Calories vs. Carbs
Replies
-
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.
I simply disagree.0 -
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.
I think you are trying to get to deep and profound with this whole thing. Its a well known fact the generations before moved more, ate foods closer to their natural state and weren't sitting in front of the TV shoving an entire bag of cheetohs down their throats. And actually a lot of our grandparents are now suffering and have died of diabetes, heart diseases, cancers, and our parents are worse off and obese because these grandparents stopped breastfeeding, started feeding them processed foods, thought being fat was being healthy and hearty. For instances those hearty breakfast we like to eat now? Biscuits, gravy, pancakes with syrups, waffles, fats, sausages, bacon, etc? You want to know why people ate like that before and didn't get fat? Because they woke up at 4 am and spent all day grueling manual labor, farms, factories, construction, worked the mines, you name it. Most of us now sit at a desk and troll MyFitnessPal.0 -
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.
As I get thinner I find I get more symptoms of being hungry than when I had lots of weight to lose. I don't usually get a headache, but a get a dull ache in my lower stomach that says its time to eat. When I start to think about eating something specific, and my brain is telling me to eat it - that is not really hunger - that is a craving.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.
I have not read any opinions saying the research is controversial (no one is saying the research is flawed), but the results are certainly unexpected and fly in the face of some longstanding theories. I do not know how they measured energy expenditure, but think it was more than just weight. If you got a hold of the actual study documents (only the abstract is available for non-subscribers), you might get more details.
I do hope this spurs more similar studies. Why is there so little of this type of research happening?I simply disagree. <in reference to grandparents getting less exercise than we get today>
Some grandparents got more exercise, some less. Where is the average? I won't argue either side.
But fundamentally, should our bodies be able to maintain a healthy weight adjusting for our activity level? Would a fish gorge himself to unhealthy obesity? How about a dog or cat? Or a monkey? I think humans have introduced a type of unnatural food into our diets that bypasses the bodies normal regulatory means - and that food is carb heavy and making us fat.I think you are trying to get to deep and profound with this whole thing. Its a well known fact the generations before moved more, ate foods closer to their natural state and weren't sitting in front of the TV shoving an entire bag of cheetohs down their throats. And actually a lot of our grandparents are now suffering and have died of diabetes, heart diseases, cancers, and our parents are worse off and obese because these grandparents stopped breastfeeding, started feeding them processed foods, thought being fat was being healthy and hearty. For instances those hearty breakfast we like to eat now? Biscuits, gravy, pancakes with syrups, waffles, fats, sausages, bacon, etc? You want to know why people ate like that before and didn't get fat? Because they woke up at 4 am and spent all day grueling manual labor, farms, factories, construction, worked the mines, you name it. Most of us now sit at a desk and troll MyFitnessPal.
A lot of truth in that! I think people blame themselves for their instinct to overeat, but that is really not fair. The institutions we trusted to tell us how to eat let us down too. Key is to find something that works for us. Low carb has been vilified in the media as an unhealthy option, and I am trying to let people know that the jury is still out. Maybe it will be found to be unhealthy, but I doubt it. Based on my experience it is a great way to lose weight and there is little if any evidence that points to it being unhealthy. And I know one thing for sure - me at 175 is a lot healthier than me at 225!
Thanks!0 -
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.
I simply disagree.
Me too! I don't know how anyone with any understanding of what life was like 75 or 100 years ago could make that statement.0 -
My belief is the new processing of foods and the additives America puts in them. It's all about making more and more money, and to do that America had to get people to buy more and more of their food. A lot has changed in our food molecularly, including an increase in sugar and weird substances that really shouldn't count as food at all. The stuff they use have pretty bad effects on the body, as it's obvious when we look around at other people and hear all about their health problems.
I actually wonder how different a fully grown strawberry from substance-free soil would taste from a typical one at the super market. If you think about it, even the produce goes through a LOT to get to its place on the shelf.0 -
Much agreed Greeny......................0
-
"""""""""""""""I think you are trying to get to deep and profound with this whole thing. Its a well known fact the generations before moved more, ate foods closer to their natural state and weren't sitting in front of the TV shoving an entire bag of cheetohs down their throats. And actually a lot of our grandparents are now suffering and have died of diabetes, heart diseases, cancers, and our parents are worse off and obese because these grandparents stopped breastfeeding, started feeding them processed foods, thought being fat was being healthy and hearty. For instances those hearty breakfast we like to eat now? Biscuits, gravy, pancakes with syrups, waffles, fats, sausages, bacon, etc? You want to know why people ate like that before and didn't get fat? Because they woke up at 4 am and spent all day grueling manual labor, farms, factories, construction, worked the mines, you name it. Most of us now sit at a desk and troll MyFitnessPal."""""""""""""""""""""""
I completely agree with this, well said.0 -
Now get out there and go eat a donut before you max out on the bench! Rawr!0
-
For me, it's both. Carb control enables me to make better choices.
I prefer lower (and less processed) carbohydrate as I get less ravenous hunger and cravings which enables me to control my intake better.
I've banged on about calories and the various assumptions made about them before but at some point they clearly do count.
I once believed there was an inherent significant metabolic advantage to a low carb (or ketogenic) diet in the long term but the more I read the less I think this is a large factor.
Less blood sugar less often is generally good for a whole host of things health-wise so I'll always be generally on the lower carb side of things.0 -
For me, it's both.
This! They are both elements to be managed, it's not either or.0 -
I have found now that I am getting older, that my body wants to store more fat when I have carbs. I have had to have them only as a treat. I have also cut out starches, & sugar. I try and eat keeping my blood sugar down. It seems to work good for me. I have lost 120 pounds doing it. I don't eat processed foods...only fresh fruits, veggies, lean meats & some dairy
Good luck.0 -
Wellll...seeing as more carbs equals more calories...by limiting carbs you also limiting calories. Thats why some (me) pay more attention to macros other than calories because it all balances out.0
-
For me, it's both.
This! They are both elements to be managed, it's not either or.
I ageee as well, although for me managing carbs is the real focus. When i do, hunger is under control and the calories take care of themselves.0 -
I agree. Calories in vs's calories out. A coworker eats ONLY carbs, and very little protein, and almost NO vegetables. She is at her goal weight. Not the healthiest diets, but it's what works for her. I am a diabetic, sugar is a big NO, but not carbs. Complex carbs, are required at least twice a day. I am losing weight and feel I have more energy by having carbs in my meals.0
-
So I've heard a lot about calories (virtually everyone goes by calories) and a lot about carbs (some have lost more weight counting carbs), so let me hear your thoughts. When it comes to successful weight loss and weight maintenance, which is scientifically the correct way to go?
(And what really is, molecularly, a calorie anyway?)
Maybe my story will shed some light on this topic...'
I came back to this site in february at 228.4 lbs. I didn't worry about macros, I just ate my 1,600-1,700 calories, did 60 minutes of cardio 4x a week, then 20 minutes or so of strength. It took me 3 MONTHS to lose the first 7 lbs. I was eating 200g+ of carbs a day.
The first week in May I decided to bite the bullet and cut carbs. I am a MAJOR carbaholic, so this was a BIG thing for me. I cut them down to 100g net per day ( which means that you can see up to 150g in my diary daily) and dropped almost 5lbs the first week! The first month I lost 8 lbs. After that, I still lost 4-6lbs a month until I started on allergy meds a few months ago.0 -
So I've heard a lot about calories (virtually everyone goes by calories) and a lot about carbs (some have lost more weight counting carbs), so let me hear your thoughts. When it comes to successful weight loss and weight maintenance, which is scientifically the correct way to go?
(And what really is, molecularly, a calorie anyway?)
Maybe my story will shed some light on this topic...'
I came back to this site in february at 228.4 lbs. I didn't worry about macros, I just ate my 1,600-1,700 calories, did 60 minutes of cardio 4x a week, then 20 minutes or so of strength. It took me 3 MONTHS to lose the first 7 lbs. I was eating 200g+ of carbs a day.
The first week in May I decided to bite the bullet and cut carbs. I am a MAJOR carbaholic, so this was a BIG thing for me. I cut them down to 100g net per day ( which means that you can see up to 150g in my diary daily) and dropped almost 5lbs the first week! The first month I lost 8 lbs. After that, I still lost 4-6lbs a month until I started on allergy meds a few months ago.
That is interesting. I was doing 200+ grams of carbs when I first started. Then I increased my protein, so that brought my carbs down to 173ish. I lost 11 pounds my first week, then 8 my second, and have been averaging 2 pounds a week. I feel like crap if i don't get enough carbs. It is interesting indeed.0 -
u gotta post a link with such contradictory info!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?
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
Well I would rather eat 300 calories less a day and feel energized than to stuff myself with too much meat and feel hungry. That's just me.
However, when looking at the abstract, NONE of the participants have my macros, so it's difficult to apply that to me. (except to say that my current diet is working splendidly for me)0 -
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.
I simply disagree.
Oh wow! Is this person a teenager with grandparents who are my age? Maybe that's the discrepancy. My grandparents were born at the beginning of the 20th century. When they were kids, there was no such thing as television. My dad's father was a tobacco farmer, and my mom's father worked in a factory. They both worked near 70-80 hours a week. I work those kind of hours about 2-3 weeks out of the year when the company is at its busiest. How many of us do that year-round, honestly?0 -
I agree. Calories in vs's calories out. A coworker eats ONLY carbs, and very little protein, and almost NO vegetables. She is at her goal weight. Not the healthiest diets, but it's what works for her. I am a diabetic, sugar is a big NO, but not carbs. Complex carbs, are required at least twice a day. I am losing weight and feel I have more energy by having carbs in my meals.
Your coworker may be at her goal weight but I'd guess she has a pretty lousy body compostiion. Managing calories matter and managing all the macronutrients matter. To focus on just one or the other or on only one macronutrient is foolish.0 -
A calorie is a unit of energy. Burn more energy than you consume, and you lose weight.
I think the reason so many people are into low-carb diets and lose a lot of weight on them is because carbs do tend to be more calorie-dense than other foods. So when you lower your intake of them, generally your overall calorie intake lowers with it, which results in weight loss. In other words, it's not the lack of carbs that's causing the weight loss, it's the lower calorie intake overall that lowering carbs has helped to facilitate. So between the two, keeping your calories in check is far more important than reducing your carbs, unless of course you have a medical condition that means you have to stay on top of them.
This is 100% WRONG! Lower Carbs foods are HIGHER in calories... MEAT, CHEESE, EGGS, NUTS... they are full of fat and higher in carbs.. your body learns how to use fat for energy instead of using sugar for energy when you do low carb eating ..
the reason many people lose weight on low carbs is because they feel full longer due to the increased amount of protein (therfore they eat a less amount of foods that are higher in calories), and their blood sugar does not spike. When you eat simple carbs (bread, white pasta, candy, chips, most fruits) your body is full for a short time, but your blood sugar spikes and causes you to be hungry shortly after.... you will seldom hear a low carber complain they are hungry an hour after lunch..
If you want to eat low carb, you should increase your calorie intake, fat intake and protein intake and reduce your carb intake... for the first week you will feel tired and sluggish due to your body making the shift... from burning glucose to burning fat0 -
I still have the same question about sugar though... I just can't believe that 100 calories worth of chocolate or something is equal to 100 calories of something like spinach in terms of weight loss. I just don't see how this is possible; the ingredients must pose a different affect on the body and cause the sugary one to lead to greater fat stores despite the amounts being equal in calories. Am I right?
Sugar is a pure carb. i.e. it does not contain anything else. Hence it is high calorie. Spinach on the other hand is a mixture of loads of things, carbs, protien, iron, vitamins and other essential nutients. So if you eat 100 cals of sugar that is all you do, intake 100 cals. Where as if you eat 100 cals of spinach you also eat loads of other stuff. The protien, iron etc etc. So it is a much more useful 100 cals. But in terms of weight loss there is no difference.
Incidentally this is true for all vegetables. They are not as has been frequently said in this post carbs. They contain carbs, some (potatos) more than others (spinach). But they also contain all the other healthly things. So they are healthy to eat. Sugar JUST contains carbs, and whilst okay in moderation (you NEED carbs) is not balanced.0 -
If I drink a gallon of water in a day, did I just technically add 8 lbs of weight to myself. I was having this discussion yesterday, outside of MFP, and it was noted to me how there's a difference between liquid ounces, and "regular ounces"........so should I just weigh a gallon of water, and assume that's how much weight just entered my body?
Anyone know, please help, as well I'm trying learn what this "water weight" means anyways, ie; lost water weight.
Thank you0 -
So I've heard a lot about calories (virtually everyone goes by calories) and a lot about carbs (some have lost more weight counting carbs), so let me hear your thoughts. When it comes to successful weight loss and weight maintenance, which is scientifically the correct way to go?
(And what really is, molecularly, a calorie anyway?)
Maybe my story will shed some light on this topic...'
I came back to this site in february at 228.4 lbs. I didn't worry about macros, I just ate my 1,600-1,700 calories, did 60 minutes of cardio 4x a week, then 20 minutes or so of strength. It took me 3 MONTHS to lose the first 7 lbs. I was eating 200g+ of carbs a day.
The first week in May I decided to bite the bullet and cut carbs. I am a MAJOR carbaholic, so this was a BIG thing for me. I cut them down to 100g net per day ( which means that you can see up to 150g in my diary daily) and dropped almost 5lbs the first week! The first month I lost 8 lbs. After that, I still lost 4-6lbs a month until I started on allergy meds a few months ago.
You do not say but more than likely when you cut your carbs you cut your calories which led to your success. 200+g of carbs is alot. I do not even look at carbs when choosing food I look at protein and fiber to get to my calories most days I am under 150. 200+ would be alot of calories for me 1600-1700 is way too much to lose on.0 -
A calorie is a unit of energy. Burn more energy than you consume, and you lose weight.
I think the reason so many people are into low-carb diets and lose a lot of weight on them is because carbs do tend to be more calorie-dense than other foods. So when you lower your intake of them, generally your overall calorie intake lowers with it, which results in weight loss. In other words, it's not the lack of carbs that's causing the weight loss, it's the lower calorie intake overall that lowering carbs has helped to facilitate. So between the two, keeping your calories in check is far more important than reducing your carbs, unless of course you have a medical condition that means you have to stay on top of them.
This is 100% WRONG! Lower Carbs foods are HIGHER in calories... MEAT, CHEESE, EGGS, NUTS... they are full of fat and higher in carbs..
I am confused. You say that lower carb foods are higher in calories because they are full of fat and higher in carbs?
EDIT: Sorry, I think I get it, you meant to say higher in fat and therefore higher in calories because fat is calorically dense?your body learns how to use fat for energy instead of using sugar for energy when you do low carb eating ..
Your body doesn't "learn" how to do anything new. If you provide less carbohydrate for fuel you will oxidize more fat for fuel but you also consume more fat. If you consume more carbs you will oxidize more carbs for fuel but you are consuming less fat. Excess carbohydrate intake will inhibit fat oxidation to some extent. Excess protein consumption will inhibit fat oxidation to some extent. Excess dietary fat stores directly as fat.
And this is the part that gets overlooked. Yes, low carb dieting DOES increase fat oxidation but you also increase fat intake.the reason many people lose weight on low carbs is because they feel full longer due to the increased amount of protein (therfore they eat a less amount of foods that are higher in calories), and their blood sugar does not spike. When you eat simple carbs (bread, white pasta, candy, chips, most fruits) your body is full for a short time, but your blood sugar spikes and causes you to be hungry shortly after.... you will seldom hear a low carber complain they are hungry an hour after lunch..
For a lot of people protein is more satiating but protein is also insulinogenic. I posted an article about this earlier in the thread.
Here's a good read for those who may be interested:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html0 -
If I drink a gallon of water in a day, did I just technically add 8 lbs of weight to myself. I was having this discussion yesterday, outside of MFP, and it was noted to me how there's a difference between liquid ounces, and "regular ounces"........so should I just weigh a gallon of water, and assume that's how much weight just entered my body?
Anyone know, please help, as well I'm trying learn what this "water weight" means anyways, ie; lost water weight.
Thank you
You drink a gallon and pee most of it along with other stuff that you need to get rid of. Your pee would weight more per ounce than the water. Which is why water is very important to the body and weight loss it detoxes your body. Drinking more water helps you to lose the crap in your body. If you are retaining water you need to drink more water to lose it.0 -
A calorie is a unit of energy. Burn more energy than you consume, and you lose weight.
I think the reason so many people are into low-carb diets and lose a lot of weight on them is because carbs do tend to be more calorie-dense than other foods. So when you lower your intake of them, generally your overall calorie intake lowers with it, which results in weight loss. In other words, it's not the lack of carbs that's causing the weight loss, it's the lower calorie intake overall that lowering carbs has helped to facilitate. So between the two, keeping your calories in check is far more important than reducing your carbs, unless of course you have a medical condition that means you have to stay on top of them.
This is 100% WRONG! Lower Carbs foods are HIGHER in calories... MEAT, CHEESE, EGGS, NUTS... they are full of fat and higher in carbs.. your body learns how to use fat for energy instead of using sugar for energy when you do low carb eating ..
the reason many people lose weight on low carbs is because they feel full longer due to the increased amount of protein (therfore they eat a less amount of foods that are higher in calories), and their blood sugar does not spike. When you eat simple carbs (bread, white pasta, candy, chips, most fruits) your body is full for a short time, but your blood sugar spikes and causes you to be hungry shortly after.... you will seldom hear a low carber complain they are hungry an hour after lunch..
If you want to eat low carb, you should increase your calorie intake, fat intake and protein intake and reduce your carb intake... for the first week you will feel tired and sluggish due to your body making the shift... from burning glucose to burning fat
But if you started out eating a high-carb diet, and those carbs were coming from things like white bread, pasta, etc. that would take up a good chunk of your daily calories. Especially since most of us weren't paying attention to serving sizes before we started losing weight. Carbs can be very calorie dense (not saying protein and fat aren't), and if it's a big part of your diet then cutting down on it would have a big effect on your caloric deficit. So I don't see how I'm "100% wrong" as you so rudely put it.0 -
This thread is so awesome. I'm really learning a lot. Thank you!0
-
A calorie is a unit of energy. Burn more energy than you consume, and you lose weight.
I think the reason so many people are into low-carb diets and lose a lot of weight on them is because carbs do tend to be more calorie-dense than other foods. So when you lower your intake of them, generally your overall calorie intake lowers with it, which results in weight loss. In other words, it's not the lack of carbs that's causing the weight loss, it's the lower calorie intake overall that lowering carbs has helped to facilitate. So between the two, keeping your calories in check is far more important than reducing your carbs, unless of course you have a medical condition that means you have to stay on top of them.
This is 100% WRONG! Lower Carbs foods are HIGHER in calories... MEAT, CHEESE, EGGS, NUTS... they are full of fat and higher in carbs.. your body learns how to use fat for energy instead of using sugar for energy when you do low carb eating ..
the reason many people lose weight on low carbs is because they feel full longer due to the increased amount of protein (therfore they eat a less amount of foods that are higher in calories), and their blood sugar does not spike. When you eat simple carbs (bread, white pasta, candy, chips, most fruits) your body is full for a short time, but your blood sugar spikes and causes you to be hungry shortly after.... you will seldom hear a low carber complain they are hungry an hour after lunch..
If you want to eat low carb, you should increase your calorie intake, fat intake and protein intake and reduce your carb intake... for the first week you will feel tired and sluggish due to your body making the shift... from burning glucose to burning fat
But if you started out eating a high-carb diet, and those carbs were coming from things like white bread, pasta, etc. that would take up a good chunk of your daily calories. Especially since most of us weren't paying attention to serving sizes before we started losing weight. Carbs can be very calorie dense (not saying protein and fat aren't), and if it's a big part of your diet then cutting down on it would have a big effect on your caloric deficit. So I don't see how I'm "100% wrong" as you so rudely put it.
Just for clarity, carbs and protein are 4 calories per gram. Fats are 9 calories per gram. Protein has the highest Thermic Effect of Food or TEF. Fats have the lowest. So, carbs are not really particulary calorie dense in proper dosage but it is a matter of effective balance of a all 3 macronutrients, as both Sidesteel and I have alluded to in previous posts. The only thing calorie dense about carbs as you were eating them before was the volume of them. But pasta or bread is not anymore calore dense per gram than an apple of broccolli. They may be less nutrient dense but they are not more calorie dense.0 -
If I drink a gallon of water in a day, did I just technically add 8 lbs of weight to myself. I was having this discussion yesterday, outside of MFP, and it was noted to me how there's a difference between liquid ounces, and "regular ounces"........so should I just weigh a gallon of water, and assume that's how much weight just entered my body?
Anyone know, please help, as well I'm trying learn what this "water weight" means anyways, ie; lost water weight.
Thank you
You drink a gallon and pee most of it along with other stuff that you need to get rid of. Your pee would weight more per ounce than the water. Which is why water is very important to the body and weight loss it detoxes your body. Drinking more water helps you to lose the crap in your body. If you are retaining water you need to drink more water to lose it.
Thank you for the response and information. I'm new to this site, weight lose, and exercising, completely. I do have a few more questions, and this seems to be the best forum to ask them in without having to start a new one.
Question.............When we "burn" calories.............where do they go? How do they eventually leave the body, do they leave our body?
I know it may seem like a dumb question, but I'm a beginner here.........any and all help is appreciated!0 -
If I drink a gallon of water in a day, did I just technically add 8 lbs of weight to myself. I was having this discussion yesterday, outside of MFP, and it was noted to me how there's a difference between liquid ounces, and "regular ounces"........so should I just weigh a gallon of water, and assume that's how much weight just entered my body?
Anyone know, please help, as well I'm trying learn what this "water weight" means anyways, ie; lost water weight.
Thank you
You drink a gallon and pee most of it along with other stuff that you need to get rid of. Your pee would weight more per ounce than the water. Which is why water is very important to the body and weight loss it detoxes your body. Drinking more water helps you to lose the crap in your body. If you are retaining water you need to drink more water to lose it.
Thank you for the response and information. I'm new to this site, weight lose, and exercising, completely. I do have a few more questions, and this seems to be the best forum to ask them in without having to start a new one.
Question.............When we "burn" calories.............where do they go? How do they eventually leave the body, do they leave our body?
I know it may seem like a dumb question, but I'm a beginner here.........any and all help is appreciated!
They are oxidized and the waste product remaining is eliminated in the urine and feces.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions