Carbs vs Calories

GiveMeCoffee

Calories! I've been dieting since I was 12 years old in that time I've tried every fad diet there has been. This time I actually did some research and listened to the mean people here on the boards to show me I needed to do more research, because all I had to do was create a reasonable calorie deficit, don't overly restrict or give up anything.

Guess what it seems to have worked I've lost a little weight in a years time, while not driving my family insane, or making myself totally miserable that I wanted to give up. I eat fast food, pizza about once a week, pasta, and ice cream on a nightly basis.

What I've learned is portion control and moderation. I've also learned that there is no quick fix and that I'll be living this way the rest of my life, and I'm okay with that because I haven't given up anything.

Calories in vs Calories out its the biggest secret out there

hmaddpear

In to agree with the other posters. To lose weight, 'all' you need to do is create a reasonable calorie deficit. So counting calories is key.

However, how you go about it will definitely affect your success. It's individual, so what works for me won't, necessarily work for you, but in the main - protein and fat are more satiating and you need an amount of each in your diet for body function and repair. Carbs are there for ready energy. So, I make sure I get the protein and fat I need, plus enough to stop me from feeling hungry. I make sure I eat a lot of vegetables and starchy carb sources (and wine) makes up the rest.

Incidentally, I'm not following this today so far - for various reasons, ended up with fruit for breakfast, rather than my normal bacon and eggs. I'm feeling really, really hungry now!

MityMax96

the purpose to reducing carbs is to reduce the amount of insulin in your bloodstream
since insulin is the hormone which builds adipose (i.e. fat) tissue, it makes sense to not give insulin the chance to store more fat for you since it is fat that you are trying to lose.
so keep carbs under say 100 grams per day, and certainly avoid the high glycemic types of carbs (bread, potato, rice, grains, sugar, honey, fruit juices, HFCS, etc). while you can eat whole fruit, there's no need for it really. it's calorific, higher carb and fructose is hard on the liver. but overall if you reduce carbs it is much easier to lose fat tissue.

Fats and protein can cause an insulin response....

Certain fats will not.....
But protein will

neanderthin

the purpose to reducing carbs is to reduce the amount of insulin in your bloodstream
since insulin is the hormone which builds adipose (i.e. fat) tissue, it makes sense to not give insulin the chance to store more fat for you since it is fat that you are trying to lose.
so keep carbs under say 100 grams per day, and certainly avoid the high glycemic types of carbs (bread, potato, rice, grains, sugar, honey, fruit juices, HFCS, etc). while you can eat whole fruit, there's no need for it really. it's calorific, higher carb and fructose is hard on the liver. but overall if you reduce carbs it is much easier to lose fat tissue.

Fats and protein can cause an insulin response....

Certain fats will not.....
But protein will

Not to mention context and dosage, which this poster seems oblivious to.

TR0berts

I have successfully lost good amounts of weight on low cal (just under 100lbs) and low carb (56lbs). The low cal was so restrictive I put a good chunk back on - hence the low carb which came a few years later.

:huh:

Lowering your Calories isn't restrictive at all. You just eat less of the things you already eat. Low carb is, by its very nature, restrictive. Sure, I guess you could just eat less of the high-carb foods you currently eat and replace them with more (or higher) protein and/or fat foods. But, with low carb, you pretty much can't eat but a tiny amount of certain foods (bread, pasta, potatoes, etc) without taking up your carb allotment for the day.

I mean, whatever works for you, but what you said above is completely backward.

I dont believe in a cut it all out approach, just a reduction e.g. two slices of toast to one.

You just cut out 100kcal. But keep both eggs?

Still get the protein and less kcal.

Do it the other way around and you lose some protein, plus youll be more hungry and probably eat more later in the day anyway.

Most of the negative opinions of low CHO diet are because they are associated with extremely restrictive ketogenic diets. While theres plenty of evidence these work, the evidence still holds strong for far less restricted diets.

I agree with what you're saying. The issue I was attempting to raise is that many people, when they go to a low-carb diet, cut out entire foods, such as pasta and potatoes (since they were mentioned, aka restriction), as opposed to simply eating less of them. By all means, keep protein and fat where they need to be and lower carb intake. But that doesn't necessarily mean "low-carb."

lisajsund

Don't all macros effect insulin response?
It's just the carbs induce the largest response?
And, doesn't insulin trump all other hormones when talking about fat storage (AKA: fat regulation)?
I'm no expert, by any means, but this is how I understand it from reading...

..... can anyone guess?

TheRealMarsupial12

Anybody who thinks it's just about calories should check out Sam Feltham's 21-day experiments where he eats a huge surplus of calories (5700) on a LCHF, typical American, and a vegan diet for 21 days each and gets vastly different results.

To sum it up, he gained about 3 pounds but lost inches on his waist in the LCHF, gained about 15 pounds and gained inches on his waist with the typical American diet, and is about halfway through having gained over 7 pounds and gained inches on his waist with the vegan diet.

Acg67

Anybody who thinks it's just about calories should check out Sam Feltham's 21-day experiments where he eats a huge surplus of calories (5700) on a LCHF, typical American, and a vegan diet for 21 days each and gets vastly different results.

To sum it up, he gained about 3 pounds but lost inches on his waist in the LCHF, gained about 15 pounds and gained inches on his waist with the typical American diet, and is about halfway through having gained over 7 pounds and gained inches on his waist with the vegan diet.

Lol Feltham, that was such a rigorously controlled "experiment"

TheRealMarsupial12

Anybody who thinks it's just about calories should check out Sam Feltham's 21-day experiments where he eats a huge surplus of calories (5700) on a LCHF, typical American, and a vegan diet for 21 days each and gets vastly different results.

To sum it up, he gained about 3 pounds but lost inches on his waist in the LCHF, gained about 15 pounds and gained inches on his waist with the typical American diet, and is about halfway through having gained over 7 pounds and gained inches on his waist with the vegan diet.

Lol Feltham, that was such a rigorously controlled "experiment"

No, but Taubes is about to do one that is.

TheRealMarsupial12

Also, I've done calorie restriction with tons of exercise before and lost a minor amount of weight as well as an inch or so. It took a long time, and I was always hungry. With LCHF, I eat a calorie surplus, eat when I'm hungry, never work out, and I've lost more weight in less time and reduced my body fat.

So, what you say doesn't really mean anything to me.

Acg67

Anybody who thinks it's just about calories should check out Sam Feltham's 21-day experiments where he eats a huge surplus of calories (5700) on a LCHF, typical American, and a vegan diet for 21 days each and gets vastly different results.

To sum it up, he gained about 3 pounds but lost inches on his waist in the LCHF, gained about 15 pounds and gained inches on his waist with the typical American diet, and is about halfway through having gained over 7 pounds and gained inches on his waist with the vegan diet.

Lol Feltham, that was such a rigorously controlled "experiment"

No, but Taubes is about to do one that is.

Yes since the overeating trials that don't agree with his carbs are evil fantasy must be incorrect

TR0berts

Also, I've done calorie restriction with tons of exercise before and lost a minor amount of weight as well as an inch or so. It took a long time, and I was always hungry. With LCHF, I eat a calorie surplus, eat when I'm hungry, never work out, and I've lost more weight in less time and reduced my body fat.

So, what you say doesn't really mean anything to me.

:noway: :ohwell: :huh: :frown: :laugh:

Acg67

Also, I've done calorie restriction with tons of exercise before and lost a minor amount of weight as well as an inch or so. It took a long time, and I was always hungry. With LCHF, I eat a calorie surplus, eat when I'm hungry, never work out, and I've lost more weight in less time and reduced my body fat.

So, what you say doesn't really mean anything to me.

So where do the surplus of calories go?

TheRealMarsupial12

Excreted as ketones. Converted into muscle. My body temperature also raised from low to normal, which increases calorie expenditure. And probably something else. But I'm not a scientist. All I know is what works for me and what doesn't.

lightmouse

I try to eat 30% protein 30% fat 40% carbs. I have managed to get my body fat % to 17.5 this way (plus workouts) whilst still having enough energy throughout the day (and not biting people's heads off hahaha)

I don't eat white bread or pasta, but wholegrains, seeds, veggies and fruit are all in there. Mmmmmm bread, I love bread. My friend is on a high protein low carb diet right now and she's having brilliant results, but she has FAR more willpower than me!

leighn62

That's exactly right. Calories are key but eating low carb makes keeping calories down so much easier.

Acg67

Excreted as ketones. Converted into muscle. My body temperature also raised from low to normal, which increases calorie expenditure. And probably something else. But I'm not a scientist. All I know is what works for me and what doesn't.

That's funny, well controlled metabolic ward studies holding calories and protein constant found no greater fat loss for low carb or keto diets. Also Eating a zero carb diet also failed to raise RMR significantly. So much for the metabolic advantage theory

chopper_pilot

You know what you should do? Stop worrying about what works for other people - do the work and experiments and see which actually works better for you.

castelluzzo99

Look at every large population group in recorded history. What did they eat? Lots of carbs. And how did they look? I'm not talking about Egyptian pharaohs, either. They ate like we (Americans) do, got fat like we do, and died of the same diseases that we do. I'm talking about the average person. Think of most Asians who still eat their traditional diet. You know, lots of rice, lots of veggies, a little meat or fish. Or the Incas in South America and their potatoes, the Aztecs in central America with their corn, etc. They were all slender and strong.

You might want to search for videos by Dr. McDougall on YouTube. Watch the longer ones. You will get an education by a man who knows what he's talking about, who has the science to back him up.

lisajsund

You can also look up the Nutrition Science Initiative, of which Gary Taubes is a co-founder.
There is some great research coming down the pipeline.