Count calories or Carbs?
mjc8080
Posts: 30 Member
I am trying to see if counting carbs like Atkins is better than counting calories? Pro-Atkins ppl claim if you limit your carbs/sugar, your body will burn stored fat for energy, and pro- calorie counting folks claim it’s all about CICO and nothing is off limits. What is best in your opinion? Thank you.
4
Replies
-
Carbs are 4 calories per gram
Fat is 9 calories per gram
Protein is 4 calories per gram
I would guess that not counting calories, and only counting carbs would be detrimental to weight loss. Especially since fat is more calorie dense and you would probably be eating more of that since you cut out carbs.9 -
Better for what?
Weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Some people find it easier to create a calorie deficit when they limit carbohydrates. But your body is only going to burn stored fat if you're in a deficit.
I personally find it easier to just count calories and focus on what matters, eating the foods I enjoy in portions that meet my calorie goals.
But is that what is best for you? The person who is qualified to answer that is you, not anyone else here.9 -
When you consume fewer calories than your body needs, your body will burn stored fat for energy because it has to in order to make up for the energy (calorie) deficiency.
Low carb is only one of many ways to create a calorie deficit...all diets work the same...calorie deficit. If you low carb and eat a balance of energy, you will maintain weight...if you low carb and eat a surplus of energy, you will gain weight. Weight management is about energy...calories are the measure of energy.8 -
Even pro-Atkins people who use low carb for dieting (at least those who are informed) understand that weight loss happens by eating fewer calories than you burn, they just find that eating low carb helps them control their hunger which makes eating fewer calories easier. Some do so well on it that they don't need count calories - they eat fewer calories without having to count them.
What you need to know is that not everyone gets that appetite reduction effect. The only way to know if it happens for you is to go low carb, eat how you would have eaten without counting, but count everything you eat. Basically, don't have a calorie limit for yourself. If you find yourself naturally going over calories too often, then counting carbs alone will not work for you. If you're naturally within calories more often then not, then you may be able to lose on low carb without counting calories.11 -
Count both if you want?
Your body burns its fat stores in an energy deficit irrespective of the macros the calories are coming from - where else can the energy come from? Unless you disagree with Einstein's "energy can neither be created nor destroyed"?
You could go ultra low carb and still gain weight if you are in a caloric surplus.
I can see for a non-calorie counter that cutting a significant contributor to your calorie intake could well be successful if they are seeking to lose weight. But that could equally be cutting fatty foods.
Not sure what you mean by "nothing is off limits"? Just because people don't vilify or avoid carbs doesn't mean they don't pay attention to food quality and nutrition.
My high carb diet is rich in variety and micro nutrients as well as proving energy and plain old enjoyment of good food.7 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Carbs are 4 calories per gram
Fat is 9 calories per gram
Protein is 4 calories per gram
I would guess that not counting calories, and only counting carbs would be detrimental to weight loss. Especially since fat is more calorie dense and you would probably be eating more of that since you cut out carbs.
The reason why low carb works so well for some people is because many find fat and protein are more filling so when they focus on getting calories through those sources primarily they get fuller eating less.
4 -
10 -
Calories are king. You eat at a calorie deficit to lose weight. The reason limiting carbs works for many is that thier normal diet tends to have a large portion of thier calories in high carb foods. Eliminating or severely reducing those foods, reduces thier overall calories.
If your BMR is 2000 Cal/day and you eat very little carbs, but consume 3000 calories: you will gain weight.
If your BMR is 2000cal/day and you eat a high carb diet, but consume 1500 calories a day: you will lose weight.
8 -
The easiest way to explain the difference:
If you stick to your calorie goals and go over your carb goals, you’ll lose weight.
If you stick to your carb goals and go over your calorie goals, you’ll gain weight.21 -
This seems like 2 unrelated things. Well, related but not in a one or the other way.
So it isn't counting calories vs counting carbs.
Count calories unless you can create a calorie deficit without counting.
Count carbs if you want to lower your carbs or track your macros.
Question is a bit like Science fiction or Borrowing from library?
Both related to books but not actually an either/ or question.
10 -
Calories is top most important, but you have to make sure you balance your carb/fat/protein intake. Healthy carbs from veggies are fine, but I would avoid the heavy stuff like bread and potatoes.
From what I've learned, your body uses carbs ingested as an immediate fuel source. So, when you eat carbs, instead of using stored fat for energy, it grabs the carbs. So, you're not necessarily gaining weight, but losing it is going to prove more difficult. Plus. Carbs for some reason give your body the cure to hold on harder to water weight. It's a balance21 -
I've done both. I lost weight on both. I only maintained when I used calories because I hate not eating carbs. When I did Atkins I lost because I got tired of the food I was allowed so just stopped eating most of the time but I was miserable. Yes I had less appetite but eventually I quit because that diet was unsustainable. The only reason I stuck it out as long as I did was because of the first week losses which were mostly water. I had learned nothing because once I added back carbs I was eating what had been normal to me prediet. As a result I gained all the weight back plus a few more pounds. Do what you can live with permanently. If you think a "quick loss" with low carb is the way to go then switch back to low cal I can tell you it is unlikely to work but everyone is different. Also the quick loss part is water and over the long haul most weight loss evens out and there is no advantage to low carb as far as how quickly you lose. For some the low carb diet makes them feel less hungry because high fat makes them feel full. If you can maintain that lifestlye go for it.3
-
stargazerscribe wrote: »Calories is top most important, but you have to make sure you balance your carb/fat/protein intake. Healthy carbs from veggies are fine, but I would avoid the heavy stuff like bread and potatoes.
From what I've learned, your body uses carbs ingested as an immediate fuel source. So, when you eat carbs, instead of using stored fat for energy, it grabs the carbs. So, you're not necessarily gaining weight, but losing it is going to prove more difficult. Plus. Carbs for some reason give your body the cure to hold on harder to water weight. It's a balance
Yes, when you eat carbs, it will break down them into glucose and either increase carb oxidation or be stored as glycogen, but even if you ate zero carbs, you would see an increase in fat oxidation from increase fats (essentially, you burn the fats you are eating, not stored fats).
What really matters, is how your reacts over periods of times, not the few hours after a meal. Your body holds higher levels of glycogen and insulin (which help maintain electrolytes) for fuel. When you deplete glycogen with low carb, you also have to make up for the reductions in insulin or you can feel sick, etc...
Calories > carbs. And don't be fooled when people say eating fat allows you to access more body fat for energy. Even if its true, your body would store more body fat from the increase consumption of fat.7 -
Based on my experience, I try to get the most nutrition out of my calorie limitation. I will get more nutrition to support my health out of a dinner of steak, a small potato with butter, and broccoli (546 calories), then I will out of the same calories of a molten chocolate cake at Chili's (1,160 calories). Paying attention to the nutritional value of what I eat, plus getting more volume/denseness for my calories (like lots of veggies) tends to lend itself to lower carbs, though I'm not doing a LOW carb diet.2
-
successgal1 wrote: »Based on my experience, I try to get the most nutrition out of my calorie limitation. I will get more nutrition to support my health out of a dinner of steak, a small potato with butter, and broccoli (546 calories), then I will out of the same calories of a molten chocolate cake at Chili's (1,160 calories). Paying attention to the nutritional value of what I eat, plus getting more volume/denseness for my calories (like lots of veggies) tends to lend itself to lower carbs, though I'm not doing a LOW carb diet.
I understand what you are saying. I consider the nutritional content of my food too. I don't think this is a fair comparison, though. Molten chocolate cake doesn't serve the same purpose as meat and broccoli. Meat and broccoli (some bean or pasta dish in my case) are eaten for hunger, nutrition, and sustenance. Cake is eaten for celebration, enjoyment, and social ritual. I try to support both my physical health and my mental health, so both options are part of my diet.6 -
successgal1 wrote: »Based on my experience, I try to get the most nutrition out of my calorie limitation. I will get more nutrition to support my health out of a dinner of steak, a small potato with butter, and broccoli (546 calories), then I will out of the same calories of a molten chocolate cake at Chili's (1,160 calories). Paying attention to the nutritional value of what I eat, plus getting more volume/denseness for my calories (like lots of veggies) tends to lend itself to lower carbs, though I'm not doing a LOW carb diet.
I'm not sure anyone in the real world is seriously considering if they want to swap steak, potato, and broccoli for double the calories in chocolate cake. I mean, maybe once in a blue moon someone might do that (and so it wouldn't have much of an impact nutritionally). But regularly and consistently?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »successgal1 wrote: »Based on my experience, I try to get the most nutrition out of my calorie limitation. I will get more nutrition to support my health out of a dinner of steak, a small potato with butter, and broccoli (546 calories), then I will out of the same calories of a molten chocolate cake at Chili's (1,160 calories). Paying attention to the nutritional value of what I eat, plus getting more volume/denseness for my calories (like lots of veggies) tends to lend itself to lower carbs, though I'm not doing a LOW carb diet.
I'm not sure anyone in the real world is seriously considering if they want to swap steak, potato, and broccoli for double the calories in chocolate cake. I mean, maybe once in a blue moon someone might do that (and so it wouldn't have much of an impact nutritionally). But regularly and consistently?
...and in reality there is a large portion of the population having the steak, potato, broccoli AND the chocolate cake and not giving it a second thought.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »successgal1 wrote: »Based on my experience, I try to get the most nutrition out of my calorie limitation. I will get more nutrition to support my health out of a dinner of steak, a small potato with butter, and broccoli (546 calories), then I will out of the same calories of a molten chocolate cake at Chili's (1,160 calories). Paying attention to the nutritional value of what I eat, plus getting more volume/denseness for my calories (like lots of veggies) tends to lend itself to lower carbs, though I'm not doing a LOW carb diet.
I'm not sure anyone in the real world is seriously considering if they want to swap steak, potato, and broccoli for double the calories in chocolate cake. I mean, maybe once in a blue moon someone might do that (and so it wouldn't have much of an impact nutritionally). But regularly and consistently?
...and in reality there is a large portion of the population having the steak, potato, broccoli AND the chocolate cake and not giving it a second thought.
Sure, which is why counting calories is a good tool (at least for some) to raise awareness of the impact our choices of food and portion size can have on us.3 -
successgal1 wrote: »Based on my experience, I try to get the most nutrition out of my calorie limitation. I will get more nutrition to support my health out of a dinner of steak, a small potato with butter, and broccoli (546 calories), then I will out of the same calories of a molten chocolate cake at Chili's (1,160 calories). Paying attention to the nutritional value of what I eat, plus getting more volume/denseness for my calories (like lots of veggies) tends to lend itself to lower carbs, though I'm not doing a LOW carb diet.
It's not either/ or. That is a false dilemma. You can have both in an appropriate context and dose.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »successgal1 wrote: »Based on my experience, I try to get the most nutrition out of my calorie limitation. I will get more nutrition to support my health out of a dinner of steak, a small potato with butter, and broccoli (546 calories), then I will out of the same calories of a molten chocolate cake at Chili's (1,160 calories). Paying attention to the nutritional value of what I eat, plus getting more volume/denseness for my calories (like lots of veggies) tends to lend itself to lower carbs, though I'm not doing a LOW carb diet.
I'm not sure anyone in the real world is seriously considering if they want to swap steak, potato, and broccoli for double the calories in chocolate cake. I mean, maybe once in a blue moon someone might do that (and so it wouldn't have much of an impact nutritionally). But regularly and consistently?
...and in reality there is a large portion of the population having the steak, potato, broccoli AND the chocolate cake and not giving it a second thought.
Sure, which is why counting calories is a good tool (at least for some) to raise awareness of the impact our choices of food and portion size can have on us.
100% agree...which is why these either/or comparisons are so silly. Knowledge of the energy component of food is a game changer.3 -
stargazerscribe wrote: »Calories is top most important, but you have to make sure you balance your carb/fat/protein intake. Healthy carbs from veggies are fine, but I would avoid the heavy stuff like bread and potatoes.
From what I've learned, your body uses carbs ingested as an immediate fuel source. So, when you eat carbs, instead of using stored fat for energy, it grabs the carbs. So, you're not necessarily gaining weight, but losing it is going to prove more difficult. Plus. Carbs for some reason give your body the cure to hold on harder to water weight. It's a balance
It's fine to eat a similar amount of starchy carbohydrates each day, as they produce a slower rise in blood glucose levels. It's more likely the portion sizes of starchy carbs that people get wrong and overconsume, which then leads to the myth that starchy carbs are 'heavy' or unhealthy.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions