Calories vs. Carbs

Josalinn

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

I do not recomend this as a diet but it is possible to lose weight only eating twinkies.

WendyTerry420

I didn't! I'm totally relearning everything I knew. I thought I had it all down, but now I'm adjusting to some new nutrition-nerd glasses! Keep telling me more guys, this is so interesting

This is how I felt when I first joined MFP. I had to unlearn myths and learn science I had never been exposed to. And for the record, Sidesteel is awesome! He and HelloItsDan have taught me a LOT!

praxisproject

Calories are not nutrition, they are only measurements of energy.

Whether they are carbs or calories, nutritionally empty is empty of value for your body, unless you have a NEED for huge amounts of calories (which very few people do).

Calories matter as do carbs, but quality (nutrition) is most important. You could lose weight on a twinkie diet, but you could also get scurvy and a number of other nasty nutrient-deficient conditions.

Nutritionally empty high calorie foods are often high in sugars and starches, while low in protein and fibre.

I'm insulin resistant so I don't want to eat any calories or carbs which have an impact on my blood sugar AND do not provide a value-add amount of nutrition. These will cause my blood sugar to spike, my body to release insulin and my body to retain fat, reduce my ability to burn fat and what benefit do I get in exchange? Calories! (pretty crappy deal). I can get those same calories with protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals, without all the negative effects. Fat has no impact on my blood sugar and helps release fat soluble vitamins in my food.

It's my choice, I choose nutrition.

Insulin resistance is not a myth, the "weightology" article draws some bizarre conclusions from even weirder starting assumptions. High carbs are not a "root cause" of insulin resistance. People with insulin resistance have malfunctions at the cellular level. Many cellular level malfunctions are to do with failures in messaging protocols within the body. It doesn't matter if messages are sent, if they are not received or not acted upon. Insulin resistance is not the only messaging failure condition in the human body, there are many. No one knows the cause of Insulin Resistance, there are many theories, but every treatment is of the symptoms only and does not "cure" the root cause. The fix for messaging failures would be for the messaging to be accurately sent and received, IF messaging failure is the cause and not just another layer of symptom (why do the messages fail?).

Why should anyone care about insulin resistance? If insulin resistance is left untreated, Type 2 Diabetes eventually occurs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_resistance

SideSteel

What issue specifically, are you having with the weightology article?

mmapags

bump

JosephVitte

kudo's........bravo...........sidesteel.................you have my vote! and to the rest of you..........I love it! I burn calories reading this stuff, seriously!

diligentjosh

I keep it simple. Use carbs before a workout (i.e. "carb up"). Carbs=energy. I get a good portion of my calories from Proteins as well as carbs, as well as fat (those are hard to separate and deduct the ration). But I believe that in some fun way, they all work together to let you work out and burn over 1400 calories like i did today. I did that after eating a 600 calorie breakfast, and a 120 calorie protein bar halfway through the workout.

JosephVitte

I keep it simple. Use carbs before a workout (i.e. "carb up"). Carbs=energy. I get a good portion of my calories from Proteins as well as carbs, as well as fat (those are hard to separate and deduct the ration). But I believe that in some fun way, they all work together to let you work out and burn over 1400 calories like i did today. I did that after eating a 600 calorie breakfast, and a 120 calorie protein bar halfway through the workout.

If you don't mind.................break down for me what "carb up, energy" means.............what are carb foods? what are protein foods?

volume77

too. tired. to. argue. please. see. profile. yawn. yawn.

diligentjosh

honestly dude, I dont have a clue. I just eat what I like, and what seems to work. I do not keep track of carbs, but I notice that my protein bars have a little more carbs in them than protein, about 15% more. must be for a reason, right?

diligentjosh

my Vitamin water still has a good amount of carbs for being zero calorie. To me, that just translates into energy, with protein to help my muscles recover some (*from the protein bars)...but for breakfast, I have either eggs, taters, and bacon, or a protein 2% milk shake. Gets me through the workout pretty good.

mournlight

Okay, I think I'm getting it. It's cool that so many people state the info different ways - helps us newbies get it. So, basically: Most of us should stick to the calorie goal. However, in doing so, we should also make sure those calories have nutritional value and not consume too many empty calories because those will often lead to hunger. We could increase simple carb calories if we were about to do a heavy workout, but generally should try to do complex carb calories so that our body breaks them down slower and our sugar levels are more even and we don't get hungry as fast. Additionally, there should be a reasonable mix of carbs, protein, etc. It differs for everyone, but for most people not more than half their intake should be carbs. And of those carbs, again most of that probably should be complex carbs. Eating empty carbs like grains causes hunger sooner because they don't have much nutritional value....

Okay, if I'm understanding all that about right, can someone expound on the grain-as-empty-carbs issue? What else is considered "empty carbs" and tends to make us hungry sooner?

Thanks to all.

danielg810

you have to take into account so many other factors like the glycemic index of the carb your eating, the fiber, vitamins & antioxidants, the phytonutrients it provides, and its effect on your hormal level, albeit these are small factors and based on how often you eat chocolate vs spinach they make a difference in how you look and feel in the long run.

Spinach for ex has IC-3, indolcarbinol-3 a phytonutrient that increases testosterone (relax, thats not a bad thing ladies) and promotes fat burning while chocolate may have some fat but actually a lot of antioxidants (esp dark) as well which can help in other ways. In either case chocolate probably has the higher glycemic index, causes more sugar to be circulating in the blood at once and likely more of it will be stored as fat, while the 100 cals of spinach (thats alot) will likely cause some other effects, like slow digesting of the carbs due to fiber, release of a lot more good nutrients into the blood (since its like 5 servings of veggies!) and what i would assume to be a longer process of glycolysis (turning the carbs into glycogen sugar- done more slowly so less sugar is circulating freely), in addition to slight hormal/phytonutrient effects.

baptiste565

Okay, I think I'm getting it. It's cool that so many people state the info different ways - helps us newbies get it. So, basically: Most of us should stick to the calorie goal. However, in doing so, we should also make sure those calories have nutritional value and not consume too many empty calories because those will often lead to hunger. We could increase simple carb calories if we were about to do a heavy workout, but generally should try to do complex carb calories so that our body breaks them down slower and our sugar levels are more even and we don't get hungry as fast. Additionally, there should be a reasonable mix of carbs, protein, etc. It differs for everyone, but for most people not more than half their intake should be carbs. And of those carbs, again most of that probably should be complex carbs. Eating empty carbs like grains causes hunger sooner because they don't have much nutritional value....

Okay, if I'm understanding all that about right, can someone expound on the grain-as-empty-carbs issue? What else is considered "empty carbs" and tends to make us hungry sooner?

Thanks to all.

it is a myth that nutrient dense foods are more filling than nutrient lacking foods.

danielg810

Its true more nutrient dense foods, like veggies, usually have more fiber than less nutritious carbs- ie refined flours, which the fiber legitimately fill you up

baptiste565

Its true more nutrient dense foods, like veggies, usually have more fiber than less nutritious carbs- ie refined flours, which the fiber legitimately fill you up

think about it. more filling bowl of rice or bowl of lettuce, bowl of spaghetti or bowl of cabbage, bowl of potatoes or bowl of spinach.

Laffinhippiegurl

Bump

Brian_VA

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that the types of food we eat impacts how much energy our bodies use (burn) both at rest and when active.

After losing weight on a diet, subjects were put on three different diets - one high in sugary carbs (typical American diet), one high in low glycemic carbs, and one low in carbs (Atkins). The calories they ate were the same - it was only the mix of carefully measured foods that varied. (This was done in a clinical setting - the subjects were monitored throughout the study).

The results were people that ate the sugary carbs diet had a lower energy output (they burned fewer calories) than people that ate the low glycemic diet. And people that ate the low glycemic diet burned fewer calories than those that ate the low carb diet.

How much difference - people that ate low carb could eat about 300 more calories per day than people that ate the sugary diet, because their body was burning about that many more calories.

This puts a new spin on the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" debate.

One more thought / question - why are we here counting calories or carbs? People have been on the planet earth for 2 million years. As recently as our grandparents generation everyone was at a pretty healthy weight. Heart disease was low. Insulin sensitivity didn't exist. Almost no one exercised as an adult. No one counted calories. People ate until they were full and went about their business. Why now are so many people's bodies NOT able to regulate their weight?

baptiste565

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that the types of food we eat impacts how much energy our bodies use (burn) both at rest and when active.

After losing weight on a diet, subjects were put on three different diets - one high in sugary carbs (typical American diet), one high in low glycemic carbs, and one low in carbs (Atkins). The calories they ate were the same - it was only the mix of carefully measured foods that varied. (This was done in a clinical setting - the subjects were monitored throughout the study).

The results were people that ate the sugary carbs diet had a lower energy output (they burned fewer calories) than people that ate the low glycemic diet. And people that ate the low glycemic diet burned fewer calories than those that ate the low carb diet.

How much difference - people that ate low carb could eat about 300 more calories per day than people that ate the sugary diet, because their body was burning about that many more calories.

This puts a new spin on the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" debate.

One more thought / question - why are we here counting calories or carbs? People have been on the planet earth for 2 million years. As recently as our grandparents generation everyone was at a pretty healthy weight. Heart disease was low. Insulin sensitivity didn't exist. Almost no one exercised as an adult. No one counted calories. People ate until they were full and went about their business. Why now are so many people's bodies NOT able to regulate their weight?

u gotta post a link with such contradictory info!

SideSteel

One more thought / question - why are we here counting calories or carbs? People have been on the planet earth for 2 million years. As recently as our grandparents generation everyone was at a pretty healthy weight. Heart disease was low. Insulin sensitivity didn't exist. Almost no one exercised as an adult. No one counted calories. People ate until they were full and went about their business. Why now are so many people's bodies NOT able to regulate their weight?

Compare total activity back then to now. Did people sit around and watch TV (as often as now) and play XBox back then? Or were they farming, working more active jobs, and moving around? Did people eat fast food then, and drink gallons of soda, as much as they do now?

As a society we are eating more calories and moving a lot less then previous generations.

fisherlassie

If you eat 100 calories of bread, and eat 100 calories of steak, you do not end up with 200 calories of energy.

This makes no sense. You are saying 100 plus 100 does not equal 200. In every math class I ever took 100 + 100 = 200 regardless of if is inches, pounds, watts , calories, does not matter.

Now the calories in a steak come from protein and fat and the calories in the bread comes from carbs and they are used differently by your body but it still totals 200.

Eat more calories than you use a day and it gets stored as fat regardless if the calories come from protein, fat, or carbs.

because calories are unit of energy not a unit of mass or volume. For arguments sake, if you eat 100 calories of bread you are going to get about 98 percent of that as calories/energy while if you eat 100 grams of protein probably 90 percent of that is going to go to repairing bodily tissues and partitioning fats off for joint lubrication, vitamin absorption, and things like making your skin and nails not dry, the body MAY use the other 10% for energy *L* .

Does this mean that after the body has used the protein for repair that it must then use stored fat for energy? And if I had eaten the bread that would have been used for energy instead of stored fat?

mudya

I'm always at the high end of my carb intake (average 205g) I am eating around 1200-1300 calories per day and am losing a minimum of 1.6lbs a week. I weight myself every Tuesday, but already this week I have lost 2.4lbs. So the carbs are obviously not doing any damage. Oh and its important to note that I eat around 1500 calories once a week... I can't not have the foods I love, I just have them in moderation and once a week is plenty for me.

mudya

I'm always at the high end of my carb intake (average 205g) I am eating around 1200-1300 calories per day and am losing a minimum of 1.6lbs a week. I weight myself every Tuesday, but already this week I have lost 2.4lbs. So the carbs are obviously not doing any damage. Oh and its important to note that I eat around 1500 calories once a week... I can't not have the foods I love, I just have them in moderation and once a week is plenty for me.

feel free to add me if you want to view my diary!

DrBorkBork

both calories and carbs need to be counted, imo.

Brian_VA

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that the types of food we eat impacts how much energy our bodies use (burn) both at rest and when active.

After losing weight on a diet, subjects were put on three different diets - one high in sugary carbs (typical American diet), one high in low glycemic carbs, and one low in carbs (Atkins). The calories they ate were the same - it was only the mix of carefully measured foods that varied. (This was done in a clinical setting - the subjects were monitored throughout the study).

The results were people that ate the sugary carbs diet had a lower energy output (they burned fewer calories) than people that ate the low glycemic diet. And people that ate the low glycemic diet burned fewer calories than those that ate the low carb diet.

How much difference - people that ate low carb could eat about 300 more calories per day than people that ate the sugary diet, because their body was burning about that many more calories.

This puts a new spin on the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" debate.

One more thought / question - why are we here counting calories or carbs? People have been on the planet earth for 2 million years. As recently as our grandparents generation everyone was at a pretty healthy weight. Heart disease was low. Insulin sensitivity didn't exist. Almost no one exercised as an adult. No one counted calories. People ate until they were full and went about their business. Why now are so many people's bodies NOT able to regulate their weight?

u gotta post a link with such contradictory info!

Here is a link to a column from the NY Times that explains and interprets the study:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really-makes-us-fat.html?_r=0

And here is a link to the raw study abstract, as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, June 27, 2012, Vol 307, No. 24

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

jillica

One more thought / question - why are we here counting calories or carbs? People have been on the planet earth for 2 million years. As recently as our grandparents generation everyone was at a pretty healthy weight. Heart disease was low. Insulin sensitivity didn't exist. Almost no one exercised as an adult. No one counted calories. People ate until they were full and went about their business. Why now are so many people's bodies NOT able to regulate their weight?

Well, my grandparents didn't sit on their sofa and watch TV as much as I do! Plus, they didn't have all the easy things that I did my whole life like I've had - toilet in my house, car, air conditioning, dishwasher, wash machine, clothes dryer, etc! They also didn't eat as much processed foods as we do.

OP: When I shifted my focus to staying under my carb goal, it was way easier for me to come under my calorie goal. Even when I go over my carb goal, I still 99% of the time am under my calorie goal so I don't feel so bad, but my goal still remains to focus on coming under carb.

bugtrain

bump

Brian_VA

One more thought / question - why are we here counting calories or carbs? People have been on the planet earth for 2 million years. As recently as our grandparents generation everyone was at a pretty healthy weight. Heart disease was low. Insulin sensitivity didn't exist. Almost no one exercised as an adult. No one counted calories. People ate until they were full and went about their business. Why now are so many people's bodies NOT able to regulate their weight?

Compare total activity back then to now. Did people sit around and watch TV (as often as now) and play XBox back then? Or were they farming, working more active jobs, and moving around? Did people eat fast food then, and drink gallons of soda, as much as they do now?

As a society we are eating more calories and moving a lot less then previous generations.

Not sure our grandparents were that much more active than us. Factor in all of the exercise that today's generation does and I might argue the opposite. Either way, they had the ability to eat foods they enjoyed - and had the means to eat enough of it to get fat. Why didn't they? Or better question, why have more and more of OUR bodies lost the ability to maintain themselves at a healthy weight? To tell us, you're full and don't eat any more?

The following is my opinion.

I think, as a society, we have been sold a big fat lie about what we should be eating. The so called experts have told us that anything that comes from plants is healthy and natural and good for you, and anything that comes from animals is unhealthy and unnatural and makes you fat. They sold a generation on this concept. They created a food pyramid that said grains were the foundation of our diet - and told us it was irrefutable fact. They got organizations like the American Hearth Association to put their heart healthy logos on sugary cereals loaded with sugar because they doesn't contain saturated fats. Then the food industry scientists started playing with the plant foods and sugars to create the most addictive foods in history. This science got us things like partially hydrogenated vegetable oil that proved to be 100% plant based and extremely ultra-unhealthy! So now we have a generation of people that, in their heart of hearts, think that wheat and grains are healthy, and steak and cheese are not. The only way many of us can control ourselves is to carefully monitor what we eat and record it in MFP so our cerebrums can have the facts they needs to impose the necessary self controls. Our bodies have ceased to be the self-monitoring system that evolution (or God, depending on your beliefs), intended them to be.

Eating a low carb diet helps restore the body's ability to monitor itself. You become familiar with what "hungry" feels like as opposed to the body's screaming for sugar, which is what we though hunger was. The reason people regain weight after doing this "diet" is they think that once they've lost their weight they can go back to eating the way they always had. And finding the middle ground is very tricky.

I find exercise and removing certain trigger foods from my diet are the ways I can maintain. I have no illusions of adding sub buns, french fries, crackers, etc. in the future. But I do love many foods I can eat, and I eat them often and without worrying about how much I eat. This is my plan for maintenance - to keep eating as I am now, and allowing my body to find equilibrium.

It pains me to see people talk about not cutting foods from their diets and losing the "natural way", or "the healthy way", or similar sentiments. In fact they are eating the way that we've been told is healthy and natural, but is in fact neither. We are, in fact, eating in an unhealthy way that puts our bodies in a state that they can't maintain themselves. This is a sickness. 2 years or 5 years or 10 years from now this will all be unraveled and we'll get a more factual picture of what we should be eating by the next generation of nutrition science that I hope like h3ll is smarter than the last generation. There are signs that this is happening already. Can you believe the food pyramid was repealed? The experiment I referenced was conducted and published. Nutrition experts and even doctors are recommending lower carb diets. We are on a new trend - a healthy one - a natural one.

mournlight

Brian: I agree with all you've said, but I'd like to add to it that I believe the foods our grandparents ate were better for them, too, because the food industry hadn't done all the meddling yet. Back then, a tomato was picked in season, a squash was always fresh, and the eggs were from the back yard. Everything was fresher. That's the part of "getting back to it" that I'm really enjoying about what I do hope is a food revolution. They may have all been carb heavy but they were far better for you, imho, than the same items from a can.

The comment about us thinking it is hunger when our bodies crave sugar is interesting. I'm going to pay more attention to how I feel hunger. Unfortunately, my way of knowing it was time to eat was often because I'd gotten a headache from not eating. That's way past time.

baptiste565

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that the types of food we eat impacts how much energy our bodies use (burn) both at rest and when active.

After losing weight on a diet, subjects were put on three different diets - one high in sugary carbs (typical American diet), one high in low glycemic carbs, and one low in carbs (Atkins). The calories they ate were the same - it was only the mix of carefully measured foods that varied. (This was done in a clinical setting - the subjects were monitored throughout the study).

The results were people that ate the sugary carbs diet had a lower energy output (they burned fewer calories) than people that ate the low glycemic diet. And people that ate the low glycemic diet burned fewer calories than those that ate the low carb diet.

How much difference - people that ate low carb could eat about 300 more calories per day than people that ate the sugary diet, because their body was burning about that many more calories.

This puts a new spin on the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" debate.

One more thought / question - why are we here counting calories or carbs? People have been on the planet earth for 2 million years. As recently as our grandparents generation everyone was at a pretty healthy weight. Heart disease was low. Insulin sensitivity didn't exist. Almost no one exercised as an adult. No one counted calories. People ate until they were full and went about their business. Why now are so many people's bodies NOT able to regulate their weight?

u gotta post a link with such contradictory info!

Here is a link to a column from the NY Times that explains and interprets the study:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really-makes-us-fat.html?_r=0

And here is a link to the raw study abstract, as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, June 27, 2012, Vol 307, No. 24

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

thx 4 posting the link. his findings r very controversial. i wonder if there have been follow up studies to prove him right or wrong. i wonder how he is quantifying the calories burned. he probably used weight loss not fat loss. weight gain will be shown in subjects with a high cab diet vs those on low carb diet because glycogen makes u hold on to alot of water. i would love 2c a body composition test on the people 2c where the weight variations came from. thx 4 posting.