Carbs are carbs...or are they?
WombatHat42
Posts: 192 Member
So I was discussing macros, with regards to weight loss, with a friend the other day and my friend was adamant that it didn't matter what your carb source was, you'd still lose weight equally as long as you were hitting the goal/recommended macros for carbs deficit.
My friends point was if your goal was 56g of carbs per meal for 4 meals(224g total daily) you could have a bottle of dr pepper(56g carbs per 16 oz *this may not be accurate but lets say it is for the argument*) and still lose the same amount of weight if the exact same person(all other variables exercise weight muscle mass proteins fats etc were the same) were to consume brown rice or white rice as their carb source for those same 4 meals.
My argument was that rice will take energy to breakdown and convert to sugar then be converted and stored as fat where as sugar is already broken down so it doesn't take as long or use as much energy to convert. Plus you will theoretically get hungrier faster because of this. You also will get a much higher insulin spike with sugar than rice which can affect weight lose by preventing the use of fat stores while in a caloric/carb deficit. You also have proteins affecting carbs in that they bind so that protein can be properly utilized and help level to have a more level insulin curve vs sugar being a higher spike and crash rather than being more homeostatic.
However, my friend says that as long as your carbs aren't in excess of your energy needs it will be used as energy and not stored.
I feel like this doesn't need to be said but I will say it anyways, neither of us are nutritionists, this is all gathered from stuff we have read so we could both be completely wrong. What is your take?
My friends point was if your goal was 56g of carbs per meal for 4 meals(224g total daily) you could have a bottle of dr pepper(56g carbs per 16 oz *this may not be accurate but lets say it is for the argument*) and still lose the same amount of weight if the exact same person(all other variables exercise weight muscle mass proteins fats etc were the same) were to consume brown rice or white rice as their carb source for those same 4 meals.
My argument was that rice will take energy to breakdown and convert to sugar then be converted and stored as fat where as sugar is already broken down so it doesn't take as long or use as much energy to convert. Plus you will theoretically get hungrier faster because of this. You also will get a much higher insulin spike with sugar than rice which can affect weight lose by preventing the use of fat stores while in a caloric/carb deficit. You also have proteins affecting carbs in that they bind so that protein can be properly utilized and help level to have a more level insulin curve vs sugar being a higher spike and crash rather than being more homeostatic.
However, my friend says that as long as your carbs aren't in excess of your energy needs it will be used as energy and not stored.
I feel like this doesn't need to be said but I will say it anyways, neither of us are nutritionists, this is all gathered from stuff we have read so we could both be completely wrong. What is your take?
0
Replies
-
If you aren't consuming energy in excess of your needs, how are you storing energy -- from either rice or Dr Pepper -- as fat?
If you're consuming a set number of calories, whether or not someone is more satisfied by Dr Pepper or rice is irrelevant (although theoretically relevant to long term sustainability).
Furthermore, is there anyone who is eating just rice or Dr Pepper for carbohydrates? Or eating just one of those with nothing else? In the real world, someone is having some chicken and Dr Pepper or some tofu and rice or one of thousands of different possible meal combinations that are providing protein and fat in addition to carbohydrates.13 -
Your friend is right. You are wrong.
You cannot gain weight in a calorie deficit even if you eat nothing but table sugar. Of course nutritionally you would be in trouble but that is a different issue.
Fat is excess energy stored on your body. To use it you need to create an energy shortage. When you do your body has no choice but to use stored energy to fill the requirement. To do otherwise would result in death.
There is TEF which is the thermic effect of food. Some foods do require more energy to break down but the differences are not enough to gear your eating one way or another. That is what we call majoring in the minors.
17 -
janejellyroll wrote: »If you aren't consuming energy in excess of your needs, how are you storing energy -- from either rice or Dr Pepper -- as fat?
If you're consuming a set number of calories, whether or not someone is more satisfied by Dr Pepper or rice is irrelevant (although theoretically relevant to long term sustainability).
Furthermore, is there anyone who is eating just rice or Dr Pepper for carbohydrates? Or eating just one of those with nothing else? In the real world, someone is having some chicken and Dr Pepper or some tofu and rice or one of thousands of different possible meal combinations that are providing protein and fat in addition to carbohydrates.
Did you miss the part where i said all other things are assumed equal including protein or the part where i said the protein you consume? This is purely talking about carbs. And yes no one is eating just one of these things that is a given or at least I thought it was. But why, in an example would I need to define all possible options of carbs they could consume or need to state that they are eating x protein and y fat?janejellyroll wrote: »If you aren't consuming energy in excess of your needs, how are you storing energy -- from either rice or Dr Pepper -- as fat?
If you're consuming a set number of calories, whether or not someone is more satisfied by Dr Pepper or rice is irrelevant (although theoretically relevant to long term sustainability).
Furthermore, is there anyone who is eating just rice or Dr Pepper for carbohydrates? Or eating just one of those with nothing else? In the real world, someone is having some chicken and Dr Pepper or some tofu and rice or one of thousands of different possible meal combinations that are providing protein and fat in addition to carbohydrates.
This is probably just poor phrasing on my part. But I never said it is being stored in a deficit. That was 2 points(again bad phrasing i guess on my part)
0 -
Your friend is right. You are wrong.
You cannot gain weight in a calorie deficit even if you eat nothing but table sugar. Of course nutritionally you would be in trouble but that is a different issue.
Fat is excess energy stored on your body. To use it you need to create an energy shortage. When you do your body has no choice but to use stored energy to fill the requirement. To do otherwise would result in death.
There is TEF which is the thermic effect of food. Some foods do require more energy to break down but the differences are not enough to gear your eating one way or another. That is what we call majoring in the minors.
I never said anything about gaining weight. The argument was about the efficiency at which weight will be lost. I poorly phrased some of this i guess, but I wasn't saying that in a deficit anything is stored.
So I guess the simple way of putting this, who is going to lose more weight or lose more effectively, someone who eats rice or someone who eats sugar? The person eating rice. Yes the TEF is minimal but eating pure simple sugar vs a more complex sugar has a much greater affect on insulin production/release which can hinder the use of stored body fat0 -
WombatHat42 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »If you aren't consuming energy in excess of your needs, how are you storing energy -- from either rice or Dr Pepper -- as fat?
If you're consuming a set number of calories, whether or not someone is more satisfied by Dr Pepper or rice is irrelevant (although theoretically relevant to long term sustainability).
Furthermore, is there anyone who is eating just rice or Dr Pepper for carbohydrates? Or eating just one of those with nothing else? In the real world, someone is having some chicken and Dr Pepper or some tofu and rice or one of thousands of different possible meal combinations that are providing protein and fat in addition to carbohydrates.
Did you miss the part where i said all other things are assumed equal including protein or the part where i said the protein you consume? This is purely talking about carbs. And yes no one is eating just one of these things that is a given or at least I thought it was. But why, in an example would I need to define all possible options of carbs they could consume or need to state that they are eating x protein and y fat?janejellyroll wrote: »If you aren't consuming energy in excess of your needs, how are you storing energy -- from either rice or Dr Pepper -- as fat?
If you're consuming a set number of calories, whether or not someone is more satisfied by Dr Pepper or rice is irrelevant (although theoretically relevant to long term sustainability).
Furthermore, is there anyone who is eating just rice or Dr Pepper for carbohydrates? Or eating just one of those with nothing else? In the real world, someone is having some chicken and Dr Pepper or some tofu and rice or one of thousands of different possible meal combinations that are providing protein and fat in addition to carbohydrates.
This is probably just poor phrasing on my part. But I never said it is being stored in a deficit. That was 2 points(again bad phrasing i guess on my part)
The reason it's relevant is that most of us are eating a variety of carbohydrate-containing foods, including grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and table sugar. We're eating these in the context of meals with varying amounts of protein and fat. To just sweep all this aside and say "Assume it's all the same" doesn't make sense if you're arguing that a specific instance of choosing Dr Pepper over rice is going to have a relevant impact on someone's weight.
You wrote this: "My argument was that rice will take energy to breakdown and convert to sugar then be converted and stored as fat where as sugar is already broken down so it doesn't take as long or use as much energy to convert." This is an argument that fat is being stored. The truth is that this will not happen with rice OR Dr Pepper in the context of a calorie deficit. It also will not happen in the context of a calorie balance. It WILL happen if one is consuming more energy than one is using, but in that situation it is going to happen no matter what kind of carboydrates (or protein or fat) you're eating.
Your friend is right. You are wrong. If I'm in a calorie deficit, it's irrelevant to my progress whether I decide to have a Dr Pepper with my lunch and skip the rice or even choose to have both. It MAY be relevant to my overall satiety, which can impact how easy it is for me to stay in a deficit, but even then I wouldn't take it for granted that a reasonable amount of soda is going to make everyone's progress more challenging. There are plenty of people who include reasonable amounts of foods like soda or candy while losing weight and still don't struggle with staying on plan as a result.
8 -
The reason it's relevant is that most of us are eating a variety of carbohydrate-containing foods, including grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and table sugar. We're eating these in the context of meals with varying amounts of protein and fat. To just sweep all this aside and say "Assume it's all the same" doesn't make sense if you're arguing that a specific instance of choosing Dr Pepper over rice is going to have a relevant impact on someone's weight.
It isnt relevant though. I am using a simple example of a simple sugar vs a more complex carb as your only food source. what that source is is irrelevant. Whether you are taking in other carbs is irrelevant since i said your carb source is being met. I never said all is the same. I said all variables are equal. Meaning Person A and their routine and diet are 100% identical to person B.
0 -
WombatHat42 wrote: »
It isnt relevant though. I am using a simple example of a simple sugar vs a more complex carb as your only food source. what that source is is irrelevant. Whether you are taking in other carbs is irrelevant since i said your carb source is being met. I never said all is the same. I said all variables are equal. Meaning Person A and their routine and diet are 100% identical to person B.
So we're talking about a purely theoretical argument with no relation to how people actually eat?
Person A and person B are the same weight and their body composition is exactly the same. They get the exact same amount of calories from protein and fat and their energy usage is exactly the same. As a result, their calorie deficit Person A receives all their carbohydrates exclusively from Dr Pepper and person B receives all their carbohydrates exclusively from rice (and we're also accounting for the protein and fat in the rice). They are both in a calorie deficit. Your argument is that Person A will lose less weight because . . . the calories in the Dr Pepper take less energy to consume?
How much less weight do you predict that they'll lose in this situation? The argument seems to be that Dr Pepper will somehow prevent your body from using fat from energy even in the context of a calorie deficit - that's the specific claim that I think requires some evidence to support it.
12 -
WombatHat42 wrote: »Your friend is right. You are wrong.
You cannot gain weight in a calorie deficit even if you eat nothing but table sugar. Of course nutritionally you would be in trouble but that is a different issue.
Fat is excess energy stored on your body. To use it you need to create an energy shortage. When you do your body has no choice but to use stored energy to fill the requirement. To do otherwise would result in death.
There is TEF which is the thermic effect of food. Some foods do require more energy to break down but the differences are not enough to gear your eating one way or another. That is what we call majoring in the minors.
I never said anything about gaining weight. The argument was about the efficiency at which weight will be lost. I poorly phrased some of this i guess, but I wasn't saying that in a deficit anything is stored.
So I guess the simple way of putting this, who is going to lose more weight or lose more effectively, someone who eats rice or someone who eats sugar? The person eating rice. Yes the TEF is minimal but eating pure simple sugar vs a more complex sugar has a much greater affect on insulin production/release which can hinder the use of stored body fat
There is nothing that can hinder the use of stored body fat in a deficit. NOTHING, except death.
All of the nonsense about insulin is taken out of context. It is true that when your blood sugar is high you are not burning fat at that exact moment. Who cares? You are losing a fraction of a pound per day. Why would it possibly matter when the body decides to pull from reserves to make up for the overall deficit?
It is the same thing when people talk about being fasted and doing "fat burning" exercises. There is no reason to try and force your fat loss into certain windows of time. Just trust the process.9 -
The difference in amount of energy needed digest food is too small to be meaningful in the real world.6
-
IMO you are majoring in the minors...10
-
If person A ate all of their calories in rice and person B are all of their calories in Dr Pepper and they weighed exactly the same and everything else EXCEPT for rice vs Dr Pepper was IDENTICAL, they would lose at the same rate.
You are arguing over insignificant minutiae. Eat what you want, when you want, but do so in a deficit and you will lose weight. Certain food choices are of course healthier. As novusdies said above about table sugar, you CAN lose weight consuming nothing but sugar, will it be sustainable? Probably not and I suspect you’d feel pretty crappy.
I worry about fat and protein and let my carbs fall where they will. I love my carbs, so I don’t have to worry about “working them in” except in the sense of can I fit these cookies/cake/ice cream into my daily calorie goal???
6 -
No, carbs are not carbs. Fiber in particular is not the same as starch or sugar, and foods that contain sugar and fiber or starches and fiber (or even some complex carbs without much fiber, like potatoes) get broken down more slowly than refined starches and sugar (i.e., white bread/rice on its own, soda).
Also, of course, foods that are high in carbs vary dramatically in their micronutrient content. Vegetables and fruit are high in micros, potatoes, beans, and whole grains have a variety of micros and the latter two have a good amount of fiber. Sugar on its own (i.e., something like pop) has few if any micros.
However, for weight loss, calories are what matters, if you do in fact eat a diet with sufficient micros for health/energy and hold calories steady. The TEF of white rice (and even brown rice) is pretty low (other differences in the diets would likely have more effect on TEF, and TEF is unlikely to outweigh even basic logging mistakes/estimates). Therefore, the difference between a diet including about 1800 cals, 200 carbs, 120 g protein, and the rest fat (just hypothetically), that are identical except one has 200 cals (50 g sugar) of soda a day vs. one with 200 cals (50 g carbs, mostly starch) of white rice (or even brown rice, again), is likely to be non-existent or so small that it's not measurable outside of some short-term highly regulated experiment.
Now for some, might one diet be more filling than the other? I guess (I prefer diet soda anyway, but even if I didn't I wouldn't be willing to use 200 cals on soda), but I suspect that other aspects of the diet are going to be far, far more important, and if one doesn't care for rice and considers soda a treat worth fitting in, I see no big difference. (Rice isn't especially filling to me personally.)
The premise of the question seems to assume that the number of grams of carbs or the "carb deficit" matters for weight loss, and that's not true either. Someone eating 1600 cals with 200 g carbs will lose more than that same person would eating 2000 cals with 200 g carbs (although other factors will determine the correct calorie goal). Similarly, that person would lose about the same eating 1800 cals with 250 g carbs or 1800 cals with 100 g carbs, all else about equal.6 -
That Dr Pepper has caffeine, too. Are we accounting for the effect the caffeine is having on metabolic rate? How much Dr Pepper? How much rice?
11 -
A calorie deficit is how you lose weight. Your body doesn’t differentiate where the calories come from.
Getting proper nutrition from the calories you consume is another matter and should be considered for optimum health.6 -
In the context of one's overall diet, the TEF of a particular food isn't particularly important...it's majorly majoring in the minors.6
-
I accept that, all other things being equal, Person A might lose weight at a faster rate eating rice than the Person B drinking same amount of calories in Dr Pepper. Due to energy required to eat and digest rice vs Dr Pepper.
I dont know what the rate difference would be - if I were a betting person, I would lay my bet in the range or 0.1 to 0.2 pounds per year.
In short, like others have said, majorly irelevant in real life.9 -
paperpudding wrote: »I accept that, all other things being equal, Person A might lose weight at a faster rate eating rice than the Person B drinking same amount of calories in Dr Pepper. Due to energy required to eat and digest rice vs Dr Pepper.
I dont know what the rate difference would be - if I were a betting person, I would lay my bet in the range or 0.1 to 0.2 pounds per year.
In short, like others have said, majorly irelevant in real life.
This is the train of thought I was having. If both people have all other variables exactly the same, but person A's carbs are all rice and person B's carbs are all Dr. Pepper, person A maybe would lose a very small amount more. But the difference in the amount of energy is super small compared to all the other variables that go into weight loss.
If you want to convince someone to eat more fiber, the health benefits are far more dramatic and convincing than it's TEF. Even for weight loss, I'd say fibers affect on satiety is far more compelling than TEF.5 -
Unrealistic arguments tend to be pretty pointless but just some observations....
"My argument was that rice will take energy to breakdown and convert to sugar then be converted and stored as fat where as sugar is already broken down so it doesn't take as long or use as much energy to convert."
Carbs are very rarely stored as fat in humans to any significant degree. Normally that would be during huge carb and calorie over-feeding (like a glucose IV drip). Dietary fat is stored as body fat preferentially (whether temporarily or a net gain over time in a surplus) as there's no inefficient conversion process.
"Plus you will theoretically get hungrier faster because of this. "
Very individual. I dislike sweetened drinks and Dr Pepper in particular but love starchy carbs including rice.
"You also will get a much higher insulin spike with sugar than rice which can affect weight lose by preventing the use of fat stores while in a caloric/carb deficit. "
Insulin is supposed to rise when carbs are ingested, that's what happens in healthy people. Why would it matter to a healthy individual if that rise was slightly higher but shorter duration than the rice eater with a longer duration but lower peak?
What is the significance over an extended period of time?
How does using more carbs for energy for a small duration of time actually affect someone's energy balance?
It's the long term balance that determines using your fat reserves to make up the shortfall not what happens in a post eating time slot.
Your friend is also slightly wrong with his "as long as your carbs aren't in excess of your energy needs it will be used as energy and not stored".
An average sized man can store roughly 2,000 cals of carbs (glycogen in liver and muscles primarily) and your body will top up those reserves when it can. Very few of us are at maximum storage without delberate carb loading such as endurance athletes do before an event.
10 -
@sijomial Would you please explain alcohol and how it affects the use of fat stores.1
-
@Diatonic12Diatonic12 wrote: »@sijomial Would you please explain alcohol and how it affects the use of fat stores.
Alcohol (the so called 4th macro...) can't be stored so must be metabolised as soon as possible so yes it does interfere with the normal use of carbs and fat.
Have a search for the write up by Martin Berkhan regarding alcohol - best info I've personally read.3 -
WombatHat42 wrote: »... Plus you will theoretically get hungrier faster because of this...
I feel like this is the only part that is relevant.
If person A and B are in a lab or otherwise have no other access to food rice vs Dr Pepper is not really relevant to weight loss. (I will acknowledge the insignificant differences people noted above.)
I personally find rice filling and soda not at all so would find having a calorie deficit impossible with the Dr Pepper option.0 -
i found a study that said a carb is not nec just a carb "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308431/"
1 -
i found a study that said a carb is not nec just a carb "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308431/"
A carb IS still a carb that study doesn’t argue that. It argues the difference between low and high GI foods. High GI foods break down faster (and cause faster insulin spikes) while low GI take longer to break down. A food that takes longer to break down will keep you feeling full longer, hence low GI better for weight loss not because they are a “special” carb but because you don’t get hungry as fast.
All that said, a carb IS just a carb. Just like with any other macro, certain food choices will help you feel more satiated.8 -
i found a study that said a carb is not nec just a carb "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308431/"
You can find information/studies on the internet that, will back up any belief. Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily fact, or fallacy.4 -
Until people accept that it is an excess of calories that makes one overweight they will continue to struggle. Debating this nonsense is majoring in the minors.
It makes for interesting conversation (sometimes) but that is about it...11 -
i found a study that said a carb is not nec just a carb "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308431/"
I agree with what the 3 posts after yours say, but given this is discussing GI (high GI loses less in the study than low GI), it is worth noting that GI of a diet is different than GI of a specific food, especially if that food is eaten in combination with other foods. I also suspect the results are more about appetite control/compliance, which is different from what OP seemed to be saying (that the results would be different despite cals being equal).
That said, GI is not always what people expect. Re the foods discussed by OP:
white rice: GI=73
brown rice: GI=68
soda: GI=59
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods6 -
missysippy930 wrote: »i found a study that said a carb is not nec just a carb "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18308431/"
You can find information/studies on the internet that, will back up any belief. Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily fact, or fallacy.
Well that is true - but pubmed is generally good source.
Seems there is nothing wrong with the study - but it doesnt say what OP said.
4 -
First- I'm not posting for debate. I just felt compelled to share my experience. After reading much and watching documentaries over the years I would tend to agree with you- quality of carbs matters in weight loss for a few obvious reasons.
If your body is getting nutrient dense calories- in the right ratios- then your body will run more efficiently. It will run more clean. Your cells will give up the excess unnecessary fat the healthier it runs. If your cells are registering a nutrient deficit, it will send more craving and unsatisfied signals to the brain.
I can't stress enough that from my own experience over decades of various methods- from Weight Watchers to juicing greens to low carb to Trim Healthy Momma- when I have included better quality carbs (and other foods) weight came off much easier and food decisions were easier- temptations practically nill. This is just my experience- but 2000 empty calories and 2000 quality calories will definitely come out differently on the scale.
It's been studied already and you can go find the research. It's old "science" to say it's all number of calories. Metabolism is affected by many factors, and food quality is likely one of them. So a 100 cal sugar drink compared to a 100 cal quality whole grain carb is going to process differently chemically and possibly emotionally.1 -
But nobody is arguing that different carb foods would have different impact on temptation or " food decisions" or that different carb foods have different nutritional value.
That wasn't the question at all.10 -
classicalcorrados5 wrote: »First- I'm not posting for debate. I just felt compelled to share my experience. After reading much and watching documentaries over the years I would tend to agree with you- quality of carbs matters in weight loss for a few obvious reasons.
If your body is getting nutrient dense calories- in the right ratios- then your body will run more efficiently. It will run more clean. Your cells will give up the excess unnecessary fat the healthier it runs. If your cells are registering a nutrient deficit, it will send more craving and unsatisfied signals to the brain.
I can't stress enough that from my own experience over decades of various methods- from Weight Watchers to juicing greens to low carb to Trim Healthy Momma- when I have included better quality carbs (and other foods) weight came off much easier and food decisions were easier- temptations practically nill. This is just my experience- but 2000 empty calories and 2000 quality calories will definitely come out differently on the scale.
It's been studied already and you can go find the research. It's old "science" to say it's all number of calories. Metabolism is affected by many factors, and food quality is likely one of them. So a 100 cal sugar drink compared to a 100 cal quality whole grain carb is going to process differently chemically and possibly emotionally.
In my opinion, no calorie is empty.
And I lost 125ish pounds eating a whole lot of those "empty" calories.
That's what eating in a deficit gets ya.
12
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