Calories vs. Carbs
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
This is a risk I take for saying "usually" because we're arguing without context. I'm going to make the assumption, that I believe is fair, that the majority of obese people are consuming a diet that is hypercaloric (this is an obvious one) and they are also consuming plenty of carbs, and I'd further speculate they are not consuming enough protein. I'm not going to make the statement that this is the case with all obese people. I think this is the case with "most" obese people.
This does not make carbs the enemy. Carbs are not causing people to be fat. Hypercaloric intake is causing people to be fat. It just so happens that, the math works out such that if you tell Bob to reduce his caloric intake by 1200 to get him to a reasonable deficit, and you tell him that he should also bump his protein up to 150g, he's going to need to put down the donuts (reduce CHO).
There is information out there specifically saying that raising protein while eating a low calorie diet can place stress on organs, including the kidneys and the heart:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=50900
And while some articles are advising people to have a gram of protein for each pound of body weight, others recommend about a third of that (.35) as optimal.
I won't say who I think is right, but I do think most people who are eating a hypercaloric diet are probably getting plenty of protein, just like they're getting plenty of carbs - they're getting plenty of everything, including hamburgers, steaks, fried chicken, eggs, lunch meat, etc. Why would someone with that kind of diet have a protein deficit?
In your example, I would think if "Bob" upped his protein to 150 gms while on a 1200 cal/day diet, at least some doctors would say he was putting his organs at risk by doing it...the article says 30% of the diet as protein should be a cap while on a low cal diet.0 -
Spinich fills you up more and gives you more vital nutrients. A chocolate bar is almost entirely empty calories with no nutritional value. Our bodies tell us we are hungry when we need vitamins/minerals and/or calories. They both meet the 100 calories but only the spinich gives the vitamins and minerals we also need. Yes you could lose weight just eating 1000 calories of chocolate a day but you would also be hungry and malnourished. People who eat the 100 calorie chocolate bar will still be hungry for nutrients so they will be more likely to eat something else sooner than someone who ate the 100 calories of spinach.Well what about sugar? I mean what's the difference between eating 100 calories worth of spinach and 100 calories worth of chocolate? The type of food must matter, so it can't be strictly the calories that control your weight right?0 -
I've read all the posts and not one person pointed out how you feel eating crap vs healthy. A calorie is a calorie but what it does to your body will likely depend on how long you can persist with weight loss. If you're tired and your head is cloudy you will give up. If you eat nutrient dense food you will not have these effects. Also, once the food starts it's digestive process it uses calories to digest the food and foods are different. 100 cals of chocolate is digested differently (I only know a little about this so I can't go into detail about how much) than 100 cals of protein. That being said, weight loss will happen with calorie deficit but long term health is not just about weight loss. Thank you for this thread.0
-
Here is my observations from my own diet.
When I started back in March of 2012 I used MFP daily
and worked out 6 days a week. I lowered my carb intake to 60-80g per day!
Cut the bad sugars out and increased my water intake and just ate overall healthy
I lost so much stomach weight and was nice and trim....which is what I wanted to do and met my goal weight and was in June of 2012....
NOW Since around July. I have maintained the level of exercise, water intake and cut sugar all that Ive been doing before....
BUT only thing I increased was the carbs to around 200g per day..GOOD carbs. BUT....
I have noticed that my stomach is now starting to gain a little back of that fat that I had. Everywhere else is fine. JUST my stomach area.
It is now Oct. I am not completely happy with my stomach again..its not at the llevel it was when i started in FEB 2012 BUT....
I now see that for me...THOSE carbs that I have added are contributing to my stomach fat.
I haven't changed anything else!
SO i am going to start reducing my carbs again to 60-80g per day and see if I can notice difference.
What an experiment for me. OY!0 -
im gunna play devils advocate just to keep the thread goin. lol. r u aware that chocolate is more of a complete food than spinach? the fat in the chocolate should keep u full.
Spinich fills you up more and gives you more vital nutrients. A chocolate bar is almost entirely empty calories with no nutritional value. Our bodies tell us we are hungry when we need vitamins/minerals and/or calories. They both meet the 100 calories but only the spinich gives the vitamins and minerals we also need. Yes you could lose weight just eating 1000 calories of chocolate a day but you would also be hungry and malnourished. People who eat the 100 calorie chocolate bar will still be hungry for nutrients so they will be more likely to eat something else sooner than someone who ate the 100 calories of spinach.Well what about sugar? I mean what's the difference between eating 100 calories worth of spinach and 100 calories worth of chocolate? The type of food must matter, so it can't be strictly the calories that control your weight right?0 -
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* .0 -
im gunna play devils advocate just to keep the thread goin. lol. r u aware that chocolate is more of a complete food than spinach? the fat in the chocolate should keep u full.
Spinich fills you up more and gives you more vital nutrients. A chocolate bar is almost entirely empty calories with no nutritional value. Our bodies tell us we are hungry when we need vitamins/minerals and/or calories. They both meet the 100 calories but only the spinich gives the vitamins and minerals we also need. Yes you could lose weight just eating 1000 calories of chocolate a day but you would also be hungry and malnourished. People who eat the 100 calorie chocolate bar will still be hungry for nutrients so they will be more likely to eat something else sooner than someone who ate the 100 calories of spinach.Well what about sugar? I mean what's the difference between eating 100 calories worth of spinach and 100 calories worth of chocolate? The type of food must matter, so it can't be strictly the calories that control your weight right?
Dark Chocolate is especially excellent for you.0 -
im gunna play devils advocate just to keep the thread goin. lol. r u aware that chocolate is more of a complete food than spinach? the fat in the chocolate should keep u full.
Spinich fills you up more and gives you more vital nutrients. A chocolate bar is almost entirely empty calories with no nutritional value. Our bodies tell us we are hungry when we need vitamins/minerals and/or calories. They both meet the 100 calories but only the spinich gives the vitamins and minerals we also need. Yes you could lose weight just eating 1000 calories of chocolate a day but you would also be hungry and malnourished. People who eat the 100 calorie chocolate bar will still be hungry for nutrients so they will be more likely to eat something else sooner than someone who ate the 100 calories of spinach.Well what about sugar? I mean what's the difference between eating 100 calories worth of spinach and 100 calories worth of chocolate? The type of food must matter, so it can't be strictly the calories that control your weight right?
I second this!
And want to keep this thread going for entertainment value.0 -
Great discussion everyone,
Thank you for putting great thought into your responses as they are a great help to those that are learning including me.
Thanks again!0 -
Ate a half a pizza last night before bed.
Lost a pound over night.
Like a ****in boss!
hehe0 -
This is a risk I take for saying "usually" because we're arguing without context. I'm going to make the assumption, that I believe is fair, that the majority of obese people are consuming a diet that is hypercaloric (this is an obvious one) and they are also consuming plenty of carbs, and I'd further speculate they are not consuming enough protein. I'm not going to make the statement that this is the case with all obese people. I think this is the case with "most" obese people.
This does not make carbs the enemy. Carbs are not causing people to be fat. Hypercaloric intake is causing people to be fat. It just so happens that, the math works out such that if you tell Bob to reduce his caloric intake by 1200 to get him to a reasonable deficit, and you tell him that he should also bump his protein up to 150g, he's going to need to put down the donuts (reduce CHO).
There is information out there specifically saying that raising protein while eating a low calorie diet can place stress on organs, including the kidneys and the heart:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=50900
Unless you already have issues with your kidneys I'm not aware of any damaging effects of higher protein intakes. The above article does not provide research indicating such, but if you have research that reinforces the above, I'd love to see it. If you already have kidney issues, then a higher protein intake is not recommended.
Also, the RDA is pathetically low as a guideline for protein intake. Watch "The Protein Roundtable" for a very research based (they will reference studies) discussion on the RDA guidelines as well as bodybuilding standards, and everything in between. It's a long video though.I won't say who I think is right, but I do think most people who are eating a hypercaloric diet are probably getting plenty of protein, just like they're getting plenty of carbs - they're getting plenty of everything, including hamburgers, steaks, fried chicken, eggs, lunch meat, etc. Why would someone with that kind of diet have a protein deficit?
Because you are using the RDA to define sufficiency. I am using sufficiency in terms of what is optimal for retaining LBM while eating in a deficit. These two values are quite different.In your example, I would think if "Bob" upped his protein to 150 gms while on a 1200 cal/day diet, at least some doctors would say he was putting his organs at risk by doing it...the article says 30% of the diet as protein should be a cap while on a low cal diet.
I said, in my example, that if he needs to reduce intake by 1200 while eating 150g protein. I didn't say 1200kcal diet as a whole. Additionally, percentage of calories is somewhat inaccurate. To say that X% is a cap, is ignoring the individuals body weight. Calculating needs in terms of g/lb will give you a more accurate picture.
Example: That article claims that your maximum protein intake should be 30% of calories. Suppose I am dieting on a 1500 kcal intake. Per that article, my max protein allowance should be 112.5g. Now lets say I'm going to eat at maintenance and I eat 2100 calories. 30% of that is 157.5g. This makes no sense in terms of a physiological maximum for health reasons. Suddenly my kidneys can handle more protein?
This is why the RDA in this case is just full of crap, in my opinion.
Now that being said if you have any research showing that protein intake causes kidney damage, I'm happy to see it.
EDIT: Additionally, that article you linked is pinning kidney damage (at least in one section of the article) on dehydration caused from reduced carbohydrate intake which causes water weight to reduce. This is a function of carbohydrate, not protein.0 -
Sidesteel: 15 points
debdelilah: 8 points
Going into halftime....0 -
I try to watch and count both carbs and calories. Mostly calories though. I am diabetic (border-line diabetic), so, of course, I have to count carbs as well. I do... but, I haven't cut them out... and so far, I have lost 17.2 pounds doing what I'm doing.
The main thing with carbs... I try to get most of my carbs from natural products like fruits. I have cut way down on bread... but, I'll even eat these in moderation (and as wheat products).0 -
Now that being said if you have any research showing that protein intake causes kidney damage, I'm happy to see it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/health/31really.html
This is a New York Times article that supports your viewpoint, actually - saying that there is little research showing high protein damages kidneys. My original article was mentioning 30% as a cap in a low cal weightloss diet, not in general - the argument being, if you only have a certain number of calories total, and you set your protein too high, you will restrict consumption of other foods to excess. You will notice in the New York Times article, though, that it does say high protein diets accelerate the loss of kidney function in people that already are classified as having kidney disease.
The reason why protein is rougher on kidneys in general is because the particles are larger - everything is filtered through the kidneys:
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/diet-bodybuilding/high-protein-intake-kidney-stress-72786.html
But kidney damage is gradual for most people. Most people on dialysis are at retirement age - as are most people who have diagnosable hearing loss, even though hearing loss is also cumulative over time. Creatinine increases with age even in normal people - only at a certain point does it qualify as renal disease, but you can can see a progression: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12379401. It is understandable- organs wear out over time. But an athlete like those in the New York Times' article would not be likely to have renal disease from a high protein diet at a younger age - just like most kids listening to loud music on a regular basis will still test normal on hearing tests.
I am personally not anti-protein - I am a woman and a vegetarian, and actively am trying to get more protein in my diet, which I have to even in order to meet the RDA standard. But I have never had problems building muscle mass until I cut my calories too low in general, so that the proportion of protein was probably not even 25 grams. I feel strong on 50 and have to try to get that much.
Each person is different - and I admit I have not provided a flood of research here. My 62 year old father is on dialysis, so I have a good picture in my head of how levels rise over time, and for me, at least, 100 grams of protein would probably be too much.0 -
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.
It's the same reason you can't stick a light bulb in a box with a solar panel and get infinite light.
Remember your physics class.
This is why if you take in 200 calories of food, your net result is not an energy gain of 200 calories.0 -
Excellent exchange of posts, thank you friends.
Following the posts through there is something I don't understand which I thought I had sussed.
Why would 100 calories of steak and 100 calories of bread not total 200 calories? Are the calories from proteins and carbs and fats different? Do they burn slower? I understand that fats and carbs are used for energy and protein (largely) for repair and building and so it makes sense to have a correct balance of the three, but I thought the calorific value would be the same for all three components.
What am I not understanding here please?
I can't speak for the person who made the claim but the way I would have phrased it would be that if you eat 100 calories of bread and 100 calories of steak you indeed are EATING 200 calories. Your body then expends a percentage of those calories (and that percentage will vary based on macronutrient type) in digestive processes for those foods. Thermic effect of feeding.
Thank you, I understand.0 -
Speaking of value...............I have nothing of value to say.................here.....................but would love for others to chime in so I have more to read................thanks!0
-
Keeping track of both your carb intake and caloric intake is important, but the trigger for fat shortage in your system is a spike or any increase in insulin productin. This occurs when you eat grains and sugars of any kind. These tend to have more carbs, (though not always), which is why it is important to track your carbs. And because these foods often are higher in calories, it's important to track calories, too. However, it is most important to track your foods' glycemic index, because with high levels of insulin, it will be nearly impossible to lose fat.0
-
Keeping track of both your carb intake and caloric intake is important, but the trigger for fat shortage in your system is a spike or any increase in insulin productin. This occurs when you eat grains and sugars of any kind. These tend to have more carbs, (though not always), which is why it is important to track your carbs. And because these foods often are higher in calories, it's important to track calories, too. However, it is most important to track your foods' glycemic index, because with high levels of insulin, it will be nearly impossible to lose fat.
In a caloric deficit for prolonged periods of time, net fat oxidation will exceed net fat storage.
Here's a good researched based article on insulin that should be a good read for people who are scared of carbs for the:
carbs-->insulin--> fat storage idea.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=3190
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions