really are king.
The only times you might need to worry about carbs is if you have an underlying medical condition, if you are eating so many that you aren't getting adequate protein, or if you are having issues with satiety. Some people report staying satisfied longer on lower carb diets; others function best on higher carb. Its really more of a personal thing.

NovusDies

4 months is pretty much the minimum amount of time to lose 8kg at .5kg per week which is the fastest you should go. The problem is that expects 100 percent adherence which is not usually what happens. Remember in that 4 months there will be holidays and, in general, life still happens. Not to mention that if you are new to this it may take some time to dial in your process.

You can certainly lose some weight in the next 4 months but it may not be the full 8kg. For me 88 percent has been a consistently reliable number to use when doing projections. I generally avoid projections but sometimes they are necessary for planning purposes or medical treatment.

sijomial

lukeryanoneplus wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

Calories determine loss of body fat over time and not the proportion of fat or carbs within that calorie allowance.

If you prefer a higher fat or higher carb allowance then if it makes adherence easier or your food choices more enjoyable then change the defaults, neither eating style has particular weight loss advantages. High carb may be more favourable for big exercisers but even within that demographic you will find people eating very differently.
A low carb choice may induce a loss of water weight initially which sometimes fools people that low carb means more weight loss than other eating styles if they only look at a short timescale.

Personally I preferred to set minimum goals for protein and fat in grams and once those were met the remainder of my calories could come from any of the three macros.

Thanks for the advice, I'm always under calories so that target is fine, I was just always told Carbs stay with you much longer than Fats unless your body is in repair mode. Maybe that's misinformation if it really does come down to Calories.

That's a very odd saying if you don't mind me saying!
As an average man can only store about 2,000 cals of carbs and has a virtually unlimited capacity to store fat if anything you would flip it the other way round. But in reality both your stores of carbs and fat are in a state of flux throughout the day, being added to when you eat, being reduced when you have digested your last meal.
There's not really a "repair mode" either. Our bodies don't have modes, metabolic processes are runing 24x7.

If you just think of body fat as your primary store of excess energy then it's much clearer to use up some of that energy store you just need to under-cut your calories (units of energy) so that your stores make up the shortfall.

nanastaci2020

Calories count for weight loss. Macros count for how you feel, whether or not you are satisfied/satiated and can have some impact in other areas of one's health. Such as eating very low fat or very low protein can have some negative side effects. Some people like eating high fat/low carb. Others would never go 'low carb'. And there are many different definitions for what 'low carb'.

My general premise is to not let fat go too low, which for me means under 30-50 grams. But its typically above that without any effort. I am now aiming for 100+ grams of protein daily. And carbs just happen. I don't have a goal to hit or avoid.

heybales

lukeryanoneplus wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

Calories determine loss of body fat over time and not the proportion of fat or carbs within that calorie allowance.

If you prefer a higher fat or higher carb allowance then if it makes adherence easier or your food choices more enjoyable then change the defaults, neither eating style has particular weight loss advantages. High carb may be more favourable for big exercisers but even within that demographic you will find people eating very differently.
A low carb choice may induce a loss of water weight initially which sometimes fools people that low carb means more weight loss than other eating styles if they only look at a short timescale.

Personally I preferred to set minimum goals for protein and fat in grams and once those were met the remainder of my calories could come from any of the three macros.

Thanks for the advice, I'm always under calories so that target is fine, I was just always told Carbs stay with you much longer than Fats unless your body is in repair mode. Maybe that's misinformation if it really does come down to Calories.

If you told MFP you wanted to lose weight, then the base eating goal with NO exercise will already be under calories to cause fat loss.

A goal is something to reach for, to hit - not to purposely miss.

And of course the way MFP works since it estimated daily calorie burn and base eating goal with NO exercise expected or accounted for - when you do more with exercise, you eat more since your eating goal goes up.

So when you say always under calories, what do you mean?

lukeryanoneplus

Thanks all, just to answer a few points:

@sijomial - certain plans such as Joe Wicks promote carbs ONLY after workout. So if you're shredding you'd only eat one carb meal per day. If you were on a rest day you'd have 3 reduced carb meals (salads/soups with no carb base) etc. That's the general rules they use because its more effective to burn fat within your body rather than carbohydrates that take longer to break down.

@heybales What I mean by under calories is if I burn 700 calories in the gym and I have a resting target of 1500, rather than eating 2200 worth I tend to eat about 2000 - I dont force myself to eat right to the limit if that makes sense.

sijomial

"certain plans such as Joe Wicks promote carbs ONLY after workout. So if you're shredding you'd only eat one carb meal per day. If you were on a rest day you'd have 3 reduced carb meals (salads/soups with no carb base) etc. That's the general rules they use because its more effective to burn fat within your body rather than carbohydrates that take longer to break down. "

Nice chap that Joe Wicks but that is utter cobblers and a complete misrepresentation of basic human biology.
Want to know the quickest energy source to break down? It's glucose.
Want to know the primary fuel for very intense exercise whether you have just eaten carbs now or yesterday? It's carbs stored as glycogen.
And it really doesn't matter if you stored it from one meal or many. That's like saying filling up your car's fuel tank in one go versus several top ups makes a difference to how much fuel is in your tank!

He/they promote low carbs for weight loss as it's a way for someone not calorie counting to put themselves into a calorie deficit.
Just like but in the 80's low fat eating was touted - to put people into a calorie deficit without calorie counting.
Just like the sugar tax on drinks - to reduce people's calories.

Don't make something simple complicated and harder to adhere to for no benefit.

heybales

Interesting concept from Wicks - ditto to being utterly wrong.

If the intensity is high enough (meaning quick energy is needed) then carbs are being used at higher %.
From daily level up in intensity it's mainly fat % being used.

I'm glad sijomial explained why they may be doing it, because they don't expect people to actually calorie count.
Which is what I'm discovering many of these programs seem to do that sound like only an exercise program to lose weight, with footnote "when combined with our diet plan".

If you were doing some long endurance cardio daily (talking hours here of good intensity), then studies have shown some benefit to a ratio of carbs:protein after the workout within certain time period to help get those muscle glycogen stores refilled best.
But in a diet they won't be topped off anyway, and most aren't doing the types of daily workouts to see a benefit.

Carbs actually do break down very easily, with or without oxygen needed. So not longer to break down unless he means something else.
But opposite of most people's understanding, fat is primary source because it's pretty easy too in aerobic state.
Yours is first time I can recall a source stating it correctly but for wrong reason.

You might view it this way.
Eat all your carbs after that workout when glycogen stores in liver and muscles are lowest, insulin rises and shuttles the carbs eaten off to those stores. Since so much to fill, blood sugar drops relatively quickly, and back to normal fat release burning mode since insulin dropped.

But in a diet, even if you spread those carbs out through your other meals, the same effect is going to happen, and you won't fill those stores up totally. Blood sugar still drops sooner than not in a diet, back to normal fat release/burning mode sooner than if not in a diet.

Doesn't really make a difference, except what is going to give you a better workout.
If you ate all your carbs right after the workout, and waited 23 hrs until the next workout, I could easily see liver stores being low by then (muscle glycogen stores aren't put back into bloodstream for use elsewhere), perhaps lower blood sugar - and the ability to have a really good workout could be hampered.


Good to hear you were doing the program right without too much deficit - hopefully 200 calories extra or whatever it ends up being isn't being added to an already unreasonable deficit. If you can measure performance in some way that usually will show itself in the numbers. (like if you lost 50 lbs on the body but squat only went up 40 lbs)

NovusDies

lukeryanoneplus wrote: »

Thanks all, just to answer a few points:

@sijomial - certain plans such as Joe Wicks promote carbs ONLY after workout. So if you're shredding you'd only eat one carb meal per day. If you were on a rest day you'd have 3 reduced carb meals (salads/soups with no carb base) etc. That's the general rules they use because its more effective to burn fat within your body rather than carbohydrates that take longer to break down.

@heybales What I mean by under calories is if I burn 700 calories in the gym and I have a resting target of 1500, rather than eating 2200 worth I tend to eat about 2000 - I dont force myself to eat right to the limit if that makes sense.

Fat burning happens when you are in a calorie deficit. At .5kg a week you would be burning ~71 grams of fat per day. The people that try to manipulate when that small amount of fat is burned are majoring in the minors.

You are house that gets its energy from a nearby energy grid. You also have a backup generator with a fuel tank. If there is a deficit and you are not getting enough energy from the grid your generator kicks in and starts using fuel.
As fuel is used weight is reduced. As long as the generator uses some fuel each day why would it ever possibly matter when it comes on?

If I followed some of the fat burning "secrets" I could probably be more likely to burn fat in the morning instead of in the evening but what do I get out of it except additional rules? I am trying to have a normal life and just let weight loss happen.

lukeryanoneplus

Really wise input in this thread guys, thanks for opening me up for a new perspective. I'll keep a keen eye on those calories are worry myself slightly less about the specific macro breakdown.