Calories vs. Carbs
TiaGia101
Posts: 51 Member
I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?
0
Replies
-
Low carb diets can trigger quick weight-loss but nothing sustainable. Also note that right off the bat, it's probably just water.
Let me get this straight though: You're eating 1200 calories as your base + 1/2 of your exercise calories? How much is that on average? 1200 seems really low...
EDIT: How long have you been doing this? At 1200 calories your metabolism could have slowed down dramatically if it's been a while. Also note, .5lb loss per week is healthy. Anything more than 2lbs is probably too much to sustain and can be detrimental to your metabolism.0 -
Carbohydrates are stored as glycogen in the liver and muscles to be used as energy. With this glycogen is LOTS of water. Each gram of glycogen is bound to 3-4 grams of water. When you start eating a low carb diet, your body will go into your glycogen stores and use them up. Those water grams also leave with it. Hence, you have lost water weight.0
-
low carb for the purpose of losing weight is just one of many weighs to create a calorie deficit...low carb isn't magic..carbs in and of themselves do not cause weight gain nor do they hinder weight loss...carbs aren't the devil.
you lose weight when you consume less energy (calories) than your body requires to maintain the status quo...there are numerous ways of going about reducing energy consumption...low carb would be one of those many. it's not magic or anything.
if you low carb you will notice a more rapid rate of loss initially...these early losses are largely glycogen (essentially water)...when you low carb, you deplete glycogen. ultimately, it evens out and over the long haul, you don't lose any more overall weight with low carb than you do any other diet or plan.
also, when you re-introduce carbs back into your diet, you will immediately gain some weight on the scale as your glycogen stores replenish.0 -
Oh, this also is partly to blame for the crazy amount of weight gain after a cheat meal. The stored carbohydrates bring with them lots of water, so even if the meal didn't put you 7000-10500 over your maintenance, you still gain 2-3 pounds due to all the stored water.0
-
Just to be clear, I've been at this for almost two months with about 15lbs to lose. I started at 165 pounds at 5 foot 10. I don't have a huge amount to lose and have lost just under 5 lbs so far. MFP a put me at 1200 calories so that's why im following it. Also, I could never cut out carbs completely. I'm just talking about not eating them
With dinner like i usually do.0 -
Carbohydrates are stored as glycogen in the liver and muscles to be used as energy. With this glycogen is LOTS of water. Each gram of glycogen is bound to 3-4 grams of water. When you start eating a low carb diet, your body will go into your glycogen stores and use them up. Those water grams also leave with it. Hence, you have lost water weight.
How much approx ? 200g of glycogen depletion * 4 = a couple of pounds ?0 -
Just to be clear, I've been at this for almost two months with about 15lbs to lose. I started at 165 pounds at 5 foot 10. I don't have a huge amount to lose and have lost just under 5 lbs so far. MFP a put me at 1200 calories so that's why im following it. Also, I could never cut out carbs completely. I'm just talking about not eating them
With dinner like i usually do.
MFP put you at 1200 cals based on the information you entered when you created your profile including your height, current weight, goal weight, activity level, and desired rate of loss.
With only 15 lbs to lose you should be set at 0.5lb/week, which is only a 250 cal deficit from your maintenance level, and you should be eating back at least half of your exercise calories (which you said you are).
As others mentioned, if you saw a "whoosh" on the scale it may be related to less carbs, or other factors that impact water weight. If you like carbs, you can continue to eat them, if you are at a calorie deficit you will still lose. Or if you don't miss the carbs at dinner and find that to be a way to help you create the calorie deficit, then keep it up - but there isn't anything magical about cutting carbs out (or any other food group) at a specific time of day.
0 -
High carb foods are usually very caloric, so cutting back on them is a good tool for keeping calories low. A large salad will have the same amount of calories as a serving of rice, with the salad being more filling. On a 1200 calorie diet, you must be VERY selective with your food and choose filling options.0
-
High carb foods are usually very caloric, so cutting back on them is a good tool for keeping calories low.
As a general rule - no. Carbs have 4 calories per gram. Fat has 9 calories per gram. High FAT foods are (by definition) the most caloric for a given weight. The "very caloric" high carb foods you're referring to either probably a) are also very high in fats or b) you're not comparing similar serving sizes.A large salad will have the same amount of calories as a serving of rice, with the salad being more filling. On a 1200 calorie diet, you must be VERY selective with your food and choose filling options.
The dressing alone on a large salad would have more calories than a serving of rice.
0 -
I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?
11 pounds to go - weight loss will be slow. Carbs have nothing to do with it.
1200 before exercise is a default minimum. If you had picked a weekly goal of 1/2 pound a week (more appropriate) .....you would have gotten more than 1200 calories. Your choice.0 -
I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?
Fat loss is about calories. Weight includes more than fat. You can lose weight without losing any fat at all, and you can lose fat without losing any weight at all.
Reducing carbs can cause water weight loss.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »High carb foods are usually very caloric, so cutting back on them is a good tool for keeping calories low.
As a general rule - no. Carbs have 4 calories per gram. Fat has 9 calories per gram. High FAT foods are (by definition) the most caloric for a given weight. The "very caloric" high carb foods you're referring to either probably a) are also very high in fats or b) you're not comparing similar serving sizes.A large salad will have the same amount of calories as a serving of rice, with the salad being more filling. On a 1200 calorie diet, you must be VERY selective with your food and choose filling options.
The dressing alone on a large salad would have more calories than a serving of rice.
I did not say Carbs were the most caloric, just that they were very caloric.
The salad I eat almost daily has 300 calories, and it fills a very large bowl. It's about 4 cups of food.
A cup of white rice has 200 calories. I can eat an entire meal for 100 calories more. The goal is to eat enough to satisfy you within your calorie limits.
When I am picking side dishes for dinner (or any other meal really) I tend to avoid "carbs" like pasta and rice for no other reason other than I can get a greater volume of food for less calories by choosing other things. You can have 4 cups of Pictsweet green beans and still be eating less calories than that 1 cup of rice. This is true for many other low starch vegetables.
I am eating a 1200 calorie diet as well, so I know it's challenges. Best wishes to the OP!
0 -
As many people have point out, the difference in your weight could just be water fluctuations based on glycogen stores (why keto diets lose a lot of weight initially -- the whoosing of water out of the system). You're already at a pretty decent weight given your height, so it may be very difficult to lose much more weight anyway. You may be better served looking to just improve your body composition (i.e. increase muscle/decrease fat percentage).
All that being said, it's also possible that you'd be better served with a different amount of carbs. Some lose more with more carbs, some more with less carbs.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results. If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
So you may want to look at your diet and see how much carbs you're eating. If you're eating something like 60% (like the insulin sensitive women), then you might want to consider dropping it down to something like 20-40%. If you're eating only 20-40% of carbs, then you might consider upping it to more to see if something shifts.
But, as I said earlier, you're not in the obese category, so it may be simply a very slow process to lean out further -- which is typically what many see when they get to the weight/leanness you're describing. You may also see some benefit from a different way of eating such as an IF regime or a calorie cycle regime (or one that incorporates both). Folks that are already fairly lean often do one or the other (or both) to help with this when a deficit alone isn't getting done anymore.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »High carb foods are usually very caloric, so cutting back on them is a good tool for keeping calories low.
As a general rule - no. Carbs have 4 calories per gram. Fat has 9 calories per gram. High FAT foods are (by definition) the most caloric for a given weight. The "very caloric" high carb foods you're referring to either probably a) are also very high in fats or b) you're not comparing similar serving sizes.A large salad will have the same amount of calories as a serving of rice, with the salad being more filling. On a 1200 calorie diet, you must be VERY selective with your food and choose filling options.
The dressing alone on a large salad would have more calories than a serving of rice.
I did not say Carbs were the most caloric, just that they were very caloric.
The salad I eat almost daily has 300 calories, and it fills a very large bowl. It's about 4 cups of food.
A cup of white rice has 200 calories. I can eat an entire meal for 100 calories more. The goal is to eat enough to satisfy you within your calorie limits.
When I am picking side dishes for dinner (or any other meal really) I tend to avoid "carbs" like pasta and rice for no other reason other than I can get a greater volume of food for less calories by choosing other things. You can have 4 cups of Pictsweet green beans and still be eating less calories than that 1 cup of rice. This is true for many other low starch vegetables.
I am eating a 1200 calorie diet as well, so I know it's challenges. Best wishes to the OP!
You are a volume eater......not everyone finds volume satiating.
Green beans are a good example....4 cups of green beans are fat free & have fiber. This is way less satiating than rice is (to me). The salad example is different.....you have protein, fat AND fiber all in one meal, so of course that's going to be satiating.0 -
high fat foods often leave people feeling full for longer. That is one reason why many people favor low carb diets over low calorie diets0
-
-
high fat foods often leave people feeling full for longer. That is one reason why many people favor low carb diets over low calorie diets
I love me some fat. Fat is the thing I struggle to control most. But it's more about taste than satiety. Fiber and protein are what keep me full longer. Fiber is a carb I seek to eat more of rather than avoid.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »High carb foods are usually very caloric, so cutting back on them is a good tool for keeping calories low.
As a general rule - no. Carbs have 4 calories per gram. Fat has 9 calories per gram. High FAT foods are (by definition) the most caloric for a given weight. The "very caloric" high carb foods you're referring to either probably a) are also very high in fats or b) you're not comparing similar serving sizes.A large salad will have the same amount of calories as a serving of rice, with the salad being more filling. On a 1200 calorie diet, you must be VERY selective with your food and choose filling options.
The dressing alone on a large salad would have more calories than a serving of rice.
I did not say Carbs were the most caloric, just that they were very caloric.
But that's not true at all. Carbs are no more caloric than protein (each at 4 calories per gram), and both are less caloric than fat.The salad I eat almost daily has 300 calories, and it fills a very large bowl. It's about 4 cups of food.
A cup of white rice has 200 calories. I can eat an entire meal for 100 calories more. The goal is to eat enough to satisfy you within your calorie limits.
That's great, but anecdotal evidence does not prove an assertion. Also, your claim was that a serving of rice was equal calorically to a salad, which your own follow up disproves.When I am picking side dishes for dinner (or any other meal really) I tend to avoid "carbs" like pasta and rice for no other reason other than I can get a greater volume of food for less calories by choosing other things. You can have 4 cups of Pictsweet green beans and still be eating less calories than that 1 cup of rice. This is true for many other low starch vegetables.
Again, anecdotal. If you're limited to 1200 calories a day, yes, you often have to choose low calorie per volume foods. But that has nothing to do with carbs (for the record, the vast majority of the calories in those 4 cups of green beans are from ...gasp...carbs!)
0 -
I understand exactly what your saying, I've reduced my carb intake just to see what my results would be and I lost a pound yesterday from today and I don't mind that it's water weight to start it's exciting to see the scale going down! I'm planning on continuing low carb and by that I mean reducing carbs not completely eliminating them, I might try the carb cycling as well to see if that will stimulate more weightloss and if I can go a day without the main culprit carbs I like ( baked potatoes, rice, bread, and pasta) but so far doing Great on that and am looking forward to continuing the process until all my weight is gone! Good luck with your journey and congrats!!0
-
Think long term. Calories in vs calories out. Whether it is debated or not, it works for many people, myself being one of them.
Stay true to your macros and don't worry about day to day weight fluctuations. Weigh yourself every week at the same time (mornings before eating anything is usually the lightest). I see too many people going crazy over their weight between say tuesday morning and thursday midday after they have a big meal. It's not worth the stress. Bottom line: You will lose weight if you keep true to your diet.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »High carb foods are usually very caloric, so cutting back on them is a good tool for keeping calories low.
As a general rule - no. Carbs have 4 calories per gram. Fat has 9 calories per gram. High FAT foods are (by definition) the most caloric for a given weight. The "very caloric" high carb foods you're referring to either probably a) are also very high in fats or b) you're not comparing similar serving sizes.A large salad will have the same amount of calories as a serving of rice, with the salad being more filling. On a 1200 calorie diet, you must be VERY selective with your food and choose filling options.
The dressing alone on a large salad would have more calories than a serving of rice.
I did not say Carbs were the most caloric, just that they were very caloric.
But that's not true at all. Carbs are no more caloric than protein (each at 4 calories per gram), and both are less caloric than fat.The salad I eat almost daily has 300 calories, and it fills a very large bowl. It's about 4 cups of food.
A cup of white rice has 200 calories. I can eat an entire meal for 100 calories more. The goal is to eat enough to satisfy you within your calorie limits.
That's great, but anecdotal evidence does not prove an assertion. Also, your claim was that a serving of rice was equal calorically to a salad, which your own follow up disproves.When I am picking side dishes for dinner (or any other meal really) I tend to avoid "carbs" like pasta and rice for no other reason other than I can get a greater volume of food for less calories by choosing other things. You can have 4 cups of Pictsweet green beans and still be eating less calories than that 1 cup of rice. This is true for many other low starch vegetables.
Again, anecdotal. If you're limited to 1200 calories a day, yes, you often have to choose low calorie per volume foods. But that has nothing to do with carbs (for the record, the vast majority of the calories in those 4 cups of green beans are from ...gasp...carbs!)
That's what's so weird about this discussion sometimes.
I thnk what the poster is trying to say is that starches are more calorie dense than non-starchy vegetables, but of course both are carbs.
For me, including some starches can add to my satiety, and I don't find them all that calorie dense. For example, 100 grams of red potatoes=70 calories, or 100 grams of sweet potatoes=86 calories. I'd eat that, or maybe a bit less (or more, if I have the calories) with my green beans and spinach. If I was really low on calories I'd be less likely to include it or perhaps decrease the amount, but I find I am more satisfied overall when I do add something like that (or perhaps some fresh local corn when in season) to dinner.
Clearly not everyone is the same, but that's the point.0 -
I find a good balance of both fat and fiber work. Empty foods like sugar, as delicious as they are, definitely leave me feeling empty0
-
A *sustained* low carb diet, while eating at a deficit, can be an excellent way to lose weight, especially if you find fats more satiating than carbs. It's not for everyone. The sudden weight loss you might have after a day or two of not eating carbs is the water you're losing from splitting glycogen into glucose, as your body tends to use glycogen before switching to fatty acid metabolism.
But yes, if you stick with it, and eat at a caloric deficit, you'll lose body fat on low carbs. If your only reason for eating low carb is weight loss, then it is strictly a matter of preference.0 -
I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?
11 pounds to go - weight loss will be slow. Carbs have nothing to do with it.
1200 before exercise is a default minimum. If you had picked a weekly goal of 1/2 pound a week (more appropriate) .....you would have gotten more than 1200 calories. Your choice.
I did pick a 1/2 pound a week weight loss and 1200 calories is what it gave me.0 -
I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?
11 pounds to go - weight loss will be slow. Carbs have nothing to do with it.
1200 before exercise is a default minimum. If you had picked a weekly goal of 1/2 pound a week (more appropriate) .....you would have gotten more than 1200 calories. Your choice.
I did pick a 1/2 pound a week weight loss and 1200 calories is what it gave me.
I think you might need to re-enter all your info. At 5'10, 165, with 15 lbs to lose and rate of loss 0.5 lbs/week even at Sedentary your calorie goal should be higher than 1200.
ETA I put those stats in at Sedendary and got 1620 cals as a goal.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?
11 pounds to go - weight loss will be slow. Carbs have nothing to do with it.
1200 before exercise is a default minimum. If you had picked a weekly goal of 1/2 pound a week (more appropriate) .....you would have gotten more than 1200 calories. Your choice.
I did pick a 1/2 pound a week weight loss and 1200 calories is what it gave me.
I think you might need to re-enter all your info. At 5'10, 165, with 15 lbs to lose and rate of loss 0.5 lbs/week even at Sedentary your calorie goal should be higher than 1200.
ETA I put those stats in at Sedendary and got 1620 cals as a goal.
Yeah - not at 5'10"0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?
11 pounds to go - weight loss will be slow. Carbs have nothing to do with it.
1200 before exercise is a default minimum. If you had picked a weekly goal of 1/2 pound a week (more appropriate) .....you would have gotten more than 1200 calories. Your choice.
I did pick a 1/2 pound a week weight loss and 1200 calories is what it gave me.
I think you might need to re-enter all your info. At 5'10, 165, with 15 lbs to lose and rate of loss 0.5 lbs/week even at Sedentary your calorie goal should be higher than 1200.
ETA I put those stats in at Sedendary and got 1620 cals as a goal.
That's strange. I got 1200 again. I also put in for a sedentary lifestyle since I'm at a desk from 8 to 6 everyday. Anyway I do go over 1200 but usually still within my exercise cals. I have been losing at about a rate of 1/2 lb a week which has felt super slow. But then after a few days in which I ate a bit over my limit I gained a few lbs back and then after eating no carbs at dinner, it dropped right off.0 -
I'm really good about staying under my calorie count of 1200 and only eating back half of my exercise calories and weighing all food. But sometimes I go weeks without losing anything or maybe just half a pound. But this week I didn't eat carbs in the evening and I had a whoosh of several pound weight loss. I've always thought its calories that matter but there seems to be a difference who I eat fewer carbs. Is this something I should stick with or was it just a coincidence?
Do you monitor your sodium intake? That will make a difference in your water retention, and if you ate less of it for a few days, could result in a 'whoosh'.0 -
I am low carb lifestyle and it is just another way of eating nothing magic
I eliminated high sugar high fat calorie sense foods like brownies and those deserts. I eat lots of filling veggies.
Just doing that lower my calories. I count calories.
If you like veggies and meat then low carb within your calorie range may be your choice. I am a carnivore so it works great.
But don't fall into the myth of eating endless calories as long as they are low carb.
I have lost 130 in two years and just recently got to 13% body fat. It was moderately low carb and exercise with an eye on calories
No magic. There are no shortcuts.
Good luck on whatever eating choice you make.0 -
Low carb works for me, but also in conjunction with plenty of fiber and I focus on eating a LOT of vegetables every single day. I stalled in my weight loss (25lbs lost in 3months earlier this year), looked over my food diary, and found that it was during the time when I wasn't eating all the veggies and getting all the fiber I should.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions