Count carbs or calories?
Options
Replies
-
Assumptions
1. Your weight is more or less stable with your current eating habits
2. You currently consume more than 200 grams of carbs per day
3. You don't replace your reduced carbs with high calorie food
If the above assumptions are accurate then going to 200 carbs will put you in a calorie deficit which will (eventually) result in weight loss. It's not a bad way to get started as it allows you to ease into a new eating style without trying to "fix" everything in one shot. You will stall eventually since your body needs fewer calories as your weight drops.
The bolded sentence is not necessarily true. I can very easily only eat 200 g of carbs a day and still be in a surplus. Peanut butter, cheese, mayonnaise, bacon - all delicious, all low-carb, and all high-calorie. You don't have to eat these all day to put you over your calories, either. Just be unaware of how much you're actually eating, and you can easily eat too much without realizing it.
I am going to assume that OP is not a special snowflake, therefore focusing on eating at a caloric deficit will be the best thing to start their journey to weight loss. Carbs are a non-issue barring a medical reason to keep them on the low side.0 -
Second time I have been called obtuse on this board. Must be one of those MFP secret code words. Someday I hope to be initiated into Level 3. Perhaps then I can understand how reducing carbs will increase calorie intake.a) cheese has few carbs
b) eating too many calories causes you to gain weight
c) Therefore eating lots of cheese (few carbs but lots of calories) will cause weight gain
It is concentrating the gist of the (count calories, not carbs) theme of the answers into something obvious. is it too early in the morning for you, do you take everything literally, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
If you substitute them with fat or protein so that you do not have a calorie deficit. The calorie deficit is what will reduce your weight, not how many grams of carb you eat.
0 -
LCHF == Low Carbs, High Fat? Is 200 grams per day really considered to be low carbs? Granted the USDA recommendations are somewhat higher but most the low carb stuff seems to be closer to maybe 100 grams per day.You keep using the term "counting carbs" but I don't think you realize what that actually means. LCHF is more work than simple calorie counting, not less. If you want easy, count calories and eat whatever you want, just less than a set point. Not very efficient, but eventually, you'll get there. All the other options, LCHF/IF/LF/exercise, are what you do in addition to counting calories/reducing intake to make the process more healthy and/or efficient.
My understanding is that low carb is reducing your carbs to less than 20% of your overall daily calories. On a 2000 calorie diet, this means 100 g or less. Reduced carb is between 20% and 45%, normal is 45% to 60% and high carb is over 60%. The actual carb grams depends on what your daily calorie needs are. 200 g may be reduced carb for some but it will not be low carb for anyone unless you are an elite athlete in training who needs to eat over 4000 calories a day.
0 -
Calorie deficit + Low Carb = weight loss
Calorie deficit + High Carb = weight loss
Calorie surplus + Low Carb = weight gain
Calorie surplus + High Carb = weight gain
A careful examination of the above will provide the answer you seek.0 -
It's possible that I do not fully understand MFP Mathematics. The CICO Commandment states that if one eats fewer calories than your body uses than thou shall lose weight. Likewise, if one eats more calories than the body uses then thou shall gain weight. I therefore concluded that if one is neither gaining nor losing weight that we could conclude a deficit of zero.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Assumptions
1. Your weight is more or less stable with your current eating habits
2. You currently consume more than 200 grams of carbs per day
3. You don't replace your reduced carbs with high calorie food
If the above assumptions are accurate then going to 200 carbs will put you in a calorie deficit which will (eventually) result in weight loss. It's not a bad way to get started as it allows you to ease into a new eating style without trying to "fix" everything in one shot. You will stall eventually since your body needs fewer calories as your weight drops.
The bolded sentence is not necessarily true. I can very easily only eat 200 g of carbs a day and still be in a surplus. Peanut butter, cheese, mayonnaise, bacon - all delicious, all low-carb, and all high-calorie. You don't have to eat these all day to put you over your calories, either. Just be unaware of how much you're actually eating, and you can easily eat too much without realizing it.
I am going to assume that OP is not a special snowflake, therefore focusing on eating at a caloric deficit will be the best thing to start their journey to weight loss. Carbs are a non-issue barring a medical reason to keep them on the low side.
This was clearly stated in my first assumption. Have I misunderstood the deeper math?
It then seems to me that if you start with a deficit of zero and eat fewer calories that your deficit will increase, at least until your body reacts. Is there something else I am missing? I'm pretty sure that you not saying that eating fewer calories will increase your calorie intake. But I'm obviously missing something within the context of this thread.0 -
Which is kind of why I said in my answer: "Assumption 3. You don't replace your reduced carbs with high calorie food". I know I am being obtuse but I really don't understand how eating fewer carbs will cause your calorie intake to increase. Obviously if you eat more calories then your intake increases but I just can't get my head around the idea that eating less means you eat more.
Second time I have been called obtuse on this board. Must be one of those MFP secret code words. Someday I hope to be initiated into Level 3. Perhaps then I can understand how reducing carbs will increase calorie intake.a) cheese has few carbs
b) eating too many calories causes you to gain weight
c) Therefore eating lots of cheese (few carbs but lots of calories) will cause weight gain
It is concentrating the gist of the (count calories, not carbs) theme of the answers into something obvious. is it too early in the morning for you, do you take everything literally, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
If you substitute them with fat or protein so that you do not have a calorie deficit. The calorie deficit is what will reduce your weight, not how many grams of carb you eat.0 -
It's possible that I do not fully understand MFP Mathematics. The CICO Commandment states that if one eats fewer calories than your body uses than thou shall lose weight. Likewise, if one eats more calories than the body uses then thou shall gain weight. I therefore concluded that if one is neither gaining nor losing weight that we could conclude a deficit of zero.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Assumptions
1. Your weight is more or less stable with your current eating habits
2. You currently consume more than 200 grams of carbs per day
3. You don't replace your reduced carbs with high calorie food
If the above assumptions are accurate then going to 200 carbs will put you in a calorie deficit which will (eventually) result in weight loss. It's not a bad way to get started as it allows you to ease into a new eating style without trying to "fix" everything in one shot. You will stall eventually since your body needs fewer calories as your weight drops.
The bolded sentence is not necessarily true. I can very easily only eat 200 g of carbs a day and still be in a surplus. Peanut butter, cheese, mayonnaise, bacon - all delicious, all low-carb, and all high-calorie. You don't have to eat these all day to put you over your calories, either. Just be unaware of how much you're actually eating, and you can easily eat too much without realizing it.
I am going to assume that OP is not a special snowflake, therefore focusing on eating at a caloric deficit will be the best thing to start their journey to weight loss. Carbs are a non-issue barring a medical reason to keep them on the low side.
This was clearly stated in my first assumption. Have I misunderstood the deeper math?
It then seems to me that if you start with a deficit of zero and eat fewer calories that your deficit will increase, at least until your body reacts. Is there something else I am missing? I'm pretty sure that you not saying that eating fewer calories will increase your calorie intake. But I'm obviously missing something within the context of this thread.
You can very easily cut carbs down to lower than what you normally eat but unwittingly replace them with something else, like fat or protein (which has the same number of calories per gram as carbohydrates). So it's a good idea to count all foods anyway; if you're doing that, then why not just count calories instead of worrying about a single macronutrient?0 -
It appears I started a topic with strong opinions! My original thought was when I looked at how many calories I should be eating it came to around 2000 calories. I had read that 40% carbs, 30% protein and 30% fat was a highly rated ratio, same as the zone and crossfit. I know I generally eat too little fat and certainly too little protein. I tend to eat way too many carbs so I thought I might be a successful loser by only limiting carbs. Plus I thought counting carbs would be easier.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions