bread/pasta carbs and fruit/veggie carbs??

HeidiCooksSupper

check out http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/
and http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates-full-story/

Pixi_Rex

There is this magical thing called google. It holds the key to a lot of information, if used properly you could do your own research and probably get to an answer faster than relying on the forums.

At least that has been my experience.

daubbermom

Because some of us have a high sensitivity to simple carbs. it reacts in my body like Alcohol to an alcoholic. Ever since I got off simple carbs and kept my daily carbs under 50 I no longer have out of control cravings. I have lost 105 lbs and feel sooooo much better. off all my heart, BP, and diabetes meds. My cholesterol is excellent including my HDL and LDL and triglycerides. Works for me!

RLPearce92

this is also a good read

http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/glycemic-index

relates carbs to glucose levels in the blood and why complex carbs can be seen as "better" (even though there are many exceptions!)

HeyGoRun

how are they processed differently?

They have fiber you will poop them out, heavy carbs take time and can bloat you.

blackgold86

Sucrose, fructose and glucose are not processed the same way in the body.
As posted above, some online research will help you out

http://www.medbio.info/horn/PDF files/carbohydrate_metabolism.pdf
Page 8 of this is quite good.

dieselbyte

this is also a good read

http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/glycemic-index

relates carbs to glucose levels in the blood and why complex carbs can be seen as "better" (even though there are many exceptions!)

Glycemic index and glycemic load give us "clues" as to behavior of certain foods in our bodies. Carbohydrate only meals, fed in a fasted state are not real world applications. The introduction of different fats and proteins with a meal, before a meal, after a meal have so many possible outcomes they can't possibly be studied effectively. Some foods, paired with protein, create an even larger insulin spike than either food separately (Gannon MC, et al Metabolic response to cottage cheese or egg white protein, with orwwithout glucose). Other studies show no benefit in lowering gi or gl (Raatz SK, et al Reduced glycemic index...)

I could go on and on. The fact is, unless you are diabetic or have a food allergy, glycemic index and glycemic load have nothing to do with weight loss. Tracking and staying within your caloric, macro and micro goals is what matters for weight management, body composition and overall health.

mmipanda

Fat loss is calories in vs calories out. The reason you notice a decrease in weight when you go low carb is either because a) avoiding or restricting a macronutrient food group inherently lowers your calories. You are consuming less, therefore losing weight. b) carbs increase glycogen stores. the weight you notice you lost is most likely water weight from depleted stores, not actual fat loss.
c) a combination of the two.

if that's true then ketosis wouldn't exist.

Low/No-carbers are aware that the initial fast loss is water weight. But how do you explain them continuing to lose weight after they've shed the easy part? Oh right, the way you guys explain everything - it must solely be calories in/calories out. Except that isn't what ketosis is, at all.

whierd

Fat loss is calories in vs calories out. The reason you notice a decrease in weight when you go low carb is either because a) avoiding or restricting a macronutrient food group inherently lowers your calories. You are consuming less, therefore losing weight. b) carbs increase glycogen stores. the weight you notice you lost is most likely water weight from depleted stores, not actual fat loss.
c) a combination of the two.

if that's true then ketosis wouldn't exist.

Low/No-carbers are aware that the initial fast loss is water weight. But how do you explain them continuing to lose weight after they've shed the easy part? Oh right, the way you guys explain everything - it must solely be calories in/calories out. Except that isn't what ketosis is, at all.

Ketosis relies on a calorie deficit for weight loss.

CyberEd312

Fat loss is calories in vs calories out. The reason you notice a decrease in weight when you go low carb is either because a) avoiding or restricting a macronutrient food group inherently lowers your calories. You are consuming less, therefore losing weight. b) carbs increase glycogen stores. the weight you notice you lost is most likely water weight from depleted stores, not actual fat loss.
c) a combination of the two.

if that's true then ketosis wouldn't exist.

Low/No-carbers are aware that the initial fast loss is water weight. But how do you explain them continuing to lose weight after they've shed the easy part? Oh right, the way you guys explain everything - it must solely be calories in/calories out. Except that isn't what ketosis is, at all.

Ketosis relies on a calorie deficit for weight loss.

QFT

whierd

Make no mistake. Every diet that has success MUST rely on a calorie deficit at its core. It is absolutely essential. Paleo, Primal, Low Carb, Ketosis, IIFYM, Clean Eating, IF, every.single.last.one.of.them.

j6o4

Fat loss is calories in vs calories out. The reason you notice a decrease in weight when you go low carb is either because a) avoiding or restricting a macronutrient food group inherently lowers your calories. You are consuming less, therefore losing weight. b) carbs increase glycogen stores. the weight you notice you lost is most likely water weight from depleted stores, not actual fat loss.
c) a combination of the two.

Unless you have a medical reason to restrict food choices, there is no need to avoid bread carbs or "heavy" carbs as you put it. Carbs are processed the same by your body. Caloric deficit reigns supreme when it comes to fat loss. Restricting or avoiding food groups provides no added benefit in promoting weight loss, again, assuming you aren't diabetic or have a valid medical reason to restrict certain foods.

^ This

mmipanda

Oversimplifying. The diet forces the body to burn fats rather than carbohydrates (because there are none). It is not merely cal in/cal out.

whierd

Oversimplifying. The diet forces the body to burn fats rather than carbohydrates (because there are none). It is not merely cal in/cal out.

At its core, it is cals in vs. out. If you were eating a caloric surplus, then your body would store the excess fats and protein you are eating as fats. So yes, it is really that simple.

mmipanda

Oversimplifying. The diet forces the body to burn fats rather than carbohydrates (because there are none). It is not merely cal in/cal out.

At its core, it is cals in vs. out. If you were eating a caloric surplus, then your body would store the excess fats and protein you are eating as fats. So yes, it is really that simple.

'at its core' does not mean 'this is the sole reason any diet works ever and therefore they are all the same'

Do you believe that eating say, 1300 calories of vegetables & meats would yield identical results to eating 1300 cals of mcdonalds?

dieselbyte

Fat loss is calories in vs calories out. The reason you notice a decrease in weight when you go low carb is either because a) avoiding or restricting a macronutrient food group inherently lowers your calories. You are consuming less, therefore losing weight. b) carbs increase glycogen stores. the weight you notice you lost is most likely water weight from depleted stores, not actual fat loss.
c) a combination of the two.

if that's true then ketosis wouldn't exist.

Low/No-carbers are aware that the initial fast loss is water weight. But how do you explain them continuing to lose weight after they've shed the easy part? Oh right, the way you guys explain everything - it must solely be calories in/calories out. Except that isn't what ketosis is, at all.

I dont mean to be rude, but either you didn't read the OP's initial question or you lack reading comprehension. Either way you totally missed my point. Is it safe to assume that by your response you believe that you can't gain weight on a keto diet?

whierd

For example, let's take a person with a TDEE of 2,000 calories per day. They eat a calorie deficit of -500, so they are consuming 1,500cal per day. That means once their body has consumed the energy of the 1,500 calories, it will pull that remaining 500 calories from other places, which would be fat stores (and muscle mass) in the case of ketosis.

Then let's take that same person and have them eat a calorie surplus of +500, so they are now consuming 2,500 calories per day. That means 500 calories is being stored as fat (and some muscle mass) after the 2,000 TDEE calories are consumed.

whierd

Oversimplifying. The diet forces the body to burn fats rather than carbohydrates (because there are none). It is not merely cal in/cal out.

At its core, it is cals in vs. out. If you were eating a caloric surplus, then your body would store the excess fats and protein you are eating as fats. So yes, it is really that simple.

'at its core' does not mean 'this is the sole reason any diet works ever and therefore they are all the same'

Do you believe that eating say, 1300 calories of vegetables & meats would yield identical results to eating 1300 cals of mcdonalds?

In terms of weight loss? Yes. Absolutely.

blackgold86

Not quite. I know this is an n=1 experiment, and may be quite simplified, but it is an example of eating a surplus of calories from fats and proteins does not equate to weight gain. Remove the fats and add in carbs, and I think the results would be different.

http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

CyberEd312

Oversimplifying. The diet forces the body to burn fats rather than carbohydrates (because there are none). It is not merely cal in/cal out.

It still comes down to calories in/calories out.... The only difference in Ketosis is you have removed carbs form the equation, your body is still processing fats and proteins if you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight but if you are in a surplus your body will store those fats/proteins..... That isn't Oversimplifying anything...