Do carbs make you fat?
Replies
-
It just drives me nuts when I hear it's all about calories from experts or anyone for that matter because that's not the case for me.
Yes it is, it's the case for every human being. Different peoples' bodies do not work differently on such a fundamental level as how and what they burn for energy. Calories are literally units of energy - your body doesn't burn specifically fats, carbs, or proteins, it burns units of energy. High carb can cause more intense fluctuations in water weight which maybe masked weight loss for you, or you just weren't counting accurately or didn't give it enough time to see a change. I personally find it impossible to see a change in weight on a daily or even weekly basis and always feel like I'm "stalling", but when I look at a long term graph of my trending weight it's always in a decline.
What evidence do you have that every person's body responds the same to all food calories, regardless of the source?
The numerous peer-reviewed studies that have been done that all show parity in diet effectiveness despite different macronutrient breakdowns. Barring a medical condition, macros do not matter in terms of weight loss. And even in those cases where they do matter, they only matter to a small extent, and the mechanisms that make one macro "better" for weight loss than another in a person with a medical condition are usually mechanisms of increased RMR, which all comes back to calories in vs. calories out.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by "calories in"? And what medical conditions would matter?
Calories in = calories consumed, i.e. food eaten. Medical conditions that would matter would be primarily diabetes, insulin resistance, and thyroid conditions, although I think thyroid conditions just alter your metabolic rate moreso than change your response to certain macros. There may be other conditions but I'm not a doctor so I haven't bothered to extensively research the matter.
I have Hashimoto's and Hypothyroid - I can attest it is still calories in and calories out. Just takes a litttle longer for us
but it still works ... Let me add a disclaimer IF IT IS CONTROLLED... if thyroid isn't controlled then it is a whole other matter...
Why would it take longer, if calories are all that matters?
Already answered that - hypothyroidism causes a lower resting metabolism, which impacts the "calories out" portion. You'd have to further reduce calories in, and there's a limit to how low you can safely take your intake.0 -
Too much in and not enough out is what makes you fat.0
-
my peri experience is somewhat different.No they do not. I say this as someone with insulin resistance who is deep in the throes of perimeonpause, two factors that should work against my favor when it comes to carbohydrates.
My macros are 50% carbs, 30% fat, 20% protein and I'm down 30-something pounds in 120-ish days.0 -
Calories in calories out applies to everyone however calorie calculators to estimate your burn are based on population averages and there is a bell curve there. People with certain medical conditions are far outliers on that bell-curve and if they apply the standard online calculators for their burn estimates they will be pretty far off and it will look like somehow CICO doesn't apply to them. No CICO still applies, its just that they are going to have to work harder to establish what their calorie out value is.0
-
It just drives me nuts when I hear it's all about calories from experts or anyone for that matter because that's not the case for me.
Yes it is, it's the case for every human being. Different peoples' bodies do not work differently on such a fundamental level as how and what they burn for energy. Calories are literally units of energy - your body doesn't burn specifically fats, carbs, or proteins, it burns units of energy. High carb can cause more intense fluctuations in water weight which maybe masked weight loss for you, or you just weren't counting accurately or didn't give it enough time to see a change. I personally find it impossible to see a change in weight on a daily or even weekly basis and always feel like I'm "stalling", but when I look at a long term graph of my trending weight it's always in a decline.
What evidence do you have that every person's body responds the same to all food calories, regardless of the source?
ETA: While you are correct that the body burns units of energy, that is not the same as saying that every calorie from food we eat is processed or used by the body the same in each of us. The human body is a very complex organism and what happens to those food calories can vary from human to human.
Simple answer to this question. I agree that the body is complex and I can concieve different people getting different calorie values from different macronutrients. The way they would be different is how efficient our body would be at processing certain nutrients.
Here is the thing though, the calorie content marked on foods is a calorimetry measurement and therefore is the MAXIMUM amount of energy you could EVER get from that food. Sure, I could believe it is possible that person A gets 75% of the caloric value from carbohydrates where person B gets 50% of the caloric value from carbohydrates however there is no person C that gets 150% of the caloric value from carbs. You could never go above 100% so therefore this idea that you could somehow gain weight eating as low as 1200 calories is not possible physically.
Can you conceive of a way to get more than 100% of the caloric value from food because I'm confident that is impossible.
Well, yes, since all those labelled calories are averages. Some food will contain more than the listed number of calories, so it is possible to get more than 100% of that number. Though, of course, it is not possible to consume more than the food actually contains.
You could easily gain weight on 1200 calories, because weight is more than just fat. And, though far less common, it is possible to have a BMR or RMR of < 1200.
But, what you describe above is actually my point. We do not all absorb calories the same.0 -
Calories in calories out applies to everyone however calorie calculators to estimate your burn are based on population averages and there is a bell curve there. People with certain medical conditions are far outliers on that bell-curve and if they apply the standard online calculators for their burn estimates they will be pretty far off and it will look like somehow CICO doesn't apply to them. No CICO still applies, its just that they are going to have to work harder to establish what their calorie out value is.
and it sucks LOL just thought I would say that :P I don't even try to estimate - just find the sweet spot with intake that allows me to lose while in my exercise routine (weights)...0 -
I use to believe the only way I could lose weight is lower carb, but once I started actually logging my food, I realized this is not true. The difference for me is that lower carb helps me stay in a calorie deficit b/c I don't feel the need to snack all day. I think the most important factor with weight loss is being consistent.0
-
And this is hugely important: find what YOU can do consistently. Among other things, I find it much easier to eat my "allotted amount" (for loss, or for maintenance) when I eat mostly whole plant "carbs" versus highly refined "carbs".I use to believe the only way I could lose weight is lower carb, but once I started actually logging my food, I realized this is not true. The difference for me is that lower carb helps me stay in a calorie deficit b/c I don't feel the need to snack all day. I think the most important factor with weight loss is being consistent.0 -
A caloric surplus is what causes weight gain.
A caloric deficit is what causes weight loss.
It's a shame that so many can assume the mantle of wisdom by merely repeating such simple, and basic, information, but such is the rampant ignorance that has suffused society.
Out of the three macros (protein, fat, carbs), carbs are the most expendable.
So, no, carbs won't "make you fat" per se, but those are typically what one should watch.
Note: This doesn't apply to those who feel their life would be empty (no pun intended) if they never eat another doughnut again (never been an issue personally, but I can concede it may be for others). If a nutritionally light (and calorically dense) indulgence keeps you "on the wagon," knock yourself out!0 -
It just drives me nuts when I hear it's all about calories from experts or anyone for that matter because that's not the case for me.
Yes it is, it's the case for every human being. Different peoples' bodies do not work differently on such a fundamental level as how and what they burn for energy. Calories are literally units of energy - your body doesn't burn specifically fats, carbs, or proteins, it burns units of energy. High carb can cause more intense fluctuations in water weight which maybe masked weight loss for you, or you just weren't counting accurately or didn't give it enough time to see a change. I personally find it impossible to see a change in weight on a daily or even weekly basis and always feel like I'm "stalling", but when I look at a long term graph of my trending weight it's always in a decline.
What evidence do you have that every person's body responds the same to all food calories, regardless of the source?
ETA: While you are correct that the body burns units of energy, that is not the same as saying that every calorie from food we eat is processed or used by the body the same in each of us. The human body is a very complex organism and what happens to those food calories can vary from human to human.
Simple answer to this question. I agree that the body is complex and I can concieve different people getting different calorie values from different macronutrients. The way they would be different is how efficient our body would be at processing certain nutrients.
Here is the thing though, the calorie content marked on foods is a calorimetry measurement and therefore is the MAXIMUM amount of energy you could EVER get from that food. Sure, I could believe it is possible that person A gets 75% of the caloric value from carbohydrates where person B gets 50% of the caloric value from carbohydrates however there is no person C that gets 150% of the caloric value from carbs. You could never go above 100% so therefore this idea that you could somehow gain weight eating as low as 1200 calories is not possible physically.
Can you conceive of a way to get more than 100% of the caloric value from food because I'm confident that is impossible.
Well, yes, since all those labelled calories are averages. Some food will contain more than the listed number of calories, so it is possible to get more than 100% of that number. Though, of course, it is not possible to consume more than the food actually contains.
You could easily gain weight on 1200 calories, because weight is more than just fat. And, though far less common, it is possible to have a BMR or RMR of < 1200.
But, what you describe above is actually my point. We do not all absorb calories the same.
What I described was your point not because I agree with your point but because I was reiterating your point. Do you have any actual study or evidence to back this claim up at all or is it just a "the body is complex who knows what is going on" sort of claim?
My point with the 1200 calories was OP was claiming that she could not lose weight at 1200 calories if she ate carbs and that is 100% not true so something is wrong there. You will lose fat eating 1200 calories unless you are 60 years old and 4'6'' and if you lose fat sure that might be masked by water retention for a bit but eventually if you stick with it you will see a reduction in your weight. There is no variation in body efficiency that could make up for this. My suspicion with the OP is that eating carbs will restock your glycogen which comes with a heafty amount of water retention while eating low carb will deplete your glycogen stores over time and result in a lot of lost water retention. One makes you look like you aren't losing weight, the other makes it look like the weight is steadily coming off...but its water, not fat.
The most calroies you could get is if your bodies chemical process and microbiome was 100% efficient (something that won't happen ever) in which case 1 calorie on the box would be 1 calorie for you where 1 calorie is the amount of energy required to raise 1kg of water by 1 degree celsius. To maintain your body temp, keep your heart beating, keep your brain functioning etc there is a minimum energy you require and no amount of "efficiency" is going to change that.0 -
When you eat at a calorie surplus ( meaning you eat more than you burn ) on a continual basis then any of the macronutrients - carb, protein, and fat-- can be converted into adipose tissue.0
-
Every body is different, you see some people eating doughnuts and shakes all day and don't gain and ounce but as we get old our body does not utilize nutrients as efficiently. The "average" american diet contains 45 to 65% carbohydrate, that is 45 to 65% of how ever many total calories you consume. A low carb diet is from 5 (extreme) to 45% of carbs for your total calories. Yes you will probably lose weight because you body will have to breakdown fat stores for energy. Also some of us (me) crave sugar and starch and the longer I can hold on (about a week now) the less cravings I have. Have you ever noticed that if you start your day with sugary or starchy foods you have trouble all day long with cravings? That is your insulin trying to digest the carbs and sugar. Mine will swing, too high then too low. Just monitor your carbs, take the percentage down to 35 or 40% you should find out if in a week or two you feel better and are losing weight. I started almost a week ago and have lost almost 4 lbs.
So to answer you if you take in extra carbs your body will store them as fat for when you need them. I am not getting this from a diet book or a diet the requires pills and shakes, I'm in a program thru my doctor because my blood sugar is rising and I am 50 lbs overweight. I consistently eat between 200 - 500 less calories than this program says I should have and consistently work out at gym. Carbs, in my case, seem to be the challenge0 -
When you eat at a calorie surplus ( meaning you eat more than you burn ) on a continual basis then any of the macronutrients - carb, protein, and fat-- can be converted into adipose tissue.
You mean these cute little guys are from a calorie surplus?
0 -
Every body is different, you see some people eating doughnuts and shakes all day and don't gain and ounce but as we get old our body does not utilize nutrients as efficiently. The "average" american diet contains 45 to 65% carbohydrate, that is 45 to 65% of how ever many total calories you consume. A low carb diet is from 5 (extreme) to 45% of carbs for your total calories. Yes you will probably lose weight because you body will have to breakdown fat stores for energy. Also some of us (me) crave sugar and starch and the longer I can hold on (about a week now) the less cravings I have. Have you ever noticed that if you start your day with sugary or starchy foods you have trouble all day long with cravings? That is your insulin trying to digest the carbs and sugar. Mine will swing, too high then too low. Just monitor your carbs, take the percentage down to 35 or 40% you should find out if in a week or two you feel better and are losing weight. I started almost a week ago and have lost almost 4 lbs.
So to answer you if you take in extra carbs your body will store them as fat for when you need them. I am not getting this from a diet book or a diet the requires pills and shakes, I'm in a program thru my doctor because my blood sugar is rising and I am 50 lbs overweight. I consistently eat between 200 - 500 less calories than this program says I should have and consistently work out at gym. Carbs, in my case, seem to be the challenge
This ignores the actual cause of weight loss and gain which is calorie count which has nothing to do with what percent of your diet is carbs or not.
Carbs might not be a satiating as protein or fat which can make it difficult to eat less on a carb-heavy diet but that is not the point here.0 -
Stop it with this common sense Science based approach this is MFP and no place for it.
I bet there are some nice folks with PCOS on the board that may disagree with you, a few ladies in menopause who might as well.It just drives me nuts when I hear it's all about calories from experts or anyone for that matter because that's not the case for me.
Yes it is, it's the case for every human being. Different peoples' bodies do not work differently on such a fundamental level as how and what they burn for energy. Calories are literally units of energy - your body doesn't burn specifically fats, carbs, or proteins, it burns units of energy. High carb can cause more intense fluctuations in water weight which maybe masked weight loss for you, or you just weren't counting accurately or didn't give it enough time to see a change. I personally find it impossible to see a change in weight on a daily or even weekly basis and always feel like I'm "stalling", but when I look at a long term graph of my trending weight it's always in a decline.
Those nice folks are wrong.
Calorie deficit = weight loss Calorie surplus = weight gain
I don't believe in magic.
*editors note* Certain medical conditions, like PCOS and Hashimoto's, make it more difficult to lose weight. But even in those cases calorie guidelines specific to the condition must be adhered to. It doesn't mean calories don't matter for those cases, in fact they matter more.0 -
I don't know if anyone else read it, but it's a pretty fascinating article. Thanks for sharing.0 -
They can if you eat to much carbs at once. If you overeat anything. It can make you fat. Also try to eat low glycemic foods.0
-
You're probably just mismeasuring your food (you can NOT "eyeball" or "estimate" if you're trying to lose weight. Start counting every little thing you eat. Everything.). You need to buy a food scale and weigh everything. Do that for a while, eating what you normally would, and THEN see what your calorie-intake REALLY IS. Most of us find that it's not the amount we imagined. That's why people who log their food lose more weight than people who don't.
Also, I don't know if you are working out or not, but treadmills etc. way overblow the amount of calories it thinks you burn. My treadmill thinks I burn 40% more calories than I actually do. Get a heart rate monitor, or, eat back only half of your exercise calories, to make sure you don't undo your own deficit by thinking you burned 1000 calories when you only burned 600.0 -
A lot of answers with a lot of advice here. My advice would be to set up a control situation (i.e laboratory control). This is done very easily.
Food scale, measuring cups, measuring spoons.
Then with very strict discipline, log exactly what you eat (using your measuring implements as needed) and see what happens after a few weeks.
My two cents, since it won't hurt: while a calorie is a unit of burned energy and various foods have various calories per gram, I do find that getting rid of simple carbs and replacing them with more complex carbs helps me (and others I have observed personally) with weight lose or fitness or health. Here is some simple information on this:
http://www.nutritionmd.org/nutrition_tips/nutrition_tips_understand_foods/carbs_versus.html
This is not an effort to chime in on the question about whether carbs are a "different kind of calorie", to me it's a silly argument because it supposes that dieting can be a one-dimensional thing. While it doesn't have to be stupid complex, it's certainly involves more than clinging to one datum and basing one's approach off that one datum.0 -
I totally share your frustration and experience - I have struggled for 20 years and as I am now in my 50's it's even harder. I recommend reading Gary Taubes' book "Why we get fat and what to do about it"http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About-ebook/dp/B003WUYOQ6/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403540319&sr=1-1&keywords=why+we+get+fat+gary+taubes
It was a rel eye opener and also at the same time a tough reality check. The science he works with has long term studies so it's not about a diet. It's all about explaining the body physiology that is prone to gaining weight from starchy carbs and sugar. I follow his advise - I do find it impossible to completely eliminate all starchy carbs (bread, baked goods, etc.) but I have been able to cut down and make better choices, stop the yoyo, loose weight slowly and sanely. Mainly self acceptance and understanding the results of eating foods that don't work for my physiology has brought me a lot of peace and a realistic outlook on the situation. I have not given up being fit or having a slice of great whole grain bread now and then - just learning to manage the situation from a more educated position helps a ton.
Don't OP. One post from this person and first post is trying to sell you something. There are plenty of "diet secrets" books out there that you can choose from if you wish to confuse the issue or misinform yourself, if you are going to do that may as well get a cheaper one.
Then get the info for free on youtube. It makes it a little harder to look up all of the scientific studies he used, but then you can see if it would be worth it to read the book. Or google "The A TO Z Weight Loss Study" and see the results of a study that actually compared low carb, low fat, and low calorie diets.0 -
My point with the 1200 calories was OP was claiming that she could not lose weight at 1200 calories if she ate carbs and that is 100% not true so something is wrong there. You will lose fat eating 1200 calories unless you are 60 years old and 4'6'' and if you lose fat sure that might be masked by water retention for a bit but eventually if you stick with it you will see a reduction in your weight. There is no variation in body efficiency that could make up for this. My suspicion with the OP is that eating carbs will restock your glycogen which comes with a heafty amount of water retention while eating low carb will deplete your glycogen stores over time and result in a lot of lost water retention. One makes you look like you aren't losing weight, the other makes it look like the weight is steadily coming off...but its water, not fat.
You start off saying it is 100% not true that someone could not be losing weight on 1200, then switch to how we lose fat. As if they are the same thing.
I rather think this states better than I:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=health&_r=0"At Harvard Medical School, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology whose research was cited by experts in the film, said that the long-held idea that we get fat solely because we consume more calories than we expend is based on outdated science.
He has studied the effects that different foods have on weight gain and said that it is true that 100 calories of fat, protein and carbohydrates are the same in a thermodynamic sense, in that they release the same amount of energy when exposed to a Bunsen burner in a lab. But in a complex organism like a human being, he said, these foods influence satiety, metabolic rate, brain activity, blood sugar and the hormones that store fat in very different ways.
Studies also show that calories from different foods are not absorbed the same. When people eat high-fiber foods like nuts and some vegetables, for example, only about three-quarters of the calories they contain are absorbed. The rest are excreted from the body unused. So the calories listed on their labels are not what the body is actually getting.
“The implicit suggestion is that there are no bad calories, just bad people eating too much,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But the evidence is very clear that not all calories are created equal as far as weight gain and obesity. If you’re focusing on calories, you can easily be misguided.”"
OP, you won't change the mind of those on these forums who believe we are all the same and what they experience will be exactly what you experience. Just listen to your body and whatch how it responds to different foods. Do you what you need to do for you.0 -
My point with the 1200 calories was OP was claiming that she could not lose weight at 1200 calories if she ate carbs and that is 100% not true so something is wrong there. You will lose fat eating 1200 calories unless you are 60 years old and 4'6'' and if you lose fat sure that might be masked by water retention for a bit but eventually if you stick with it you will see a reduction in your weight. There is no variation in body efficiency that could make up for this. My suspicion with the OP is that eating carbs will restock your glycogen which comes with a heafty amount of water retention while eating low carb will deplete your glycogen stores over time and result in a lot of lost water retention. One makes you look like you aren't losing weight, the other makes it look like the weight is steadily coming off...but its water, not fat.
You start off saying it is 100% not true that someone could not be losing weight on 1200, then switch to how we lose fat. As if they are the same thing.
I rather think this states better than I:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=health&_r=0"At Harvard Medical School, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology whose research was cited by experts in the film, said that the long-held idea that we get fat solely because we consume more calories than we expend is based on outdated science.
He has studied the effects that different foods have on weight gain and said that it is true that 100 calories of fat, protein and carbohydrates are the same in a thermodynamic sense, in that they release the same amount of energy when exposed to a Bunsen burner in a lab. But in a complex organism like a human being, he said, these foods influence satiety, metabolic rate, brain activity, blood sugar and the hormones that store fat in very different ways.
Studies also show that calories from different foods are not absorbed the same. When people eat high-fiber foods like nuts and some vegetables, for example, only about three-quarters of the calories they contain are absorbed. The rest are excreted from the body unused. So the calories listed on their labels are not what the body is actually getting.
“The implicit suggestion is that there are no bad calories, just bad people eating too much,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But the evidence is very clear that not all calories are created equal as far as weight gain and obesity. If you’re focusing on calories, you can easily be misguided.”"
OP, you won't change the mind of those on these forums who believe we are all the same and what they experience will be exactly what you experience. Just listen to your body and whatch how it responds to different foods. Do you what you need to do for you.
I use lose weight and lose fat interchangably because I have to assume that when people talk about wanting to lose weight they are actually talking about wanting to lose fat.
If their goal actually is to truly just lose weight temporarily and for a limited amount then just go low sodium, cut carbs and drink tons of water and you will "lose weight" in the form of water. I, however, like to think when people ask how they can lose weight they are talking specifically about losing fat.0 -
My point with the 1200 calories was OP was claiming that she could not lose weight at 1200 calories if she ate carbs and that is 100% not true so something is wrong there. You will lose fat eating 1200 calories unless you are 60 years old and 4'6'' and if you lose fat sure that might be masked by water retention for a bit but eventually if you stick with it you will see a reduction in your weight. There is no variation in body efficiency that could make up for this. My suspicion with the OP is that eating carbs will restock your glycogen which comes with a heafty amount of water retention while eating low carb will deplete your glycogen stores over time and result in a lot of lost water retention. One makes you look like you aren't losing weight, the other makes it look like the weight is steadily coming off...but its water, not fat.
You start off saying it is 100% not true that someone could not be losing weight on 1200, then switch to how we lose fat. As if they are the same thing.
I rather think this states better than I:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=health&_r=0"At Harvard Medical School, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology whose research was cited by experts in the film, said that the long-held idea that we get fat solely because we consume more calories than we expend is based on outdated science.
He has studied the effects that different foods have on weight gain and said that it is true that 100 calories of fat, protein and carbohydrates are the same in a thermodynamic sense, in that they release the same amount of energy when exposed to a Bunsen burner in a lab. But in a complex organism like a human being, he said, these foods influence satiety, metabolic rate, brain activity, blood sugar and the hormones that store fat in very different ways.
Studies also show that calories from different foods are not absorbed the same. When people eat high-fiber foods like nuts and some vegetables, for example, only about three-quarters of the calories they contain are absorbed. The rest are excreted from the body unused. So the calories listed on their labels are not what the body is actually getting.
“The implicit suggestion is that there are no bad calories, just bad people eating too much,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But the evidence is very clear that not all calories are created equal as far as weight gain and obesity. If you’re focusing on calories, you can easily be misguided.”"
OP, you won't change the mind of those on these forums who believe we are all the same and what they experience will be exactly what you experience. Just listen to your body and whatch how it responds to different foods. Do you what you need to do for you.
Good god, did you even read the article you linked? It starts by giving several different ways that certain foods impact the calories in vs. calories out equation which gives legitimacy to the calorie argument. It talks about how certain foods can influence metabolic rate (calories in vs. out), affect satiety (which can lead to higher calories in), and talks about high fiber foods where you don't absorb all of the calories (still calories in vs. out). Then the full second half of the article is other experts refuting everything this guy said and claiming that it really is about calories.0 -
OP you could go get checked by the dr. that's what I did. Changed my life and yes I low carb it for medical reasons.0
-
hello poster,
although many people responding to you seem to be talking about how calories really is the problem, i understand where you are coming from. I too have problems with carbs because of my insulin resistance from PCOS. Do you by any chance have insulin resistance? If you're not sure you could always go to the doctor and ask to be tested.
I find that eating 100-150 net carbs a day and trying to avoid white bread, white potatoes, chips, pretzels (basically anything thats not whole wheat or whole grain) for the most part has helped me. It is a slow process but it has gotten my numbers moving. Before I found out that I should be eating a lower carb diet than the average person who does not have problems processing sugars/carbs it felt like it was impossible to lose any weight/inches no matter how much i exercised and how low my calories were.0 -
Thanks0
-
OP you could go get checked by the dr. that's what I did. Changed my life and yes I low carb it for medical reasons.
Yep already Scheduled that0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Someone sent me a PM saying this thread had a fascinating, never before discussed topic regarding carbs, weight gain and CICO. Was that PM misleading?
No not at all, we have discovered through careful discussion that twinkies are the secret to weight loss.0 -
Carbs do not make you fat. Eating above your maintenance calories makes you fat. However, macronutrient management is crucial. Varying degrees of macronutients is the primary difference between all the diet plans on the market. What diet plan works for you depends on what macronutrient percentage works best for your body.
Carbs raise your blood glucose. When your blood glucose goes up, your body releases insulin to lower it. Insulin causes the body to store carbohydrates as fat because it activates a fat storage enzyme, lipoprotein lipase. Insulin also inhibits the body from being able to draw on stored fat for energy.
Whether a low carb diet will work for you depends on how much carbs impact your blood glucose and how your body responds to the insulin that is released because of elevated blood glucose. People who are carb sensitive and/or insulin resistant find that a low carb diet is the best (and often only) way to lose weight.
It is not strictly necessary to reduce your carbs to a ketogenic-inducing level, as in the Atkins diet. Many scientists/theorists/researchers believe that a carb amount below 100g/day is low enough to produce desired glucose management and weight loss.
Apparently no one but the OP read my post. It addresses many of the things that everyone is arguing about. Just sayin'.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions