HOW MUCH CARBS TO LOSE WEIGHT?
thebrainstorm215
Posts: 5 Member
I AM 34 YEAR OLD MALE, 5'11 AND 190 LBS. i AM WHAT YOU WOULD CALL SKINNY FAT (SKINNY BODY WITH FAT STOMACH) ...i WANT TO LOSE MY STOMACH AND I JUST JOINED A GYM A FEW DAYS AGO. I WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH CARBS PER DAY I SHOULD BE EATING. I READ SOMEWHERE THAT 100G OF CARBS WILL BE GOOD...IS THAT TOO MUCH CARBS, OR MAYBE NOT ENOUGH? ....ALSO READ THAT I SHOULD SUBTRACT FIBER FROM CARBS ....IS THIS TRUE AS WELL? .....IF I EAT SOMETHING WITH 20G OF CARBS AND 5G OF FIBER, THEN IT ONLY REALLY COUNTS AS 15 CARBS? ....I'M NEW TO THIS ALL AND JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION, PLEASE HELP 
-1
Replies
-
Carbs are immaterial. It's calories you need to concern yourself with.0
-
Your BMI slides you just in to the overweight range. I think you will get greater satisfaction eating close to maintenance (total calories) and working those weights. There's a fitness forum here and ask the buff dudes for a beginner weight program to follow.
Eat all the foods you love, as long as you stay on target for calories.0 -
I lost 124 pounds and I'm virtually certain that I never got as low as 100 gram of carbs per day.0
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carbs are immaterial. It's calories you need to concern yourself with.
+10 -
Everyone is different and responds to carbs differently. You have to find the right balance for you. Eat the foods you love and stay in your calorie range. Move more. It will work. Takes time.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Why are you yelling?
Apparently, 250g of carb is what works for me... But that also comes with 2300-2500 calories and a TDEE of 3000.0 -
Do not subtract fiber, because some fibers ARE digested. Keep count BELOW 100/day.0
-
btw - Carbs DO matter! Your health has much to do with sugar and insulin, and carbs are the key to that. Sure you can lose weight on snicker bars if calories are low, but you ll have diabetes, cancers, and other ills. Keeping carbs below 100 will keep you healthier
0 -
I'm assuming you have made a choice to go low-carb and are looking for support in that area.
I'm at my target weight now but I've adopted a low-carb lifestyle. That said, I can eat more calories (and I do) than most low-calorie lifestyles will allow and still maintain my desired weight.
My typical weekend breakfast consists of steak and eggs. I eliminate the bread and potatoes and substitute fruit instead.
I like to make myself a protein shake from time to time and richen it up with 3-4 oz. of heavy cream ....... no additional carbs.
Figure on Net-Carbs. Dietary Fiber does not count so make sure you get enough. I work a Quest bar (3-5 net grams of carbs) into my daily routine to ensure that I'm getting enough dietary fiber (17-18 grams per bar.)
But yes, calories DO matter when you are trying to drop some weight however, they are not your primary concern. Manage your carbs as your primary focus and use the calories as a supportive metric.
Example:- You can lose weight at a 1500 calorie limit diet.
- You can lose more weight on a low-carb 1800 calorie diet.
- You can lose even more weight on a low-carb 1500 calorie diet.
I would start at a limit of 100 grams per day and then see where you can improve upon that.
I'm so accustomed to this that I run around 35-80 grams per day.
Find the heavy hitters and start there (bread, rice, potato, wheat, sugar....)
A friend of mine who actually had quite a bit of success with this had it down to how many light beers he could have at the end of the day and still meet his goal. That worked for him but it's best to avoid alcohol while you are trying to burn fat.
.......don't forget to include a bit of willpower in the formula as well.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm assuming you have made a choice to go low-carb and are looking for support in that area.
I'm at my target weight now but I've adopted a low-carb lifestyle. That said, I can eat more calories (and I do) than most low-calorie lifestyles will allow and still maintain my desired weight.
My typical weekend breakfast consists of steak and eggs. I eliminate the bread and potatoes and substitute fruit instead.
I like to make myself a protein shake from time to time and richen it up with 3-4 oz. of heavy cream ....... no additional carbs.
Figure on Net-Carbs. Dietary Fiber does not count so make sure you get enough. I work a Quest bar (3-5 net grams of carbs) into my daily routine to ensure that I'm getting enough dietary fiber (17-18 grams per bar.)
But yes, calories DO matter when you are trying to drop some weight however, they are not your primary concern. Manage your carbs as your primary focus and use the calories as a supportive metric.
Example:
[*] You can lose more weight on a low-carb 1800 calorie diet.
[*] You can lose even more weight on a low-carb 1500 calorie diet.
I would start at a limit of 100 grams per day and then see where you can improve upon that.
I'm so accustomed to this that I run around 35-80 grams per day.
Find the heavy hitters and start there (bread, rice, potato, wheat, sugar....)
A friend of mine who actually had quite a bit of success with this had it down to how many light beers he could have at the end of the day and still meet his goal. That worked for him but it's best to avoid alcohol while you are trying to burn fat.
.......don't forget to include a bit of willpower in the formula as well.
Low carb doesn't allow you to eat more calories than a typical diet. The issue you will find though, all of the low carb studies fail to maintain protein levels. Protein has the greatest impact on thing as it has a high thermal effect of food.
And if TEF is the main concerns, then you would want to aim for a moderate protein, high carb, very low fat as fat has the low TEF levels.
0 -
Example:- You can lose weight at a 1500 calorie limit diet.
- You can lose more weight on a low-carb 1800 calorie diet.
- You can lose even more weight on a low-carb 1500 calorie diet.
Not true in general. There is a kernel of truth if you're replacing carbs with proteins, because proteins are less efficiently metabolized (if you eat 100 calories of protein, your body only gets about 75-80 calories of usable energy), but if you're replacing mainly with fat, it's a wash since both fat and carbs are very efficiently converted to usable energy.
Diet can have other effects, but basic energy balance is the key to any weight loss.0 -
All of them!
lol.....honestly, I'm not one to 'blacklist' any nutrient......the only thing i personally watch for is sodium....which is funny, cause carbs and sodium tend to run hand in hand......particularly in processed foods, which is what you need to stay away from.....but oh my.....i can't survive without carbs lol..they are my weakness.....haha0 -
Hi. Can I have some science to back up your example that someone can lose more weight eating 1800 low carb than they can do eating 1500 not low carb? Thanks.
The Harvard study performed by Dr Penelope Greene (paraphrased here)
Also see: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/03-lowcarb.htmlCalories Count, But They’re Not the Whole Picture
Every conventional weight loss program—or at least the vast majority of them—is based in some way on the principle that everything ultimately comes down to calories. I don’t agree. (More on that in a moment …) But just because calories aren’t the whole picture does not mean they’re out of the show. They’ve just been moved from a starring role to that of a supporting—but still important—player. This was never better illustrated than in a brilliant study done at Harvard by Dr. Penelope Greene.ǂ Here’s what she did: She took two groups of people and put them on different diets. Group one got 1500 calories of low-fat food. Group two got 1800 calories of low-carb food. Sounds like a cool experiment, right? If weight loss is solely about calories, group two— the 1500 calorie group—should have lost more weight than group one, since they were eating 300 calories a day (2100 calories a week!) less than group one. The fact that group one was eating different kinds of food than group two shouldn’t have mattered. Those eating the higher-calorie diet would have been expected—under the “calories is all” theory—to gain more weight. But that’s not what happened. Group two—the group eating a low-carb diet of 1800 calories a day—actually lost more weight than the group eating a high-carb diet of 1500 calories a day. If it was all about calories, the higher-calorie, low-carb group should not have won the weight loss contest. You might be forgiven for concluding, from this study, that calories don’t really matter. Not so fast. Dr. Greene added an ingenious twist to the study. She threw in a third group. The third group also got the same low-carb food that group two got, but instead of eating 1800 calories of low-carb food like group two did, they ate 1500 calories worth, the same number of calories that group one had consumed. Dr. Greene called this the “low-carb, low-calorie” group. And these folks lost the most weight of all. Clearly something is going on here besides calories. But equally clearly, calories are hardly irrelevant. In our eagerness to focus on the missing link in weight loss—hormones like fat-storing insulin—we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Bottom line: Calories count. But they are very far from the whole picture.
0 -
Hi. Can I have some science to back up your example that someone can lose more weight eating 1800 low carb than they can do eating 1500 not low carb? Thanks.
The Harvard study performed by Dr Penelope Greene (paraphrased here)Calories Count, But They’re Not the Whole Picture
Every conventional weight loss program—or at least the vast majority of them—is based in some way on the principle that everything ultimately comes down to calories. I don’t agree. (More on that in a moment …) But just because calories aren’t the whole picture does not mean they’re out of the show. They’ve just been moved from a starring role to that of a supporting—but still important—player. This was never better illustrated than in a brilliant study done at Harvard by Dr. Penelope Greene.ǂ Here’s what she did: She took two groups of people and put them on different diets. Group one got 1500 calories of low-fat food. Group two got 1800 calories of low-carb food. Sounds like a cool experiment, right? If weight loss is solely about calories, group two— the 1500 calorie group—should have lost more weight than group one, since they were eating 300 calories a day (2100 calories a week!) less than group one. The fact that group one was eating different kinds of food than group two shouldn’t have mattered. Those eating the higher-calorie diet would have been expected—under the “calories is all” theory—to gain more weight. But that’s not what happened. Group two—the group eating a low-carb diet of 1800 calories a day—actually lost more weight than the group eating a high-carb diet of 1500 calories a day. If it was all about calories, the higher-calorie, low-carb group should not have won the weight loss contest. You might be forgiven for concluding, from this study, that calories don’t really matter. Not so fast. Dr. Greene added an ingenious twist to the study. She threw in a third group. The third group also got the same low-carb food that group two got, but instead of eating 1800 calories of low-carb food like group two did, they ate 1500 calories worth, the same number of calories that group one had consumed. Dr. Greene called this the “low-carb, low-calorie” group. And these folks lost the most weight of all. Clearly something is going on here besides calories. But equally clearly, calories are hardly irrelevant. In our eagerness to focus on the missing link in weight loss—hormones like fat-storing insulin—we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Bottom line: Calories count. But they are very far from the whole picture.
Were these people in a controlled environment and served the food that they were observed eating or did this rely on self-reporting?0 -
Why are you yelling? Weight loss comes from a caloric deficit, how may carbs you eat are irrelevant.0
-
Hi. Can I have some science to back up your example that someone can lose more weight eating 1800 low carb than they can do eating 1500 not low carb? Thanks.
The Harvard study performed by Dr Penelope Greene (paraphrased here)
Also see: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/03-lowcarb.htmlCalories Count, But They’re Not the Whole Picture
Every conventional weight loss program—or at least the vast majority of them—is based in some way on the principle that everything ultimately comes down to calories. I don’t agree. (More on that in a moment …) But just because calories aren’t the whole picture does not mean they’re out of the show. They’ve just been moved from a starring role to that of a supporting—but still important—player. This was never better illustrated than in a brilliant study done at Harvard by Dr. Penelope Greene.ǂ Here’s what she did: She took two groups of people and put them on different diets. Group one got 1500 calories of low-fat food. Group two got 1800 calories of low-carb food. Sounds like a cool experiment, right? If weight loss is solely about calories, group two— the 1500 calorie group—should have lost more weight than group one, since they were eating 300 calories a day (2100 calories a week!) less than group one. The fact that group one was eating different kinds of food than group two shouldn’t have mattered. Those eating the higher-calorie diet would have been expected—under the “calories is all” theory—to gain more weight. But that’s not what happened. Group two—the group eating a low-carb diet of 1800 calories a day—actually lost more weight than the group eating a high-carb diet of 1500 calories a day. If it was all about calories, the higher-calorie, low-carb group should not have won the weight loss contest. You might be forgiven for concluding, from this study, that calories don’t really matter. Not so fast. Dr. Greene added an ingenious twist to the study. She threw in a third group. The third group also got the same low-carb food that group two got, but instead of eating 1800 calories of low-carb food like group two did, they ate 1500 calories worth, the same number of calories that group one had consumed. Dr. Greene called this the “low-carb, low-calorie” group. And these folks lost the most weight of all. Clearly something is going on here besides calories. But equally clearly, calories are hardly irrelevant. In our eagerness to focus on the missing link in weight loss—hormones like fat-storing insulin—we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Bottom line: Calories count. But they are very far from the whole picture.
Making sure I understand this. Two different groups of people eating two different calorie and carb levels, right? So not the same as one person eating 1500 cals at moderate carbs and then the same person eating 1800 at low carb and losing more weight...
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hi. Can I have some science to back up your example that someone can lose more weight eating 1800 low carb than they can do eating 1500 not low carb? Thanks.
The Harvard study performed by Dr Penelope Greene (paraphrased here)
Also see: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/03-lowcarb.htmlCalories Count, But They’re Not the Whole Picture
Every conventional weight loss program—or at least the vast majority of them—is based in some way on the principle that everything ultimately comes down to calories. I don’t agree. (More on that in a moment …) But just because calories aren’t the whole picture does not mean they’re out of the show. They’ve just been moved from a starring role to that of a supporting—but still important—player. This was never better illustrated than in a brilliant study done at Harvard by Dr. Penelope Greene.ǂ Here’s what she did: She took two groups of people and put them on different diets. Group one got 1500 calories of low-fat food. Group two got 1800 calories of low-carb food. Sounds like a cool experiment, right? If weight loss is solely about calories, group two— the 1500 calorie group—should have lost more weight than group one, since they were eating 300 calories a day (2100 calories a week!) less than group one. The fact that group one was eating different kinds of food than group two shouldn’t have mattered. Those eating the higher-calorie diet would have been expected—under the “calories is all” theory—to gain more weight. But that’s not what happened. Group two—the group eating a low-carb diet of 1800 calories a day—actually lost more weight than the group eating a high-carb diet of 1500 calories a day. If it was all about calories, the higher-calorie, low-carb group should not have won the weight loss contest. You might be forgiven for concluding, from this study, that calories don’t really matter. Not so fast. Dr. Greene added an ingenious twist to the study. She threw in a third group. The third group also got the same low-carb food that group two got, but instead of eating 1800 calories of low-carb food like group two did, they ate 1500 calories worth, the same number of calories that group one had consumed. Dr. Greene called this the “low-carb, low-calorie” group. And these folks lost the most weight of all. Clearly something is going on here besides calories. But equally clearly, calories are hardly irrelevant. In our eagerness to focus on the missing link in weight loss—hormones like fat-storing insulin—we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Bottom line: Calories count. But they are very far from the whole picture.
Making sure I understand this. Two different groups of people eating two different calorie and carb levels, right? So not the same as one person eating 1500 cals at moderate carbs and then the same person eating 1800 at low carb and losing more weight...
0 -
I would say the most convincing study would be if that person was you.WinoGelato wrote: »Making sure I understand this. Two different groups of people eating two different calorie and carb levels, right? So not the same as one person eating 1500 cals at moderate carbs and then the same person eating 1800 at low carb and losing more weight...
I found that losing weight using this method became totally effortless. The calorie-in-calorie-out folks are very convinced in their approach and it will work as well but I don't have to skip the cream.
0 -
I would say the most convincing study would be if that person was you.WinoGelato wrote: »Making sure I understand this. Two different groups of people eating two different calorie and carb levels, right? So not the same as one person eating 1500 cals at moderate carbs and then the same person eating 1800 at low carb and losing more weight...
I found that losing weight using this method became totally effortless. The calorie-in-calorie-out folks are very convinced in their approach and it will work as well but I don't have to skip the cream.
CICO people don't skip cream either (unless they choose to). We don't skip anything to lose weight. It's the very essence of the approach.0 -
I'm assuming you have made a choice to go low-carb and are looking for support in that area.
In fact, what the OP said was not that, but: "I WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH CARBS PER DAY I SHOULD BE EATING. I READ SOMEWHERE THAT 100G OF CARBS WILL BE GOOD...IS THAT TOO MUCH CARBS, OR MAYBE NOT ENOUGH?"0 -
So what happens to all the extra energy you consume but that isn't stored as fat?
I would say the most convincing study would be if that person was you.WinoGelato wrote: »Making sure I understand this. Two different groups of people eating two different calorie and carb levels, right? So not the same as one person eating 1500 cals at moderate carbs and then the same person eating 1800 at low carb and losing more weight...
I found that losing weight using this method became totally effortless. The calorie-in-calorie-out folks are very convinced in their approach and it will work as well but I don't have to skip the cream.
0 -
Hi. Can I have some science to back up your example that someone can lose more weight eating 1800 low carb than they can do eating 1500 not low carb? Thanks.
The Harvard study performed by Dr Penelope Greene (paraphrased here)Calories Count, But They’re Not the Whole Picture
Every conventional weight loss program—or at least the vast majority of them—is based in some way on the principle that everything ultimately comes down to calories. I don’t agree. (More on that in a moment …) But just because calories aren’t the whole picture does not mean they’re out of the show. They’ve just been moved from a starring role to that of a supporting—but still important—player. This was never better illustrated than in a brilliant study done at Harvard by Dr. Penelope Greene.ǂ Here’s what she did: She took two groups of people and put them on different diets. Group one got 1500 calories of low-fat food. Group two got 1800 calories of low-carb food. Sounds like a cool experiment, right? If weight loss is solely about calories, group two— the 1500 calorie group—should have lost more weight than group one, since they were eating 300 calories a day (2100 calories a week!) less than group one. The fact that group one was eating different kinds of food than group two shouldn’t have mattered. Those eating the higher-calorie diet would have been expected—under the “calories is all” theory—to gain more weight. But that’s not what happened. Group two—the group eating a low-carb diet of 1800 calories a day—actually lost more weight than the group eating a high-carb diet of 1500 calories a day. If it was all about calories, the higher-calorie, low-carb group should not have won the weight loss contest. You might be forgiven for concluding, from this study, that calories don’t really matter. Not so fast. Dr. Greene added an ingenious twist to the study. She threw in a third group. The third group also got the same low-carb food that group two got, but instead of eating 1800 calories of low-carb food like group two did, they ate 1500 calories worth, the same number of calories that group one had consumed. Dr. Greene called this the “low-carb, low-calorie” group. And these folks lost the most weight of all. Clearly something is going on here besides calories. But equally clearly, calories are hardly irrelevant. In our eagerness to focus on the missing link in weight loss—hormones like fat-storing insulin—we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Bottom line: Calories count. But they are very far from the whole picture.
Were these people in a controlled environment and served the food that they were observed eating or did this rely on self-reporting?
They were served food in a controlled environment, but there are issues with extrapolating too much from the study, as even Greene acknowledged. Since this came up in another thread earlier today, I'll repeat my post from that thread:
That's a 2003 study with 21 participants -- 7 in each group. Also, it's 12 weeks and there was no effort to control for protein amounts. The "low fat" diet wasn't really low fat, it was 55 percent carbohydrate, 30 percent fat, and 15 percent protein. The low carb groups were 5 percent carbohydrate, 30 percent protein, and 65 percent fat. This is significant because there's some evidence that protein differences make a difference (either because of an effect on calories outs or because we seem to have underestimated the calories actually available from high protein foods like meat). Also significant is that it was only 12 weeks given the water drop that occurs with low carb, and other evidence that low carb leads to a faster initial weight loss but that groups will even out after a longer time.
The researcher, Greene, said she intended to do a longer term study with more participants back in 2003 when this one was done, but I can't find any indication that she has. Another of the participants is Walter Willett, and he doesn't promote low carb as superior (or recommend cutting out all fruit but apples and grains, etc.).
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/03-lowcarb.htmlWhile participants in that third group were apparently able to eat more and lose more weight, Greene cautioned that the study was just a pilot for the larger study she had planned from the start and that she is preparing now. As a pilot, the groups were relatively small, containing just seven participants each. That means that despite the raw numbers, statistically the three groups lost about the same amount.0 -
I would say the most convincing study would be if that person was you.WinoGelato wrote: »Making sure I understand this. Two different groups of people eating two different calorie and carb levels, right? So not the same as one person eating 1500 cals at moderate carbs and then the same person eating 1800 at low carb and losing more weight...
I found that losing weight using this method became totally effortless. The calorie-in-calorie-out folks are very convinced in their approach and it will work as well but I don't have to skip the cream.
But you see how measuring the weight loss of two different people eating two different amounts of calories and two different amounts of carbs is different than saying that the same person will lose more weight eating more calories and less carbs, right?
0 -
-
And you'd STILL have it backwards...0 -
Well @lemurcat12 pretty much summed it up... and like i said, protein wasnt controlled and this wasnt on glycogen depleted individuals, so hello water weight loss and increased TEF.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »
And you'd STILL have it backwards...
Yep.. calories determine fat loss... not macros. Macros can modify certain parts of the energy balance equation but that is it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions