bread/pasta carbs and fruit/veggie carbs??

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...

whierd

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/

That guy's diet was only 21 days long. Not nearly long enough for a reliable result. Also, see the poster above who stated that low carb dieters tend to lose a lot of water weight initially, which is likely what happened with that guy, he put on some fat stores and lost some water.

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.

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 most definitely, will you get all the benefits of macro and micro nutrients from McD's in comparison to the veggies and meats...... probably not.... but then again 1300 calories of Just veggies and meats isn't going to get you all the way there either....

NYCNika

Simple carbs, like in processed foods are different from complex carbs, like in veggies. Simple carbs release energy instantly -- that is why it is so enjoyable to eat them. The problem is, all that energy is released and in not used up fast, turns to fat. And, your body releases insulin and other hormones to bring blood sugar down. So your sugar levels will come down just as fast, you won't like that feeling, and you natural response will be that soon you will want to reach for more simple carbs again. It can be a cycle for some people.

Complex carbs release energy slower, so you don't have those crashes. Most whole foods have a combination of both carbs.

Also, body resists burning fat stores. You have to reach certain threshold before that process activates. It would rather you eat something, so you will get a hunger signal.
It will first go for easiest energy - glucose in your blood steam. So slow release is more beneficial.

Also some methods in which calories are calculated (oxygen consumed in burning for example) don't account for the fiber you can't process and will poop out. So in reality you process even less calories from veggies than listed. Not so with bread or pasta. You get all of them, and very efficiently.

So this "a calorie is a calorie" mantra is a very oversimplified statement, to the point of being misleading.

dieselbyte

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/

That guy's diet was only 21 days long. Not nearly long enough for a reliable result. Also, see the poster above who stated that low carb dieters tend to lose a lot of water weight initially, which is likely what happened with that guy, he put on some fat stores and lost some water.

Exactly!! It was only 21 days!! Hardly reliable!
Should I trust some YouTube dude on a 21 day diet, or research the LIFESTYLE of Inuit Eskimos?? By your assumptions, not one Inuit Eskimo should store fat, or even grow for that matter...

dieselbyte

Simple carbs, like in processed foods are different from complex carbs, like in veggies. Simple carbs release energy instantly -- that is why it is so enjoyable to eat them. The problem is, all that energy is released and in not used up fast, turns to fat. And, your body releases insulin and other hormones to bring blood sugar down. So your sugar levels will come down just as fast, you won't like that feeling, and you natural response will be that soon you will want to reach for more simple carbs again. It can be a cycle for some people.

Complex carbs release energy slower, so you don't have those crashes. Most whole foods have a combination of both carbs.

Also, body resists burning fat stores. You have to reach certain threshold before that process activates. It would rather you eat something, so you will get a hunger signal.
It will first go for easiest energy - glucose in your blood steam. So slow release is more beneficial.

Also some methods in which calories are calculated (oxygen consumed in burning for example) don't account for the fiber you can't process and will poop out. So in reality you process even less calories from veggies than listed. Not so with bread or pasta. You get all of them, and very efficiently.

So this "a calorie is a calorie" mantra is a very oversimplified statement, to the point of being misleading.

What is oversimplified is the belief that lack of control plays no part in weight gain. What happens if one doesn't "reach for more simple carbs" and remains in a caloric deficit? Will they magically gain weight because they ate a simple carb? And you are aware that ingesting protein causes insulin to be released as well?

highervibes

I spent 3 months following a keto diet and the rest of the time (another 3 months so far) following IIFYM. Results have been similar in weight loss and I'm curious to see how the blood work compares. I didn't gain any weight when I "switched" save for a week or two where I may have maintained while the negligible glycogen weight settled. In any case, I notice no difference in weight loss, and my bf% is still steadily decreasing. I'm glad I had the good sense to make the switch vs throw in the towel when the going got rough w/keto (and it WILL get rough lol) I don't starve, I have no more guilty feelings over food and life is just plain better now lol Good luck!

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?

In terms of weight loss? Yes. Absolutely.

I completely disagree. Please let me bore you with my story so you see why. I will try to keep it pretty brief.

I work at a very sedentary desk job. I spent 3 months eating lite n easy, a diet meal plan that's delivered weekly. I alternated between the 1500 and 1200 plans, hoarding snacks so that I was at 1350cals per day. I went to the gym for yoga, weights or cardio about 2-3 times a week. In those 3 months, I lost about 2-3 kg and every gram felt like a fight.

So I switched to paleo/primal. I ditched the diet food and filled up on fresh fruit, veg, meat & eggs. I cooked everything in butter. I ate about 1500-1600 cals daily. I stopped going to the gym because I didn't have time outside all the planning, prepping & cooking required - so lets say that the calorie deficit was a bit less than on lite n easy. In the first month, I lost 4kg easily.

I ate loads of carbs from fruit & veg, it definitely wasn't ketosis.

Now after the second month, I'm another 2kg down & my figure is changing as I've made time for the gym again. I'm back at my old plateau already, which I haven't been at for about 18 months.

so please explain why I managed to do so much better on one diet than another? By your reasoning, the lite & easy plan should have worked better as it had a more dramatic cals in/out ratio.

candylilacs

I'll play devil's advocate and say that you probably lost some initial weight because the amount of fiber cleared out your digestive tract more efficiently an probably got rid of some residual water retention, too. Eating more fruits and veggies before my weigh-in always does that for me.

And can we please get off the calories in vs. calories out and that all calories/sugars/foods are the same? They're not. A large percentage of people on MFP are probably dealing with insulin resistance or metabolic disorder. It's not "the same" for most of them. Me included. If I eat simple carbs and lots of white foods, I bloat, I'm listless and I cheat up a storm. My sugar intake goes wild. Maybe I'm an addict, maybe there's some switch flipped on in my brain that says, "SUGAR! SUGAR!"

Either way, when I quit eating that way, I no longer craved it. Once in a while I still want pork fried rice, but it's nowhere near my former cravings for white pasta and rice.

I seem to find the guys (and it's almost always guys) who harp on the "calories are calories" mantra are all bodybuilding 20-30 years olds. I can't think they're eating McDonald's -- except the few that are genetically gifted with abs.

mmipanda

are you saying I pooped out 4kg?? :laugh: i wish.

my poop is just fine regardless of what i'm eating :ohwell: didn't notice a significant difference in that regard when I switched.


edit: also agree with the middle bit, its so hard to explain that all food is not equal, all people are not equal.

though with that last bit, there is a big bodybuilding thing going on in my town and when they're 'bulking' they definitely do eat a lot of Mcdonalds, haha. Not when cutting though.

LuckyFur

Why do you wish to poop out 4 kilograms?

mmipanda

Why do you wish to poop out 4 kilograms?

I wish it was that easy to lose weight. I imagine it wouldn't be very pleasant to do that in one go though.

Joehenny

Simple carbs are bad? Bros will be bros.

dieselbyte

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.

I completely disagree. Please let me bore you with my story so you see why. I will try to keep it pretty brief.

I work at a very sedentary desk job. I spent 3 months eating lite n easy, a diet meal plan that's delivered weekly. I alternated between the 1500 and 1200 plans, hoarding snacks so that I was at 1350cals per day. I went to the gym for yoga, weights or cardio about 2-3 times a week. In those 3 months, I lost about 2-3 kg and every gram felt like a fight.

So I switched to paleo/primal. I ditched the diet food and filled up on fresh fruit, veg, meat & eggs. I cooked everything in butter. I ate about 1500-1600 cals daily. I stopped going to the gym because I didn't have time outside all the planning, prepping & cooking required - so lets say that the calorie deficit was a bit less than on lite n easy. In the first month, I lost 4kg easily.

I ate loads of carbs from fruit & veg, it definitely wasn't ketosis.

Now after the second month, I'm another 2kg down & my figure is changing as I've made time for the gym again. I'm back at my old plateau already, which I haven't been at for about 18 months.

so please explain why I managed to do so much better on one diet than another? By your reasoning, the lite & easy plan should have worked better as it had a more dramatic cals in/out ratio.

First, Congrats on your weight loss. That's awesome and keep it up.

However, you are missing the point again. Weight loss is about calories in vs out. No one here said it had to be dramatic. You answered your own question. People lose weight by increasing calories also. Did you ever hear the term "eat more to lose more"?You need fuel to burn food and energy. Your story is not unique. I increased my calories to 3100 from 2800 and I lost 2 pounds. And the increase came from mainly carbs! My body was able to function better and metabolize more energy because of more energy coming in. Seems crazy but that's how it works sometimes. You lost weight or gained weight due to calories, not the diet you follow.

Joehenny

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.

You still have to be in a calorie deficit for ketosis to work

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.

I completely disagree. Please let me bore you with my story so you see why. I will try to keep it pretty brief.

I work at a very sedentary desk job. I spent 3 months eating lite n easy, a diet meal plan that's delivered weekly. I alternated between the 1500 and 1200 plans, hoarding snacks so that I was at 1350cals per day. I went to the gym for yoga, weights or cardio about 2-3 times a week. In those 3 months, I lost about 2-3 kg and every gram felt like a fight.

So I switched to paleo/primal. I ditched the diet food and filled up on fresh fruit, veg, meat & eggs. I cooked everything in butter. I ate about 1500-1600 cals daily. I stopped going to the gym because I didn't have time outside all the planning, prepping & cooking required - so lets say that the calorie deficit was a bit less than on lite n easy. In the first month, I lost 4kg easily.

I ate loads of carbs from fruit & veg, it definitely wasn't ketosis.

Now after the second month, I'm another 2kg down & my figure is changing as I've made time for the gym again. I'm back at my old plateau already, which I haven't been at for about 18 months.

so please explain why I managed to do so much better on one diet than another? By your reasoning, the lite & easy plan should have worked better as it had a more dramatic cals in/out ratio.

It depends on specific variables. The meals you were having delivered could have been higher in sodium, causing water retention. And the meals you're making for yourself now, are you measuring everything you eat on a food scale or eyeballing? It can definitely matter.

Last year I spent 3 months traveling for work and was eating fast food 3x per day. I lose 45lbs doing this.

Joehenny

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?

As far as weight loss and body comp yes, and it has been proven over and over.

Joehenny

Carbs are 50% my intake, and almost all my carbs are simple. Oh nooooo

OrionsBell

So I notice that when I watch my carbs, I tend to lose weight. I noticed though that fruit and veggies, especially carrots, have a lot of carbs.

Should I be limiting those carbs as well or just the heavy carbs like breads and pastas and potatoes?

sorry, i don't know...but it looks like you already got a lot of good answers anyway. all i know is, if i avoid bread, cereal and pasta and snack on carrots, celery (with a little peanut butter) and fruit, and substitute honey and agave nectar in my tea instead of refined sugar, i start losing weight.

shinkalork

lol..some answers are funny.... I won't even struggle to make some people understand.

Think what you want ....

Please..Everyone who wants to understand carbs..... please go ANYWHERE on the web and books and mmmm it will be pretty much what I said earlier.

But Who Am I to say those things.... You're right....So for those who want more infos...it will be easier to simply go check before *****ing on one and another.

It's always funny how nothing is always right in here.... I would say that Milk is white and someone would say I'm dumb cause it's freaking Ivory etc...
We all try to give some advices and ideas in here.... Let's respect that unless it's clearly harmful or dangerous.


Still................ Take care

whierd

Carbs are 50% my intake, and almost all my carbs are simple. Oh nooooo

And as a side note, someone mentioned earlier that excess energy from simple carbs is stored as fat. This is not quite true. Your body first refills is glycogen stores before storing fat.