Does it REALLY matter where calories come from?

No, it can't. To "negate the deficit," sugar would have to have some kind of magical power to produce energy beyond it's caloric value.

Apparently you have never heard of the glycemic index?????

You can lose weight eating just junk food, but the body burns healthy food twice as quickly...

Sheesh, this thread got heated.

Look, its all about moderation, I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that. Seems like this thread has turned into an argument about sugar/carbs... Some people saying sugar should be kept at a minimum, others calling that blasphemous and yelling about how they eat ice cream or cookies every day and are still losing weight. YOU'RE BOTH EFFING RIGHT. Come on, people.

I personally keep my daily net carbs at about 20% or less of my calories. Some people would POUNCE on me in this thread for "preaching low carb". For me, that equates to 70 net carbs a day. And if I happen to want a cookie that has 35g carbs in it, then I'll budget that! If its a celebration, or a special day, or hell, its a weekend getaway and I want a friggin margarita, then so what! I still live my life, and I don't think anyone on here has said that you shouldn't. But IN GENERAL, yes, its smart to watch and be conscious of your sugars and starches and overall carbohydrate consumption.

Ok, you can all come out of time-out now.

And, everyone is different....that's why I dont understand the whole debate. What might work some wont work for all.

No, it can't. To "negate the deficit," sugar would have to have some kind of magical power to produce energy beyond it's caloric value.

Apparently you have never heard of the glycemic index?????

Correct me if I'm wrong but glycemic index refers only to how rapidly the carbohydrate breaks down and releases glucose into the bloodstream (rapidly released simple carbohydrates have a high GI) hence the concept of a sugar crash if you eat nothing but donuts for breakfast. It has nothing to do with the overall caloric value of a particular food.

When we eat, our body converts digestible carbohydrates into blood sugar (glucose), our main source of energy. Our blood sugar level can affect how hungry and how energetic we feel, both important factors when we are watching how we eat and exercise. It also determines whether we burn fat or store it.

Our pancreas creates a hormone called insulin that transports blood sugar into our body's cells where it is used for energy. When we eat refined grains that have had most of their fiber stripped away, sugar, or other carbohydrate-rich foods that are quickly processed into blood sugar, the pancreas goes into overtime to produce the insulin necessary for all this blood sugar to be used for energy. This insulin surge tells our body that plenty of energy is readily available and that it should stop burning fat and start storing it.

However, the greater concern with the insulin surge is not that it tells our body to start storing fat. Whatever we eat and don't burn up eventually gets turned into fat anyway.

The greater concern is that the insulin surge causes too much blood sugar to be transported out of our blood and this results in our blood sugar and insulin levels dropping below normal. This leaves us feeling tired and hungry and wanting to eat more. The unfortunate result of this scenario is that it makes us want to eat something else with a high sugar content. When we do, we start the cycle all over again.

SOURCE OF CALORIES MATTERS.

The end.

No, it can't. To "negate the deficit," sugar would have to have some kind of magical power to produce energy beyond it's caloric value.

Apparently you have never heard of the glycemic index?????

Correct me if I'm wrong but glycemic index refers only to how rapidly the carbohydrate breaks down and releases glucose into the bloodstream (rapidly released simple carbohydrates have a high GI) hence the concept of a sugar crash if you eat nothing but donuts for breakfast. It has nothing to do with the overall caloric value of a particular food.

When we eat, our body converts digestible carbohydrates into blood sugar (glucose), our main source of energy. Our blood sugar level can affect how hungry and how energetic we feel, both important factors when we are watching how we eat and exercise. It also determines whether we burn fat or store it.

Our pancreas creates a hormone called insulin that transports blood sugar into our body's cells where it is used for energy. When we eat refined grains that have had most of their fiber stripped away, sugar, or other carbohydrate-rich foods that are quickly processed into blood sugar, the pancreas goes into overtime to produce the insulin necessary for all this blood sugar to be used for energy. This insulin surge tells our body that plenty of energy is readily available and that it should stop burning fat and start storing it.

However, the greater concern with the insulin surge is not that it tells our body to start storing fat. Whatever we eat and don't burn up eventually gets turned into fat anyway.

The greater concern is that the insulin surge causes too much blood sugar to be transported out of our blood and this results in our blood sugar and insulin levels dropping below normal. This leaves us feeling tired and hungry and wanting to eat more. The unfortunate result of this scenario is that it makes us want to eat something else with a high sugar content. When we do, we start the cycle all over again.

SOURCE OF CALORIES MATTERS.

The end.

Well said. To some of the experts out there, hunger doesn't matter because we all have (or should have) enough willpower to eat whatever we want (in moderation of course), and we will keep our caloric deficits going.

No, it can't. To "negate the deficit," sugar would have to have some kind of magical power to produce energy beyond it's caloric value.

Apparently you have never heard of the glycemic index?????

Correct me if I'm wrong but glycemic index refers only to how rapidly the carbohydrate breaks down and releases glucose into the bloodstream (rapidly released simple carbohydrates have a high GI) hence the concept of a sugar crash if you eat nothing but donuts for breakfast. It has nothing to do with the overall caloric value of a particular food.

When we eat, our body converts digestible carbohydrates into blood sugar (glucose), our main source of energy. Our blood sugar level can affect how hungry and how energetic we feel, both important factors when we are watching how we eat and exercise. It also determines whether we burn fat or store it.

Our pancreas creates a hormone called insulin that transports blood sugar into our body's cells where it is used for energy. When we eat refined grains that have had most of their fiber stripped away, sugar, or other carbohydrate-rich foods that are quickly processed into blood sugar, the pancreas goes into overtime to produce the insulin necessary for all this blood sugar to be used for energy. This insulin surge tells our body that plenty of energy is readily available and that it should stop burning fat and start storing it.

However, the greater concern with the insulin surge is not that it tells our body to start storing fat. Whatever we eat and don't burn up eventually gets turned into fat anyway.

The greater concern is that the insulin surge causes too much blood sugar to be transported out of our blood and this results in our blood sugar and insulin levels dropping below normal. This leaves us feeling tired and hungry and wanting to eat more. The unfortunate result of this scenario is that it makes us want to eat something else with a high sugar content. When we do, we start the cycle all over again.

SOURCE OF CALORIES MATTERS.

The end.

Here's the thing, this only matters if you ONLY eat quick carbs. Nobody eats only one macro at a time, and as soon as you mix protein and/or fat to quick digesting carbs, it completely changes the way that insulin and blood glucose are affected. So really, in day to day life, it really doesn't have any impact. You aren't going to find people eating bowls of table sugar very often, and life isn't lived in a scientifically controlled laboratory, where one specific macro type can be isolated and fed.

Eat a slice of white bread, and yes, that can go through you, and potentially cause you to crave carbs, because it's relatively quick (although still not that quick, refined or not, it's still a more complex oligosaccharide) carb it could make you crave more. However, put some butter on it, or some peanut butter, or some turkey breast, and you've now completely changed the glycemic impact of that lowly piece of white bread, your blood sugar doesn't spike, and you don't get blood sugar crashes.

Also, if you're paying attention to calories, then why would it matter, anyway? If you eat x number of calories a day, then even if you crave more sugar, you don't eat it. I crave lots of different foods, bacon mostly, doesn't mean I eat it by the pound every day, because it doesn't fit into my caloric needs. So no, it really doesn't matter where the calories come from.

as long as you're under your calorie goal and you'll lose weight. that's simply not true.

Sheesh, this thread got heated.

Look, its all about moderation, I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that. Seems like this thread has turned into an argument about sugar/carbs... Some people saying sugar should be kept at a minimum, others calling that blasphemous and yelling about how they eat ice cream or cookies every day and are still losing weight. YOU'RE BOTH EFFING RIGHT. Come on, people.

I personally keep my daily net carbs at about 20% or less of my calories. Some people would POUNCE on me in this thread for "preaching low carb". For me, that equates to 70 net carbs a day. And if I happen to want a cookie that has 35g carbs in it, then I'll budget that! If its a celebration, or a special day, or hell, its a weekend getaway and I want a friggin margarita, then so what! I still live my life, and I don't think anyone on here has said that you shouldn't. But IN GENERAL, yes, its smart to watch and be conscious of your sugars and starches and overall carbohydrate consumption.

Ok, you can all come out of time-out now.

And, everyone is different....that's why I dont understand the whole debate. What might work some wont work for all.

What I explained will work for everyone. What you seem to be advocating (quality and source of calories not being of any significance), will not work for everyone, and is not recommended by any standards.

You forget that some ppl cant eat certain things. I for one am sensitive to lactose, wheat, gluten, pineapple, and deathly allergic to shell fish because of the iodine, which mind you is in a lot of other things. I'm also allergic to red dye #4....so now you tell me that your theory works for everyone.

No, it can't. To "negate the deficit," sugar would have to have some kind of magical power to produce energy beyond it's caloric value.

Apparently you have never heard of the glycemic index?????

Correct me if I'm wrong but glycemic index refers only to how rapidly the carbohydrate breaks down and releases glucose into the bloodstream (rapidly released simple carbohydrates have a high GI) hence the concept of a sugar crash if you eat nothing but donuts for breakfast. It has nothing to do with the overall caloric value of a particular food.

When we eat, our body converts digestible carbohydrates into blood sugar (glucose), our main source of energy. Our blood sugar level can affect how hungry and how energetic we feel, both important factors when we are watching how we eat and exercise. It also determines whether we burn fat or store it.

Our pancreas creates a hormone called insulin that transports blood sugar into our body's cells where it is used for energy. When we eat refined grains that have had most of their fiber stripped away, sugar, or other carbohydrate-rich foods that are quickly processed into blood sugar, the pancreas goes into overtime to produce the insulin necessary for all this blood sugar to be used for energy. This insulin surge tells our body that plenty of energy is readily available and that it should stop burning fat and start storing it.

However, the greater concern with the insulin surge is not that it tells our body to start storing fat. Whatever we eat and don't burn up eventually gets turned into fat anyway.

The greater concern is that the insulin surge causes too much blood sugar to be transported out of our blood and this results in our blood sugar and insulin levels dropping below normal. This leaves us feeling tired and hungry and wanting to eat more. The unfortunate result of this scenario is that it makes us want to eat something else with a high sugar content. When we do, we start the cycle all over again.

SOURCE OF CALORIES MATTERS.

The end.

Here's the thing, this only matters if you ONLY eat quick carbs. Nobody eats only one macro at a time, and as soon as you mix protein and/or fat to quick digesting carbs, it completely changes the way that insulin and blood glucose are affected. So really, in day to day life, it really doesn't have any impact. You aren't going to find people eating bowls of table sugar very often, and life isn't lived in a scientifically controlled laboratory, where one specific macro type can be isolated and fed.

Eat a slice of white bread, and yes, that can go through you, and potentially cause you to crave carbs, because it's relatively quick (although still not that quick, refined or not, it's still a more complex oligosaccharide) carb it could make you crave more. However, put some butter on it, or some peanut butter, or some turkey breast, and you've now completely changed the glycemic impact of that lowly piece of white bread, your blood sugar doesn't spike, and you don't get blood sugar crashes.

Also, if you're paying attention to calories, then why would it matter, anyway? If you eat x number of calories a day, then even if you crave more sugar, you don't eat it. I crave lots of different foods, bacon mostly, doesn't mean I eat it by the pound every day, because it doesn't fit into my caloric needs. So no, it really doesn't matter where the calories come from.

"However, put some butter on it, or some peanut butter, or some turkey breast, and you've now completely changed the glycemic impact of that lowly piece of white bread."

You are correct. Mixed meals do improve the total glycemic index of the meal.


I appreciate your response, but here is where I find argument:

"Nobody eats only one macro at a time"
What do you think a granola bar is? Or spaghetti and marinara? Or a fruit and frozen yogurt smoothie? Pure carbs. No balance. Hello carb crash! So many people don't realize this.

"Also, if you're paying attention to calories, then why would it matter, anyway? "

Because blood sugar is a huge player in successful, steady fat loss. This applies to everyone.

A deficit in calories is a deficit but... how your body uses those calories; burn vs store does have to do with sugar. If your insulin levels are off your body can actually hold onto fat. Similar to the principal of eating too few calories.

I would limit my sugars with the exception of fruit. With fruit you still have to be careful but at least you are eating nutritious foods and not processed.

Umm, yes it does matter. Not all calories are the same. If you want to lose weight you will need to ease off the sugar. And remember sometimes you might not see a drop on the scale right away, it does take time. But again if you are eating bad foods then you will not see any progress.

How was it that I ate ice cream and still lost weight?

You can have a cheat meal and still lose weight. You can't eat ice cream all day everyday and expect to lose weight.

I ate cookies EVERY single day and lost nearly 60lbs.

I still eat cookies EVERY single day and I've been maintaining that loss for the last 18 months.


Eating a serving size of ice cream every day isn't going to make you fat. Calories in/Calories out. Sheesh.

Actually it's not. And how many calories are consuming daily?