Why is it all focussed on calories and not carbs?
Discussion
grumbledoak said:
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.
If you drank 1600kcal of coke a day, you'd lose weight. Same as if you ate 1600kcal of steak, or 1600kcal of grapes, or 1600kcal of bread. You. Would. Lose. Weight. Up until the point your output had equalled your input. You can talk about good/bad diet all you want but calories are not an oversimplification of anything. They're the starting point which is why it's important to understand them.
Would you have a raft of other health issues from eating/drinking all your calories from one source? Yes, of course you would. I have said from the start here that calorie tracking should be linked with macro nutrition to ensure you are eating a balanced and sustainable diet.
As for staying in Ketosis, our ancestors did a lot of things we don't know and as a result died in their 30s. It is far harder and far less healthy to try and stay permanently in ketosis than it is to track calories AND macros on a simple Protein/Carb/Fat basis to eat a balanced healthy diet.
Kermit power said:
It's only that easy if either...
1. You don't work with other people or have any sort of social life.
I work with lots of other people and have a very healthy social life. Meals out every weekend, gigs etc. I don't drink though, and I don't like chocolate or cakes.1. You don't work with other people or have any sort of social life.
Kermit power said:
2. All the people you work and socialise with are your professional teammates who are on the same sort of regime.
That's a fair comment. Most people I know are involved in some form of physical training/teaching. I don't know anyone who leads a sedentary lifestyle other than my partner.C5_Steve said:
As for staying in Ketosis, our ancestors did a lot of things we don't know and as a result died in their 30s. It is far harder and far less healthy to try and stay permanently in ketosis than it is to track calories AND macros on a simple Protein/Carb/Fat basis to eat a balanced healthy diet.
Our ancestors lived to ripe old ages, easily comparable to now. Infant mortality brought the average down as it always did until the advent of modern medicine and clean water.The notion that 30 would have been considered "old" doesn't bear up to any kind of scrutiny. It does, however, provide a handy excuse for people that want to blame their diet induced poor health on "just getting old".
I've linked to reference papers on that topic in the past.
C5_Steve said:
You are confusing weight loss with healthy eating, I really don't understand what's so hard to understand here so I'll use you're analogy.
I am not confusing anything.I am pointing out that others are conflating body composition improvement with weight loss when it suits them so they can claim that they are technically correct in saying that "it's all calories hurr hurr" or equivalent. I don't consider that arguing in good faith. More a rather unfunny in joke.
Those who want to get really technical about it can read some good posts by Kermit and oddman
but for most it is more technical than necessary.Those who just want to lose some flab can usefully use some simplifying analogies, but often these are glibly parroted and unhelpful. "Calories in, calories out" and "Eat less move more" seem intentionally so.
jagnet said:
Our ancestors lived to ripe old ages, easily comparable to now. Infant mortality brought the average down as it always did until the advent of modern medicine and clean water.
The notion that 30 would have been considered "old" doesn't bear up to any kind of scrutiny. It does, however, provide a handy excuse for people that want to blame their diet induced poor health on "just getting old".
I've linked to reference papers on that topic in the past.
What are you talking about? I was referencing Ketosis specifically as not being a long-term healthy diet option. The OP was trying to use the argument that ancient man would have followed a keto diet (which isn't backed by any research and largely incorrect anyway but I got the point). Ancient humans would have eaten whatever the hell they could get their hands on, they would not have remained in a state of ketosis. The notion that 30 would have been considered "old" doesn't bear up to any kind of scrutiny. It does, however, provide a handy excuse for people that want to blame their diet induced poor health on "just getting old".
I've linked to reference papers on that topic in the past.
So no, prehistoric man did not live to any sort of ripe old age comparable to today for a vast number of reasons. None of which were their diet but then they weren't following a ketogenic diet anyway!
grumbledoak said:
C5_Steve said:
You are confusing weight loss with healthy eating, I really don't understand what's so hard to understand here so I'll use you're analogy.
I am not confusing anything.I am pointing out that others are conflating body composition improvement with weight loss when it suits them so they can claim that they are technically correct in saying that "it's all calories hurr hurr" or equivalent. I don't consider that arguing in good faith. More a rather unfunny in joke.
Those who want to get really technical about it can read some good posts by Kermit and oddman
but for most it is more technical than necessary.Those who just want to lose some flab can usefully use some simplifying analogies, but often these are glibly parroted and unhelpful. "Calories in, calories out" and "Eat less move more" seem intentionally so.
No one asked about body composition. If the thread was about how to build lean muscle while reducing excess body fat in someone who has a history of weight training and is vegan then I've no doubt you could provide some very insightful opinions perhaps. But that's not what we're talking about.
When it comes to weight loss in someone who doesn't have a strong basis of understanding of nutrition, you're simply wrong in your approach and perhaps that's just not your audience. You may know what works for you, and I'm sure you have a sound understanding of macro nutrition but you are vastly removed from people and weight loss and your comments show that. No one looking to lose weight could possibly follow anything you've said as most of it lacks any substance. You're just trying to discredit people's ability to track calorie intake when multiple people are here telling you it's very easy to do and works. Why are you struggling to accept real-world learned experience?
You might think that calories in vs calories out is "too simple", but it's exactly how it works and it's backed by a library of studies. How you choose to approach that equation will vary from person to person (which is why we have Weight Watchers and slimming world etc with their points and sins) but it is the inescapable truth. The rate and sustainability of that weight loss will be determined by the method and approach.
popeyewhite said:
Kermit power said:
It's only that easy if either...
1. You don't work with other people or have any sort of social life.
I work with lots of other people and have a very healthy social life. Meals out every weekend, gigs etc. I don't drink though, and I don't like chocolate or cakes.1. You don't work with other people or have any sort of social life.
Kermit power said:
2. All the people you work and socialise with are your professional teammates who are on the same sort of regime.
That's a fair comment. Most people I know are involved in some form of physical training/teaching. I don't know anyone who leads a sedentary lifestyle other than my partner.These threads always descend into silliness.
The laws of thermodynamics are universal for the purposes of this debate.
Humans are not simple machines. Some people's bodies may store energy to a greater or lesser extent, and different foods are more or less effective at being moreish, but human bodies do not defy physics -They cannot make or destroy energy. It does not just appear or disappear spontaneously.
Extreme diets or draconian regimes are not the answer, though.
The best way to be slim is never to get heavy in the first place, but it is very common to be very heavy in the UK now. It does appear more difficult for some people than others to lose the weight once they have gained it, for various reasons.
Good habits of eating, movement and general "well-being" maintained over a long period are what is required to be healthy (weight is closely linked to many aspects of health), but that is much easier said than done if that is not the way somebody has lived their life previously.
The laws of thermodynamics are universal for the purposes of this debate.
Humans are not simple machines. Some people's bodies may store energy to a greater or lesser extent, and different foods are more or less effective at being moreish, but human bodies do not defy physics -They cannot make or destroy energy. It does not just appear or disappear spontaneously.
Extreme diets or draconian regimes are not the answer, though.
The best way to be slim is never to get heavy in the first place, but it is very common to be very heavy in the UK now. It does appear more difficult for some people than others to lose the weight once they have gained it, for various reasons.
Good habits of eating, movement and general "well-being" maintained over a long period are what is required to be healthy (weight is closely linked to many aspects of health), but that is much easier said than done if that is not the way somebody has lived their life previously.
Kermit power said:
I've no doubt you're eating a healthy diet, but if you think you're accurately recording calories any time you eat out or share a meal you're wrong. You might get within 10%, but no way will you get it spot on other than by luck.
I don't calorie count when I'm out, I'm just aware of the healthy option and a rough idea of calories. Quite strict during the week though but a little treat at the weekend won't do anyone any harm if they've observed the diet plan for the other six days.popeyewhite said:
Sssh don't tell anyone it's that easy. Remember it's a conspiracy to keep everyone overweight.
I recently dropped from just under 80kg down to 72.5kg (body fat only, starting at around 20% bf). Despite the posts above, it was quite easy. I ate fairly healthily to start with, so I just cut out a few hundred calories of carbs. I was also doing a lot of cycling with power meters, so fairly easy to estimate calories burned. 2x resistance sessions to keep/add muscle. Eat less/more depending on what I'd done in the day (Garmin watch helps to guess calories burnt when you're not sedentary) and what exercise I did. I've been at the end weight for about a month and bounce around by 0.5kg without too much effort.
MaxFromage said:
I recently dropped from just under 80kg down to 72.5kg (body fat only, starting at around 20% bf). Despite the posts above, it was quite easy. I ate fairly healthily to start with, so I just cut out a few hundred calories of carbs. I was also doing a lot of cycling with power meters, so fairly easy to estimate calories burned. 2x resistance sessions to keep/add muscle. Eat less/more depending on what I'd done in the day (Garmin watch helps to guess calories burnt when you're not sedentary) and what exercise I did.
I've been at the end weight for about a month and bounce around by 0.5kg without too much effort.
I've been at the end weight for about a month and bounce around by 0.5kg without too much effort.
Freak. Idiot. Not possible unless you're an Olympic athlete or rich enough to afford your own nutritionist.
oddman said:
It would probably help if you do a bit of reading on biology and exercise physiology.
The three macronutrients are carbohydrate, protein and fat. The body can use all three as fuel. It can only store a limited amount of carbohydrate (about 2 hours' supply) and limitless quantities of fat. Fat can only be used when there is a good supply of oxygen from the cardiorespiratory system. Carbohydrates provide 4 calories per gram, protein provides 4 calories per gram, and fat provides 9 calories per gram.
The reason diets have historically focussed on reducing fat is becuase it is much more energy dense than the other macros and dieticians assumed that cutting fat would give the best bang for buck. However this doesn't take into account other factors such as satiety and insulin spiking that can drive hunger so the focus has turned to refined carbohydrates as the 'enemy'
At low intensity of exercise eg walking, riding or running whilst still easily able to hold a conversation, fat can be used as fuel as there is enough oxygen to burn the fat. As intensity rises then there is insufficient oxygen to fully combust fat and carbohydrate begins to be used. At very high intensities carbohydrate is used solely. There are some organs eg. the brain that can only use carbohydrate. For most of us exercising outside a lab it's impossible to know what proportion of fat or carb the body is using. It's reasonable to infer that a very slow steady session will be mostly fat and a very intense session will be mostly carb. Body won't use protein for exercise or energy unless it has to and is the reason starvation diets (>1000 calorie net daily deficit) are not recommended.
Wearable devices are great tools for training and logging and the better ones can give a reasonable estimate of calories burned during an activity. However the device has no knowledge of how efficient you are and the estimate could be out by +/- 50%. If you are serious about logging calories then it's not a good idea to eat back all your exercise calories. Partly because your device will not be reliable but partly becuase the body has a sneaky way of recouping the exercise calories by resting other systems to compensate. Cinversely if you underfuel you'll find it difficult to exercise consistently.
So given that the devices are not wholly accurate and cannot know what you are using as fuel, that's why they don't tell you how many carbs you've burnt.
Thanks for that great overview.The three macronutrients are carbohydrate, protein and fat. The body can use all three as fuel. It can only store a limited amount of carbohydrate (about 2 hours' supply) and limitless quantities of fat. Fat can only be used when there is a good supply of oxygen from the cardiorespiratory system. Carbohydrates provide 4 calories per gram, protein provides 4 calories per gram, and fat provides 9 calories per gram.
The reason diets have historically focussed on reducing fat is becuase it is much more energy dense than the other macros and dieticians assumed that cutting fat would give the best bang for buck. However this doesn't take into account other factors such as satiety and insulin spiking that can drive hunger so the focus has turned to refined carbohydrates as the 'enemy'
At low intensity of exercise eg walking, riding or running whilst still easily able to hold a conversation, fat can be used as fuel as there is enough oxygen to burn the fat. As intensity rises then there is insufficient oxygen to fully combust fat and carbohydrate begins to be used. At very high intensities carbohydrate is used solely. There are some organs eg. the brain that can only use carbohydrate. For most of us exercising outside a lab it's impossible to know what proportion of fat or carb the body is using. It's reasonable to infer that a very slow steady session will be mostly fat and a very intense session will be mostly carb. Body won't use protein for exercise or energy unless it has to and is the reason starvation diets (>1000 calorie net daily deficit) are not recommended.
Wearable devices are great tools for training and logging and the better ones can give a reasonable estimate of calories burned during an activity. However the device has no knowledge of how efficient you are and the estimate could be out by +/- 50%. If you are serious about logging calories then it's not a good idea to eat back all your exercise calories. Partly because your device will not be reliable but partly becuase the body has a sneaky way of recouping the exercise calories by resting other systems to compensate. Cinversely if you underfuel you'll find it difficult to exercise consistently.
So given that the devices are not wholly accurate and cannot know what you are using as fuel, that's why they don't tell you how many carbs you've burnt.
Edited by oddman on Friday 26th April 08:38
Different carbs burn at a different rate due to their glycemic index, so the energy release is dependent on their level of 'burn' from memory. I'm sure things like white rice, potatoes etc have a high glycemic index whilst less refined foods like legumes, raw veg etc burn slowly. Brown bread, wholemeal etc and brown rice also 'burn' slower, and as a result your blood sugar level remains more stable...again, all this is from memory of reading various 'muscle magazines' many, many years ago so might be total BS!!
biggbn said:
Different carbs burn at a different rate due to their glycemic index, so the energy release is dependent on their level of 'burn' from memory. I'm sure things like white rice, potatoes etc have a high glycemic index whilst less refined foods like legumes, raw veg etc burn slowly. Brown bread, wholemeal etc and brown rice also 'burn' slower, and as a result your blood sugar level remains more stable...again, all this is from memory of reading various 'muscle magazines' many, many years ago so might be total BS!!
It's not how quickly they burn, it's how quickly they are absorbed. Carbohydrates are absorbed as monosaccharides such as glucose because larger molecules (even sucrose) cannot cross the gut wall. Glycaemic index is a measure of availability and a proxy for how much a given load of said carbohydate will spike inulin. insulin spikes are thought to lead to drops in blood sugar and drive further hunger AKA Chinese meal effect. It's also the reason why sugar is described as 'addictive'.Sugar is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose and therefore only one chemical bond needs to be broken to be absorbed. Simple and refined carbohydates have high levels of starch which is a polysaccharide, several bonds need to be broken to make them available for absorption. So the structure of the starch within the food product can determine how quickly it is absorbed
A carb product which has a fine cellular structure like french bread can be broken into its constituent monosaccharides in the mouth by salivary amylase hence the availability of sugars in baguette means it has a similar GI to table sugar.
A wholemeal loaf which is still bread and has a similar macro profile has the carbs available in a less soluble structure and in larger paticles of grain so although having the same profile of macronutrients. Has a lower glycaemic index than a baguette but still relatively high.
Pasta mashed potatoes and rice all have high GI
Fruit is still pretty much 100% carb and does contain fructose but is more complex in structure so as long as it's not dried or very wet and high sugar like pineapple, fruit is generally lower GI than refined carbs.
Veg, again pretty much 100% carb but much less free sugar, plenty of cellulose (can't be digensted by humans) also rich in phytochemicals (good). Tend to be lower still in GI.
When a mixed meal is chewed, the other components such as fat and protein can 'cloak' the high GI components in the slurry, slowing the absorption. So there is a bit of sense in 'eat your meat or you won't get any pudding'
The other thing to be considered is satiety index. This is an arbitrary scale where white bread is rated as 100% and other food such as croissants are less satisfying and other foods such as baked potato are more satisfying/filling.
Knowing the glycaemic and satiety indices of what you are eating gives you a clue as to how soon you'll be hungry. Consumption of high GI carbs is clearly unlikely to be a significant part of weight control (with the exception of fuelling and refuelling exercise sessions) but are relatively benign compared with Ultra Processed Foods which sit apart in the way they are designed (including the packaging and the sound they make before they enter the mouth) to the precise ratios of refined carb and fats which humans seem programmed to consume to excess. Think pizzas, chips, pies, donuts. They all combine high GI starch with fats and either sugar a salt to create a high palatability low satiety product. Think of the the usual buffet - it would be easy to consume your daily calorie allowance in minutes and still feel like you want more.
There's an increasing recognition that successful weight loss and maintaining healthy weight and good nutrition is about achieving a calorie deficit/balance through appetite management rather than restriction. Hunger is a fundamental drive and is different to managing cravings for alcohol, nicotine etc. Trying to limit calorie intake without paying careful attention to the nutritional and filling qualities of what we're eating is a fool's errand becuase we'll get intolerably hungry and break restrictions sooner or later.
Eat plenty of vegetables in a range of colours, eat meat and fish, a bit of fruit, a variety of nuts and seeds, go easy on the starch, go very easy on the sugar, soft drinks and booze, drink plenty of water. Avoid heavily processed foods.
Don't eat too much (you don't need food weighing scales for that) and don't snack between meals.
It's not complicated, although many people may find it difficult.
Don't eat too much (you don't need food weighing scales for that) and don't snack between meals.
It's not complicated, although many people may find it difficult.
MC Bodge said:
Eat plenty of vegetables in a range of colours, eat meat and fish, a bit of fruit, a variety of nuts and seeds, go easy on the starch, go very easy on the sugar, soft drinks and booze, drink plenty of water. Avoid heavily processed foods.
Don't eat too much (you don't need food weighing scales for that) and don't snack between meals.
It's not complicated, although many people may find it difficult.
Typically this is the view of someone who finds it easy to manage their food intake and keep their weight down.Don't eat too much (you don't need food weighing scales for that) and don't snack between meals.
It's not complicated, although many people may find it difficult.
For a lot (most?) people they need guidance and for a lot of people a regime / method.
If you are trying to lose weight, you pretty much always end up at the same place - cut out booze, starchy and sugary foods and eat less and try to get more exercise.
Whether you use calories, no carbs, starvation or the cabbage diet etc, the end result is that if you eat less calories than you expend you will lose weight.
Everything else is focussed on managing appetite, hunger and ensuring you can keep with whatever programme you are on for long enough for it to get you where you want to go.
Burrow01 said:
Typically this is the view of someone who finds it easy to manage their food intake and keep their weight down.
No, fatties are not hard done by, they are overweight because they enjoy their food more than is sensible. It's not that everyone else "finds it easy", believe me, they don't.Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff