Why is it all focussed on calories and not carbs?
Discussion
g3org3y said:
Kermit power said:
Likewise if you have family meals at home unless you're sitting there measuring precisely how much meat/veg/sauce you're taking from the stew.
That's pretty much what proper calorie counters do. They weigh every item of food/ingredients they are eating.They are absolutely fastidious when it comes to food prep and measuring macros.
Let's say you're one of these weirdos and you're sitting down to a nice beef stew for your family dinner...
1. You measure the total calories going into the stew. You might possibly be able to get that accurate to within about 5-10% either way, but no more than that, if only because of the variation in the amount of fat in the beef, even if it's labeled as "xx% fat".
2. You then have to weight the stew overall after you've made it (proving how much fun you can be at parties) so that you can work out the calories per 100g or whatever after evaporation has done its thing.
3. Now you ladle yourself out a scrupulously measured portion. Let's say you've taken 20% of the total weight of the stew and that comes in at 312g.
4. Great! We've got 312g of stew, and we know precisely (well, to within 10% or so) how many calories there are in 100g of our stew on average, so we can work out what's on our plate, can't we?
No, of course we can't!
Unless you can guarantee that your 20% of the stew contains precisely 20% of each ingredient that went into the pot in the first place, then each 20% mass is going to have a different share of the total calories in the whole stew!
You can waste as much time, effort and money as you like on trying to precisely record your calories but you're only going to get it right occasionally by luck.
grumbledoak said:
The obsession with the laws of physics in this context is some kind of "in joke", or a weird appeal to unarguable authority. I've even seen posters talk about the Laws of Thermodynamics (those who could spell it) as if they are practically applicable to an entire human body.
"Calories in, calories out" is just one example. It's not untrue, but it's not very useful. You are not a bomb calorimeter. There isn't a calorie detector in the whole human body. Yes bodybuilders measure their food very precisely. Yes you can work out the calorie equivalent. But so what? Most people do not have the discipline of a bodybuilder. They don't have those goals either. They just want to lose some flab.
"Eat less, move more" is another trite bit of uselessness. The root cause for most overweight people is a poor diet. That's how they got fat. If they eat less of the same they will just be hungry. If they move more they will be even more hungry. So what are they going to do, permanently starve themselves? The obesity stats suggest otherwise.
In the real world the calorific measure is just "roughly how much food you ate". And yes it is not a very useful focus. Just a "sciencey sounding number" for our post religion era.
A single focus on "carbs" is not really focussing on the root cause either. Your body can get energy from fat or protein. But in practice going keto on real food will cause most people to lose weight and keep it off successfully. Which is what most fat people actually want.
tl,dr - OP, I would not try to focus on either calories or carbs as a simple in/out problem. Your body just doesn't work like that. You can control your weight with diet alone, and cutting carbs or going keto is very successful. But it is more a case of "eat better" than "eat less".
I'm just quoting you as an example and I don't in any way mean to single you out, but this argument that the amount of calories you eat has no effect on weight gain or loss is simply wrong. "Calories in, calories out" is just one example. It's not untrue, but it's not very useful. You are not a bomb calorimeter. There isn't a calorie detector in the whole human body. Yes bodybuilders measure their food very precisely. Yes you can work out the calorie equivalent. But so what? Most people do not have the discipline of a bodybuilder. They don't have those goals either. They just want to lose some flab.
"Eat less, move more" is another trite bit of uselessness. The root cause for most overweight people is a poor diet. That's how they got fat. If they eat less of the same they will just be hungry. If they move more they will be even more hungry. So what are they going to do, permanently starve themselves? The obesity stats suggest otherwise.
In the real world the calorific measure is just "roughly how much food you ate". And yes it is not a very useful focus. Just a "sciencey sounding number" for our post religion era.
A single focus on "carbs" is not really focussing on the root cause either. Your body can get energy from fat or protein. But in practice going keto on real food will cause most people to lose weight and keep it off successfully. Which is what most fat people actually want.
tl,dr - OP, I would not try to focus on either calories or carbs as a simple in/out problem. Your body just doesn't work like that. You can control your weight with diet alone, and cutting carbs or going keto is very successful. But it is more a case of "eat better" than "eat less".
People do not gain weight because their diet is "bad". They gain weight because they consume more food than they need and so their body stores it as fat. Conversely, people lose weight (be that fat or muscle) because they do not eat enough food to fuel their body.
That's it. There's no such thing as a good or bad calorie. Everything else your talking about that you think is linked to weight loss or weight gain, is just you over or under-eating.
You can count calories, you can count macros or anything else you like but your body absolutely does know exactly how much it needs and it stores or uses that energy appropriately.
I'm not arguing that you can't lose weight by cutting something out, but all you're doing is reducing your calorie intake. You cannot gain weight if you are not eating more calories than you expend.
Ketosis is different and isn't sustainable over a long period so exclude that method. If you came out of ketosis and went back to your usual diet which included overeating, guess what? You'd put weight back on.
If you have naturally found a balance of food that allows you to maintain your weight then that's great, but counting calories is the easiest way for those that haven't or don't understand nutrition to start and get to that stage eventually.
Kermit power said:
Food prep is irrelevant unless they only ever cook their own individual portions and lick the pan and cooking utensils clean afterwards!
Let's say you're one of these weirdos and you're sitting down to a nice beef stew for your family dinner...
1. You measure the total calories going into the stew. You might possibly be able to get that accurate to within about 5-10% either way, but no more than that, if only because of the variation in the amount of fat in the beef, even if it's labeled as "xx% fat".
2. You then have to weight the stew overall after you've made it (proving how much fun you can be at parties) so that you can work out the calories per 100g or whatever after evaporation has done its thing.
3. Now you ladle yourself out a scrupulously measured portion. Let's say you've taken 20% of the total weight of the stew and that comes in at 312g.
4. Great! We've got 312g of stew, and we know precisely (well, to within 10% or so) how many calories there are in 100g of our stew on average, so we can work out what's on our plate, can't we?
No, of course we can't!
Unless you can guarantee that your 20% of the stew contains precisely 20% of each ingredient that went into the pot in the first place, then each 20% mass is going to have a different share of the total calories in the whole stew!
You can waste as much time, effort and money as you like on trying to precisely record your calories but you're only going to get it right occasionally by luck.
I think you're slightly missing the point in re tracking. Of course it can't be 100% accurate but if you're shooting for a 500-1000 calorie deficit it will get you in the ball park.Let's say you're one of these weirdos and you're sitting down to a nice beef stew for your family dinner...
1. You measure the total calories going into the stew. You might possibly be able to get that accurate to within about 5-10% either way, but no more than that, if only because of the variation in the amount of fat in the beef, even if it's labeled as "xx% fat".
2. You then have to weight the stew overall after you've made it (proving how much fun you can be at parties) so that you can work out the calories per 100g or whatever after evaporation has done its thing.
3. Now you ladle yourself out a scrupulously measured portion. Let's say you've taken 20% of the total weight of the stew and that comes in at 312g.
4. Great! We've got 312g of stew, and we know precisely (well, to within 10% or so) how many calories there are in 100g of our stew on average, so we can work out what's on our plate, can't we?
No, of course we can't!
Unless you can guarantee that your 20% of the stew contains precisely 20% of each ingredient that went into the pot in the first place, then each 20% mass is going to have a different share of the total calories in the whole stew!
You can waste as much time, effort and money as you like on trying to precisely record your calories but you're only going to get it right occasionally by luck.
My slightly ridiculous example of inaccuracy is I make my own sourdough. The only ingredients are flour salt and water. Each loaf contains 440g of flour. Pretty straightforward to calculate the calorie content of my bread you'd think. 440g of flour is 1514 calories. So weigh the loaf and you can work out how many calories per 100g. Except that the yeast and bacteria have been gobbling the flour to make CO2 whilst it's been fermenting. I have no way of knowing the calorie content.
Other foods such as nuts are literally shat out depending on how well you crunch them there's no way of knowing how much you absorb. Our individual gut microbiome will take its own energy from the food you eat robbing you of calories - some fat people are doing faecal transplants so they can get some of the greedy bugs which skinny people are hypothesised to harbour.
Despite this tracking does work for some people although the maths is a little suspect. It makes them accountable for what they eat; can avoid food items that are relatively calorie dense but not filling and gravitate towards things that are filling and less calorie dense (coloured veg in the main). This naturally takes you a the real food, whole food diet. As long as the scale is going in the right direction there's no need to over think it. If you're getting stuck then you need to have a look at what you might be under or overestimating and make an adjustment.
The exercise thing is more tricky as you need to fuel for and to recover from exercise but device or not, most of us will overestimate what we've burnt and underestimate the compensatory drop in calories burnt which happens after exercising. My policy is to make sure I fuel appropriately before and during (rides or runs of > 1 hour), try and eat a normal meal after as soon as possible, not let myself get hungry and not eat back the whole calorie deficit.
Meals out are tricky. I think you can either estimate the calories (probably near to daily allowance for woman trying to lose 500g/week or man trying to lose 1kg/week for a typical plated pub meal); bank previous days' calorie shortfall or accept that you are going to get to goal weight a day or two later.
I think if you're overweight and can follow a quality Mediterranean (or other peasant) type diet without tracking and move a bit more then you'll probably lose weight. What works is whatever makes you disciplined, accountable, consistent and can be sustained over a long time - for some this is Weight watchers; others fasting; others restriction of a food type (eg ketogenic) and others tracking.
g3org3y said:
Kermit power said:
Likewise if you have family meals at home unless you're sitting there measuring precisely how much meat/veg/sauce you're taking from the stew.
That's pretty much what proper calorie counters do. They weigh every item of food/ingredients they are eating.They are absolutely fastidious when it comes to food prep and measuring macros.
Post just reads like any other looking to exclude overweight people from responsibility for their health.
Like any other physical parameter: establish a goal, work out your baseline, set a plan for getting there. Thing is that calorie counting doesn't need to be 100% accurate, most people own a mirror.
JerseyRoyal said:
People who track macros properly aren’t eating their grannies beef stew 
A lot of high level athletes will buy in prepped meals that are already measured and balanced in the way they require.
Their nutritionist can track their meals down to the last calorie.
Sssh don't tell anyone it's that easy. Remember it's a conspiracy to keep everyone overweight.A lot of high level athletes will buy in prepped meals that are already measured and balanced in the way they require.
Their nutritionist can track their meals down to the last calorie.
popeyewhite said:
Yes, in many situations that is correct. That is what successful dieting allied to competitive sport involves. Of course competitive athletes often have nutritionists on hand for advice. I know/have known many amateur sportsmen/women over four decades who can very accurately track their calories and weight.
Post just reads like any other looking to exclude overweight people from responsibility for their health.
Like any other physical parameter: establish a goal, work out your baseline, set a plan for getting there. Thing is that calorie counting doesn't need to be 100% accurate, most people own a mirror.
I wouldn't say a mirror is a good way of tracking weight loss.The change is so gradual you wouldn't notice the difference from 1 day to the next.Post just reads like any other looking to exclude overweight people from responsibility for their health.
Like any other physical parameter: establish a goal, work out your baseline, set a plan for getting there. Thing is that calorie counting doesn't need to be 100% accurate, most people own a mirror.
How tight my clothes fit is my barometer
Bluevanman said:
I wouldn't say a mirror is a good way of tracking weight loss.The change is so gradual you wouldn't notice the difference from 1 day to the next.
How tight my clothes fit is my barometer
Yes, that's another way. People's approach to calorie control and weightloss varies in discipline of application but if you know yourself well enough there's loads of ways to measure change. The science is still the same though.How tight my clothes fit is my barometer
To lose/maintain, I've found fasting is easier than running. So you can go fast without going fast. 
Worthwhile figuring out how you can incorporate 24 hour fasts into your life and getting round the barriers to doing so. Only posting this bit to avoid unnecessary arguments which also get in the way of you losing weight/fat and keeping it off.
Worthwhile figuring out how you can incorporate 24 hour fasts into your life and getting round the barriers to doing so. Only posting this bit to avoid unnecessary arguments which also get in the way of you losing weight/fat and keeping it off.
C5_Steve said:
I'm just quoting you as an example and I don't in any way mean to single you out, but this argument that the amount of calories you eat has no effect on weight gain or loss is simply wrong.
People do not gain weight because their diet is "bad". They gain weight because they consume more food than they need and so their body stores it as fat. Conversely, people lose weight (be that fat or muscle) because they do not eat enough food to fuel their body.
That's it. There's no such thing as a good or bad calorie. Everything else your talking about that you think is linked to weight loss or weight gain, is just you over or under-eating.
You can count calories, you can count macros or anything else you like but your body absolutely does know exactly how much it needs and it stores or uses that energy appropriately.
...
So, if my BMR (calculated) is 2,120 then 1,600 kcal per day should be a reasonable deficit for weight loss. So I am going to consume 4.1l of full fat coke per day. 'cos it's all just calories, innit? There's no such thing as a bad diet.People do not gain weight because their diet is "bad". They gain weight because they consume more food than they need and so their body stores it as fat. Conversely, people lose weight (be that fat or muscle) because they do not eat enough food to fuel their body.
That's it. There's no such thing as a good or bad calorie. Everything else your talking about that you think is linked to weight loss or weight gain, is just you over or under-eating.
You can count calories, you can count macros or anything else you like but your body absolutely does know exactly how much it needs and it stores or uses that energy appropriately.
...
The reality is that any unidimensional simplification is only useful if we accept the limitations of the analogy and talk in good faith.
By the way, it is perfectly possible to remain in ketosis over a long period. Our ancestors did it without trying.
JerseyRoyal said:
People who track macros properly aren’t eating their grannies beef stew
A lot of high level athletes will buy in prepped meals that are already measured and balanced in the way they require.
Their nutritionist can track their meals down to the last calorie.
Hence the absurdity of anyone suggesting it as a straightforward thing for anyone else to do to lose weight.A lot of high level athletes will buy in prepped meals that are already measured and balanced in the way they require.
Their nutritionist can track their meals down to the last calorie.
grumbledoak said:
So, if my BMR (calculated) is 2,120 then 1,600 kcal per day should be a reasonable deficit for weight loss. So I am going to consume 4.1l of full fat coke per day. 'cos it's all just calories, innit? There's no such thing as a bad diet.
The reality is that any unidimensional simplification is only useful if we accept the limitations of the analogy and talk in good faith.
By the way, it is perfectly possible to remain in ketosis over a long period. Our ancestors did it without trying.
There was some prof in the US that did something similar, I think he lived off a calorie restricted diet for a period of time - he only ate donuts.The reality is that any unidimensional simplification is only useful if we accept the limitations of the analogy and talk in good faith.
By the way, it is perfectly possible to remain in ketosis over a long period. Our ancestors did it without trying.
He lost weight.
C5_Steve said:
I'm just quoting you as an example and I don't in any way mean to single you out, but this argument that the amount of calories you eat has no effect on weight gain or loss is simply wrong.
People do not gain weight because their diet is "bad". They gain weight because they consume more food than they need and so their body stores it as fat. Conversely, people lose weight (be that fat or muscle) because they do not eat enough food to fuel their body.
That's it. There's no such thing as a good or bad calorie. Everything else your talking about that you think is linked to weight loss or weight gain, is just you over or under-eating.
You can count calories, you can count macros or anything else you like but your body absolutely does know exactly how much it needs and it stores or uses that energy appropriately.
I'm not arguing that you can't lose weight by cutting something out, but all you're doing is reducing your calorie intake. You cannot gain weight if you are not eating more calories than you expend.
Ketosis is different and isn't sustainable over a long period so exclude that method. If you came out of ketosis and went back to your usual diet which included overeating, guess what? You'd put weight back on.
If you have naturally found a balance of food that allows you to maintain your weight then that's great, but counting calories is the easiest way for those that haven't or don't understand nutrition to start and get to that stage eventually.
Broadly speaking true, but your body will respond to you reducing your intake by slowing your metabolism to try and maintain energy stores as a defence mechanism.People do not gain weight because their diet is "bad". They gain weight because they consume more food than they need and so their body stores it as fat. Conversely, people lose weight (be that fat or muscle) because they do not eat enough food to fuel their body.
That's it. There's no such thing as a good or bad calorie. Everything else your talking about that you think is linked to weight loss or weight gain, is just you over or under-eating.
You can count calories, you can count macros or anything else you like but your body absolutely does know exactly how much it needs and it stores or uses that energy appropriately.
I'm not arguing that you can't lose weight by cutting something out, but all you're doing is reducing your calorie intake. You cannot gain weight if you are not eating more calories than you expend.
Ketosis is different and isn't sustainable over a long period so exclude that method. If you came out of ketosis and went back to your usual diet which included overeating, guess what? You'd put weight back on.
If you have naturally found a balance of food that allows you to maintain your weight then that's great, but counting calories is the easiest way for those that haven't or don't understand nutrition to start and get to that stage eventually.
The further you go, the more you'll need to reduce calories to keep losing weight, and not just because you're carrying less weight.
oddman said:
Kermit power said:
Food prep is irrelevant unless they only ever cook their own individual portions and lick the pan and cooking utensils clean afterwards!
Let's say you're one of these weirdos and you're sitting down to a nice beef stew for your family dinner...
1. You measure the total calories going into the stew. You might possibly be able to get that accurate to within about 5-10% either way, but no more than that, if only because of the variation in the amount of fat in the beef, even if it's labeled as "xx% fat".
2. You then have to weight the stew overall after you've made it (proving how much fun you can be at parties) so that you can work out the calories per 100g or whatever after evaporation has done its thing.
3. Now you ladle yourself out a scrupulously measured portion. Let's say you've taken 20% of the total weight of the stew and that comes in at 312g.
4. Great! We've got 312g of stew, and we know precisely (well, to within 10% or so) how many calories there are in 100g of our stew on average, so we can work out what's on our plate, can't we?
No, of course we can't!
Unless you can guarantee that your 20% of the stew contains precisely 20% of each ingredient that went into the pot in the first place, then each 20% mass is going to have a different share of the total calories in the whole stew!
You can waste as much time, effort and money as you like on trying to precisely record your calories but you're only going to get it right occasionally by luck.
I think you're slightly missing the point in re tracking. Of course it can't be 100% accurate but if you're shooting for a 500-1000 calorie deficit it will get you in the ball park.Let's say you're one of these weirdos and you're sitting down to a nice beef stew for your family dinner...
1. You measure the total calories going into the stew. You might possibly be able to get that accurate to within about 5-10% either way, but no more than that, if only because of the variation in the amount of fat in the beef, even if it's labeled as "xx% fat".
2. You then have to weight the stew overall after you've made it (proving how much fun you can be at parties) so that you can work out the calories per 100g or whatever after evaporation has done its thing.
3. Now you ladle yourself out a scrupulously measured portion. Let's say you've taken 20% of the total weight of the stew and that comes in at 312g.
4. Great! We've got 312g of stew, and we know precisely (well, to within 10% or so) how many calories there are in 100g of our stew on average, so we can work out what's on our plate, can't we?
No, of course we can't!
Unless you can guarantee that your 20% of the stew contains precisely 20% of each ingredient that went into the pot in the first place, then each 20% mass is going to have a different share of the total calories in the whole stew!
You can waste as much time, effort and money as you like on trying to precisely record your calories but you're only going to get it right occasionally by luck.
My slightly ridiculous example of inaccuracy is I make my own sourdough. The only ingredients are flour salt and water. Each loaf contains 440g of flour. Pretty straightforward to calculate the calorie content of my bread you'd think. 440g of flour is 1514 calories. So weigh the loaf and you can work out how many calories per 100g. Except that the yeast and bacteria have been gobbling the flour to make CO2 whilst it's been fermenting. I have no way of knowing the calorie content.
Other foods such as nuts are literally shat out depending on how well you crunch them there's no way of knowing how much you absorb. Our individual gut microbiome will take its own energy from the food you eat robbing you of calories - some fat people are doing faecal transplants so they can get some of the greedy bugs which skinny people are hypothesised to harbour.
Despite this tracking does work for some people although the maths is a little suspect. It makes them accountable for what they eat; can avoid food items that are relatively calorie dense but not filling and gravitate towards things that are filling and less calorie dense (coloured veg in the main). This naturally takes you a the real food, whole food diet. As long as the scale is going in the right direction there's no need to over think it. If you're getting stuck then you need to have a look at what you might be under or overestimating and make an adjustment.
The exercise thing is more tricky as you need to fuel for and to recover from exercise but device or not, most of us will overestimate what we've burnt and underestimate the compensatory drop in calories burnt which happens after exercising. My policy is to make sure I fuel appropriately before and during (rides or runs of > 1 hour), try and eat a normal meal after as soon as possible, not let myself get hungry and not eat back the whole calorie deficit.
Meals out are tricky. I think you can either estimate the calories (probably near to daily allowance for woman trying to lose 500g/week or man trying to lose 1kg/week for a typical plated pub meal); bank previous days' calorie shortfall or accept that you are going to get to goal weight a day or two later.
I think if you're overweight and can follow a quality Mediterranean (or other peasant) type diet without tracking and move a bit more then you'll probably lose weight. What works is whatever makes you disciplined, accountable, consistent and can be sustained over a long time - for some this is Weight watchers; others fasting; others restriction of a food type (eg ketogenic) and others tracking.
As I said on another post, most people would get exactly the same results just by keeping a food and exercise diary (with nothing more complex than "large bowl of spag bol" or "thirty minutes cycling") to keep themselves accountable.
Trying to measure the calories in/out is too inaccurate to have any meaningful value for 99% of people, but failing to record activity at all makes it really easy to forget about a snack when choosing your dinner, or dismiss how long it is since you last exercised.
popeyewhite said:
g3org3y said:
Kermit power said:
Likewise if you have family meals at home unless you're sitting there measuring precisely how much meat/veg/sauce you're taking from the stew.
That's pretty much what proper calorie counters do. They weigh every item of food/ingredients they are eating.They are absolutely fastidious when it comes to food prep and measuring macros.
Post just reads like any other looking to exclude overweight people from responsibility for their health.
Like any other physical parameter: establish a goal, work out your baseline, set a plan for getting there. Thing is that calorie counting doesn't need to be 100% accurate, most people own a mirror.
If you really want to discourage someone from trying to lose weight, just keep telling them they need to try and measure calories!
Anyone can keep a sufficiently accurate food & exercise diary to help keep them on track and accountable to themselves.
Practically nobody without access to nutritionists, sports scientists and personal trainers can hope to accurately record calories in/out, and when they try and inevitably fail, they just end up feeling crap about themselves and giving it up as hopeless.
popeyewhite said:
JerseyRoyal said:
People who track macros properly aren’t eating their grannies beef stew
A lot of high level athletes will buy in prepped meals that are already measured and balanced in the way they require.
Their nutritionist can track their meals down to the last calorie.
Sssh don't tell anyone it's that easy. Remember it's a conspiracy to keep everyone overweight.A lot of high level athletes will buy in prepped meals that are already measured and balanced in the way they require.
Their nutritionist can track their meals down to the last calorie.
1. You don't work with other people or have any sort of social life.
2. All the people you work and socialise with are your professional teammates who are on the same sort of regime.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff