Do calories have a bigger impact than the contents of what you're eating?

Options
l883
l883 Posts: 8 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I guess what I'm asking is, if I stick to around 1200 calories and I eat low carb and high fat and moderate protein, would I still lose the same amount of weight if I still consumed 1200 calories, but ate different amounts of carbs, proteins and fats each day?

I ask this because I've tried to do the low carb diet but I don't think I can cut carbs back that much and would rather eat a more moderate amount. So I'm just wondering if I still eat healthy and within a limit of 1200 calories, but with less restriction on carbs and what I'm eating, will the weight loss remain the same?
«1

Replies

  • Stella3838
    Stella3838 Posts: 439 Member
    Options
    Less calories in than out. Won't matter what you eat. For an extreme example, it could be 1200 of French fries or 1200 of a balanced diet. As long as it's less in than out, you'll lose. But there are other health considerations when it comes to what you eat. Not sure I'd advise the French fries. :)
  • JaydedMiss
    JaydedMiss Posts: 4,286 Member
    Options
    1200 calories is 1200 calories. Macros are just for proper health. I love carbs why cut them off. Iv lost 80 pounds in 9 months on high carb. Which by the way my nutritionist told me not to do because hormonal stuff (pcos) but my point is it doesnt matter.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    For weight loss, calories consumed versus calories burned is going to determine how much you lose.

    Some people see a more rapid weight loss when they limit carbohydrates because our bodies tend to retain less water when we go low carbohydrate.

    But the kind of weight loss you want is probably fat loss, one that continues over time, and that will come down to calories.
  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    Theoretically, you could eat 1200 calories worth of Snickers and still lose weight as long as you were in a calorie deficit.

    You can fill your 1200 calories with whatever food you'd like. When I was eating 1200, I focused on foods that personally made me feel full. That tended to be more a 1/3 split between carbs, fats, and protein, but that was just a trend I observed, not something I specifically targeted. 1200 is a small amount of calories, so make sure your current weight > target rate is rational enough to justify so few calories. If you only have a little to lose, you will be very unhappy. Plus, if you exercise, especially at that 1200 calorie level, consider eating some of your exercise calories back or you will also feel pretty crummy.

    Also, make sure you are weighing your foods on a digital food scale to ensure you are accurately getting your calorie count.

    My diary is open. If you look from about October > January, you'll see how I spent my 1200 calories each day.

    If you feel like 1200 is too miserable, consider changing your rate of loss (lbs lost per week) to something higher and see how that goes for you.

    Good luck.
  • sunflower9194
    sunflower9194 Posts: 149 Member
    Options
    I know that theoretically it's all about calories in and calories out but my own experience has been that it does make a difference. When I make poor food choices my body is more reluctant to shed the excess weight... This is observational on my point but I've been at this for many years and have pretty solid anecdotal evidence that making good food choices is helpful to weight loss.
  • jonnybowers420
    jonnybowers420 Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    You'll stll loose weight but maybe not at the same rate as you would if you cut the carbs. Say 45 / 45 split protein and fat, 10% carbs.
  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    jonnybowers420 wrote: »
    You'll stll loose weight but maybe not at the same rate as you would if you cut the carbs. Say 45 / 45 split protein and fat, 10% carbs.

    Nope. Won't make a difference as long as the calorie restriction is the same.

    In fact, there's a few of us who make a habit of not eating clean, but still losing weight: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10498878/looking-for-friends-who-dont-eat-clean-and-healthy. Maybe we're your people?
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    Options
    Stella3838 wrote: »
    Less calories in than out. Won't matter what you eat. For an extreme example, it could be 1200 of French fries or 1200 of a balanced diet. As long as it's less in than out, you'll lose. But there are other health considerations when it comes to what you eat. Not sure I'd advise the French fries. :)

    nothing wrong with french fries. they are just potatoes. and if you bake them you dont have the added calories from the oil..
  • CafeRacer808
    CafeRacer808 Posts: 2,396 Member
    Options
    MissPauling wrote: »
    That's it. The calories are not IN the food. The calories do not exist as a real thing in this world, it is just a name for the unit, you can not see a calorie under the microscope just as you can not see a kilogram or a centimeter. A centimeter long sausage does not contain an invisible worm that is the centimeter.

    Well that's a relief! :D

    OP, as others have stated, a calorie is a calorie, no matter which food it comes from.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    fitoverfortymom wrote: »
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    jonnybowers420 wrote: »
    You'll stll loose weight but maybe not at the same rate as you would if you cut the carbs. Say 45 / 45 split protein and fat, 10% carbs.

    Nope. Won't make a difference as long as the calorie restriction is the same.

    In fact, there's a few of us who make a habit of not eating clean, but still losing weight: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10498878/looking-for-friends-who-dont-eat-clean-and-healthy. Maybe we're your people?

    I'm part of those people. :)
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    MissPauling wrote: »
    Sometimes I have the impression that people do not understand what calories are.

    That they think calories are nutrients or something that are inside the food and go into your body.

    Calories are nothing more than a measurement of the energy in food to raise the temperature of water.

    That's it. The calories are not IN the food. The calories do not exist as a real thing in this world, it is just a name for the unit, you can not see a calorie under the microscope just as you can not see a kilogram or a centimeter. A centimeter long sausage does not contain an invisible worm that is the centimeter.

    BUT - if you eat something "containing" excess calories (let's rather say: something that is worth more calories than your body needs to keep going for the day), you store the energy of the food (not the calories) as fat in your body. Then, when you burn this food off, when you don't eat more than you need, this energy can be measured in calories as well, for example you burn fat worth 200 calories off.

    So, if you know this, how can you seriously think that calories could interfere with macros? All nutrients can be measured in calories, that's all there is to it.

    Your question is like: If I weigh 5 g cheese and 5 g salad, will the salad weigh less? No. 5g are 5g are 5g.


    That is true to a point, but the concept behind low carb is that you are trying to inhibit the ability of the body to process food. Because the quickest source of energy isn't available it has to rely on slow sources of energy, so even though the same number of calories are available, you can't get them as quickly. This seems to work short-term, but long-term it isn't as clear what it does.
  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    edited February 2017
    Options
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    fitoverfortymom wrote: »
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    jonnybowers420 wrote: »
    You'll stll loose weight but maybe not at the same rate as you would if you cut the carbs. Say 45 / 45 split protein and fat, 10% carbs.

    Nope. Won't make a difference as long as the calorie restriction is the same.

    In fact, there's a few of us who make a habit of not eating clean, but still losing weight: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10498878/looking-for-friends-who-dont-eat-clean-and-healthy. Maybe we're your people?

    I'm part of those people. :)

    Don't I know it. :)
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,464 Member
    Options
    1200 calories is not enough for many people. You might be better off upping your calories to 1400-1500 and taking a slightly slower loss rate. You've set a very aggressive loss rate to get 1200 per day. You also should be eating back about half of your exercise cals to provide adequate energy.
  • markrgeary1
    markrgeary1 Posts: 853 Member
    Options
    Calories for weight loss. I learned macros and fats/carbs matter when I had my bloodwork done. Good thing is thanks to logging I have a great idea of the problem foods. Everything in moderation.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    MissPauling wrote: »
    Sometimes I have the impression that people do not understand what calories are.

    That they think calories are nutrients or something that are inside the food and go into your body.

    Calories are nothing more than a measurement of the energy in food to raise the temperature of water.

    That's it. The calories are not IN the food. The calories do not exist as a real thing in this world, it is just a name for the unit, you can not see a calorie under the microscope just as you can not see a kilogram or a centimeter. A centimeter long sausage does not contain an invisible worm that is the centimeter.

    BUT - if you eat something "containing" excess calories (let's rather say: something that is worth more calories than your body needs to keep going for the day), you store the energy of the food (not the calories) as fat in your body. Then, when you burn this food off, when you don't eat more than you need, this energy can be measured in calories as well, for example you burn fat worth 200 calories off.

    So, if you know this, how can you seriously think that calories could interfere with macros? All nutrients can be measured in calories, that's all there is to it.

    Your question is like: If I weigh 5 g cheese and 5 g salad, will the salad weigh less? No. 5g are 5g are 5g.


    But what about the midichlorians?

Categories