Calories vs. Carbs

Options
12467

Replies

  • Josalinn
    Josalinn Posts: 1,066 Member
    Options
    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
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    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
    praxisproject Posts: 154 Member
    Options
    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
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    What issue specifically, are you having with the weightology article?
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    bump
  • JosephVitte
    JosephVitte Posts: 2,039
    Options
    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
    diligentjosh Posts: 274
    Options
    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
    JosephVitte Posts: 2,039
    Options
    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
    volume77 Posts: 670 Member
    Options
    too. tired. to. argue. please. see. profile. yawn. yawn.
  • diligentjosh
    diligentjosh Posts: 274
    Options
    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
    diligentjosh Posts: 274
    Options
    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
    mournlight Posts: 8
    Options
    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
    danielg810 Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    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
    baptiste565 Posts: 590 Member
    Options
    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
    danielg810 Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    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
    baptiste565 Posts: 590 Member
    Options
    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
    Laffinhippiegurl Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • Brian_VA
    Brian_VA Posts: 125
    Options
    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
    baptiste565 Posts: 590 Member
    Options
    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
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories