Carbs/Weightloss??

What about portion size? A small serving of pasta served with vegetables and a home made pasta sauce then a huge bowl covered in cheese. Not to sure what you're having.

Feel free to add me everyone.

If calories in vs calories out isn't everything, do people on low carb diets still consider how many calories they've eaten?

I've been eating relatively low carb (70-80g per day) and on a calorie deficit for a few weeks, and I'm losing nicely and feel good on the low carb diet, but my hubby tells me I'm too obsessed with the calories, and that the calories don't matter ... I should just count the carbs.

Any thoughts?

Your body uses energy. It measures this energy in units called calories.

Macronutrients provide these calories, and each have a specific grams/calories conversion.

One gram carbohydrate - 4 calories
One gram protein - 4 calories
One gram fat - 9 calories

It doesn't matter what you read, what you think, what your stupid hippy friend told you; your body obeys the laws of physics. It doesn't matter if you are eating low carb, high protein, high fat; or that weird fad diet said hippy friend told you about. Your body has energy demands, and it will go about meeting those demands one way or another.

Yes, what you eat can affect your health and well being, but caloric demands are caloric demands. If you get nine calories of fat per gram from bacon, several times throughout the day, versus nine calories of fat per gram of salmon; will your cardiovascular health differ in the long run? Quite likely. If you get four calories per gram of protein from white rice versus four calories per gram of protein from quinoa is your lean body mass going to be affected in the long run? Probably.

However, in either case if the caloric inputs are the same. The energy consumed versus expended is the same. Your metabolism remains fairly constant, the only factors that really affect it are age, sex, height, weight etc. Everything else, "thermogenic" foods, extreme calorie deficits etc don't really make it budge as much as people like to think. Why do extremely fat people lose weight very fast? Because it takes much more energy to sustain that giant frame, puts more stress on the system...and obese people have been storing a very rich source of fuel on their bodies in the form of fat.

It's like if you tow a load with your car, or hell, drive the average vehicle faster than 70 mph; you start to consume more fuel.

So to circle all the way back to your question; yes of course you f*cking count calories still. This isn't witchcraft. If you eat less carbs, yes you will retain less water, your "fat" loss will progress more smoothly in a visible sense on the scale and in general fluctuations in weight a person goes through just in a day, but it all breaks down to calories in versus calories out.

So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.

So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.

Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.

Absolutely correct.

Eat the good carbs! Make sure you are eating the correct percentage of your macros. according to your age, weight etc. the protein, carbs, fat, calories....

good carbs: brown rice, sweet potatoes...

Stay away from the bleached white rice, white potatoes, pastas...

Heh, this is a sensitive topic for me....In 4 months on these boards, I have noticed a very distinct pattern.

The vast majority of men answering your question will say it's only calories in/calories out, and carbs don't matter. And that you need your carbs (this especially from men who do lifting).

Half the women who will answer your question will say it isn't just calories, you need to restrict carbs to see weightloss.

Some women (who do intensive exercise including weights) will agree with the majority of the men.

And some women will come on the boards saying "I'm eating my recommended calories and not losing weight", when their carbs are still really high. I have seen a looooooot of those.

I'm in the low-carb camp. It's the only thing that works for me. I'm also sedentary and currently don't have time to add exercise to my routine. If you exercise, I would still reduce your carbs, but not really low. If you exercise intensively, including weights, I would probably stick to the MFP recommended breakdown of your macros, following a 40% carbs/30% protein/30% fat breakdown.

Both here and on other sites I frequent where weight loss comes up, the OVERWHELMING number of women find success with (or only with) watching carbs.

I'm an exception to your rule - a woman who eat lots of carbs and doesn't do much strength training. I'm a runner and love my carbs, and I'm not planning to give them up anytime soon.

To me, low carbs do nothing more then restrict an intake of calories. It is the restriction of those calories that cause weight loss... not the carbs themselves.

So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.

Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.

Absolutely correct.

So this "water weight" that everyone talks about, let's say in the above scenario that this person will gain a couple of lbs of it. Does that mean it's sustained? For instance, I've always been a low carb fan (I totally get the low calorie simple math thing). I joined in March and of course did the whole 1200 calorie thing first for about 6 weeks (lost 4 lbs) until I realized that someone that is 5'11 and lifting heavy should probably eat more so I upped it to 1700 and have been pretty strict with it (eat back about 1/2 my exercise cals). Gained back the 4 lbs and am sitting exactly where I was the day I signed up. I do look different from the lifting but over the course of 3.5 months, more fat should've come off with the simple mathematics (I'm an accountant so I would love this if it worked for me). I decided Monday to go low carb again and see what happened. Now, if I lose "water weight" this week, that's water weight I've been sustaining since I"ve been eating at a deficit (doesn't matter WHAT based on this theory I'm eating so let's not get into that).

I don't understand why people can't accept some things work for some and some things DON'T work for some.

So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.

Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.

Absolutely correct.

So this "water weight" that everyone talks about, let's say in the above scenario that this person will gain a couple of lbs of it. Does that mean it's sustained? For instance, I've always been a low carb fan (I totally get the low calorie simple math thing). I joined in March and of course did the whole 1200 calorie thing first for about 6 weeks (lost 4 lbs) until I realized that someone that is 5'11 and lifting heavy should probably eat more so I upped it to 1700 and have been pretty strict with it (eat back about 1/2 my exercise cals). Gained back the 4 lbs and am sitting exactly where I was the day I signed up. I do look different from the lifting but over the course of 3.5 months, more fat should've come off with the simple mathematics (I'm an accountant so I would love this if it worked for me). I decided Monday to go low carb again and see what happened. Now, if I lose "water weight" this week, that's water weight I've been sustaining since I"ve been eating at a deficit (doesn't matter WHAT based on this theory I'm eating so let's not get into that).

I don't understand why people can't accept some things work for some and some things DON'T work for some.

Water weight is tied to glycogen storage, which is directly tied to carb intake. So yes, if you increase carbs and maintain them at the same level, you will gain water weight. That water weight will fluctuate based on how much glycogen your body uses doing normal functions, and how many carbs you eat to replenish what's used. Drastically cutting carbs leads to drastic glycogen loss, which leads to water loss. This is why people cut carbs, lose a bunch of weight in a week or two, and then add carbs back in and immediately gain. Then cut carbs and immediately lose again. It's just manipulation of water weight, and has no bearing on fat loss.

So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.

Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.

Absolutely correct.

So this "water weight" that everyone talks about, let's say in the above scenario that this person will gain a couple of lbs of it. Does that mean it's sustained? For instance, I've always been a low carb fan (I totally get the low calorie simple math thing). I joined in March and of course did the whole 1200 calorie thing first for about 6 weeks (lost 4 lbs) until I realized that someone that is 5'11 and lifting heavy should probably eat more so I upped it to 1700 and have been pretty strict with it (eat back about 1/2 my exercise cals). Gained back the 4 lbs and am sitting exactly where I was the day I signed up. I do look different from the lifting but over the course of 3.5 months, more fat should've come off with the simple mathematics (I'm an accountant so I would love this if it worked for me). I decided Monday to go low carb again and see what happened. Now, if I lose "water weight" this week, that's water weight I've been sustaining since I"ve been eating at a deficit (doesn't matter WHAT based on this theory I'm eating so let's not get into that).

I don't understand why people can't accept some things work for some and some things DON'T work for some.

Water weight is tied to glycogen storage, which is directly tied to carb intake. So yes, if you increase carbs and maintain them at the same level, you will gain water weight. That water weight will fluctuate based on how much glycogen your body uses doing normal functions, and how many carbs you eat to replenish what's used. Drastically cutting carbs leads to drastic glycogen loss, which leads to water loss. This is why people cut carbs, lose a bunch of weight in a week or two, and then add carbs back in and immediately gain. Then cut carbs and immediately lose again. It's just manipulation of water weight, and has no bearing on fat loss.

First picture, December 2011, with a year of working out and eating normal.


Jan 1, I decided to get this extra weight off. Cut calories back to 1200 calories and exercised. Did not lose weight. By the end of February, I was freaking. I had a friend suggest eating more food and increase my protein. During my research, I found some body builders that do 35/35/30, I also found that link that I posted my earlier post. I increased calories, increased protein and lowered carbs to below 100 (Not Atkins, just lower)

Picture two, last week. I would think that the 14 pounds that I have lost since the end of February is fat an not water weight


I think that everyone's body is different. Some can eat 300 carbs a day and still lose, while others need to drop their carbs. But you can't tell someone that has lost fat doing low carb or a lower carb diet that they only lost water weight.

It depends on your body. I have PCOS and insulin resistance (which a lot of overweight people do), so yes, cutting carbs does help me lose weight. Nothing drastic. Around 100 g (30%) seems to be what a lot of people with insulin resistance do.

This.

I low-carb after advice from my primary care dr. and dietician.
No sugar.
White flour replaced with whole wheat and grains.
White rice replaced with brown.
White starchy pasta replaced with whole wheat pastas containing omega 3 or low carb version.
Starchy potatoes & other veggie are limited.
Fruit is limited to mornings only so my body will metabolize the sugar.
Everything is lean & grean.

Basically the meal plan she gave me came from the American Diebetes Association.

I suggest anyone with a health problem work with their dr. for a plan that works for them. Weight loss plans are not a "one size fits all" product.