Carbs are carbs...or are they?

Dogmom1978

A carb is a carb is a carb. You can eat as many “empty” (no such thing) carbs as you please and STILL lose weight as long as you do so in a deficit.

Frankly, the so called empty carbs are my favorite ones to eat. Down over 30 lbs so far incorporating them into my daily diet. Eating the foods I enjoy is what helps me stay on track. Restricting the foods I eat would make me give up pretty quickly

lemurcat2

paperpudding wrote: »

But nobody is arguing that different carb foods would have different impact on temptation or " food decisions" or that different carb foods have different nutritional value.

That wasn't the question at all.

Exactly this. Also, no one was comparing eating an overall healthful diet vs not.

AnnPT77

classicalcorrados5 wrote: »

First- I'm not posting for debate. I just felt compelled to share my experience. After reading much and watching documentaries over the years I would tend to agree with you- quality of carbs matters in weight loss for a few obvious reasons.

If your body is getting nutrient dense calories- in the right ratios- then your body will run more efficiently. It will run more clean. Your cells will give up the excess unnecessary fat the healthier it runs. If your cells are registering a nutrient deficit, it will send more craving and unsatisfied signals to the brain.

I can't stress enough that from my own experience over decades of various methods- from Weight Watchers to juicing greens to low carb to Trim Healthy Momma- when I have included better quality carbs (and other foods) weight came off much easier and food decisions were easier- temptations practically nill. This is just my experience- but 2000 empty calories and 2000 quality calories will definitely come out differently on the scale.

It's been studied already and you can go find the research. It's old "science" to say it's all number of calories. Metabolism is affected by many factors, and food quality is likely one of them. So a 100 cal sugar drink compared to a 100 cal quality whole grain carb is going to process differently chemically and possibly emotionally.

There are not "types of calories", any more than there are types of inches. Calories are just a measurement unit for energy content.

Similarly, there are not "types of carbs" in the way you're using the term. (There are types of carbs in the sense of sugars and starches, and various subdivisions of those, of course.)

Foods have various qualities, such as energy content and nutritional values. For health, energy, satiation, and more, overall dietary composition (totality of food choices over time) matters. No one is saying otherwise.

Am I being pedantic? Yes.

But unclear use of figurative language can obscure the essential point, rather than illuminate it.

brianpperkins131

Complex carbs get broken down into simple ones for the body to process. They truly end up being the same thing.

wilson10102018

The controversy around this originates in the pointless dogma spoon fed to us by advocates, antagonists, lobbyists, sellers and bureaucrats. Many people seize upon the differences in food complexity and nutrition to justify or rationalize their own weird eating habits. From a distance, it is sad to see so many people with extreme food preferences anecdotally driven by things they think they perceive about their health, happiness or fitness. The truth is that almost any balanced diet with any components will give the same results in health, happiness and fitness. Just how much of it will determine how much excess weight a person will end up with.

age_is_just_a_number

Calories in vs calories out is what matters for weight loss.

Have you heard about the Twinkie diet? Yup a man ate only 1800 calories of Twinkies for several weeks and lost weight.
He wasn’t feeding his body the nutrition that it needed. But he lost weight.

Macros and micros are for ensuring a well balanced diet that includes all the nutrients, vitamins and minerals your body needs to function properly.

PaintedPlay

tgillies003 wrote: »

Calories in vs calories out is what matters for weight loss.

Have you heard about the Twinkie diet? Yup a man ate only 1800 calories of Twinkies for several weeks and lost weight.
He wasn’t feeding his body the nutrition that it needed. But he lost weight.

Macros and micros are for ensuring a well balanced diet that includes all the nutrients, vitamins and minerals your body needs to function properly.

Totally this!!!
Total calories = body mass
Type of calories = body function

J72FIT

PaintedPlay wrote: »

tgillies003 wrote: »

Calories in vs calories out is what matters for weight loss.

Have you heard about the Twinkie diet? Yup a man ate only 1800 calories of Twinkies for several weeks and lost weight.
He wasn’t feeding his body the nutrition that it needed. But he lost weight.

Macros and micros are for ensuring a well balanced diet that includes all the nutrients, vitamins and minerals your body needs to function properly.

Totally this!!!
Total calories = body mass
Type of calories = body function

The point really is that no matter what you eat, if you eat too much you will gain weight...

missysippy930

tgillies003 wrote: »

Calories in vs calories out is what matters for weight loss.

Have you heard about the Twinkie diet? Yup a man ate only 1800 calories of Twinkies for several weeks and lost weight.
He wasn’t feeding his body the nutrition that it needed. But he lost weight.

Macros and micros are for ensuring a well balanced diet that includes all the nutrients, vitamins and minerals your body needs to function properly.

Jared and his Subway diet too.