Why is it all focussed on calories and not carbs?

[gangzoom]

I didn’t realise carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen molecules could be classes as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ .

[jagnet]

C4ME said:

Here we go again, carbs are bad yada yada. Carbs are not bad, sh*tty carbs are bad which is what most people cut out by following a low carb diet. Cutting the crap out and then introducing good carbs would be a healthier way to live.

citation needed

[Terminator X]

PositronicRay said:

And remember, you can't outrun a poor diet.

Can you out cycle it?

TX.

[Kermit power]

jagnet said:

C4ME said:

Here we go again, carbs are bad yada yada. Carbs are not bad, sh*tty carbs are bad which is what most people cut out by following a low carb diet. Cutting the crap out and then introducing good carbs would be a healthier way to live.

citation needed

Citations are needed for pretty much all of this, to be fair! In most cases, there simply aren't any.

Take the notion of "you need a 7,700 calorie deficit to lose 1kg of weight". It's a gross oversimplification at best, and you'll not find any scientific proof for it because there isn't any.

What is a calorie? It's the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1g of water by 1 degree C. That doesn't necessarily mean that the human body can absorb and use all the energy contained in what we put in our mouths though. To take an absurd example, you could run a power station by burning sawdust to turn water into steam to move turbines, and you could also shovel down a few spoonfuls of sawdust, but you'd not gain any weight from the calories because they're in the form of cellulose, which the human body cannot absorb.

Of course, we don't consider sawdust as a food, even though we could physically eat it. Of the things we do consider to be food, the perceived wisdom is that the percentage of the calories that can be absorbed by the human body varies from 92% for protein to 98% for carbs.

You can go further than that, though, as the amount of energy required to extract the calories can vary too. We use more energy breaking down raw food than we do cooked, for example, as the cooking process gives the body a head start on breaking down some elements of the food we eat, such as collagen in meat.

You could go further still by considering that we need to expend more energy to maintain a stable core temperature in cold weather than in warm weather, and all of that is before considering all the differences between individual people.

Thinking in terms of maintaining a 7,700 calorie deficit to lose 1kg of body fat is all well and good as an aid to thinking to consume less, but in reality the amount could easily vary by 1,500 calories depending on the individual, the food they eat and so forth, on top of which it's remarkably difficult to accurately measure energy expenditure.

[jagnet]

Kermit power said:

Thinking in terms of maintaining a 7,700 calorie deficit to lose 1kg of body fat is all well and good as an aid to thinking to consume less, but in reality the amount could easily vary by 1,500 calories depending on the individual, the food they eat and so forth, on top of which it's remarkably difficult to accurately measure energy expenditure.

Quite. Unless you're severely undereating, caloric deficit can only really be calculated retrospectively: I lost weight therefore I must have been in a caloric deficit / I gained weight, therefore I must have been in surplus.

The margins of error in calculating energy requirements are large. The complexity of metabolic processes are mind boggling. The difference between maintaing normal body mass versus becoming obese over a 20 year period, if measured in terms of calories in v calories out, requires accuracy down to a couple of peanuts per day. Good luck with that.

[mooseracer]

Vs




I think is where people go wrong. 2 carby breakfasts.

[Tye Green]

oddman said:

JerseyRoyal said:

Tye Green said:

Though I've no knowledge of the science involved I can say that my body loses weight rapidly by denying it carbs.

I do this maybe once a year and give it zero carbs for 2 weeks and will lose 8-9kg.

Mild headache at about day 3 for a short time (don't even bother with pain relief) and stools get to about 1-2 on Bristol scale.

After 2 weeks anything with sugar tastes gross for a couple of days then rinse and repeat next year.

Simple & effective

It’s called ketosis, by denying your body new energy sources you force it to burn stored. It’s ok for a short period but it’s not particularly healthy to do all the time.

It's fair to say that a 2 week carb fast will put you into ketosis but ketosis isn't the reason for the rapid weigh loss.

The brain requires glucose to function so all the stored carbohydrate will be used before the body starts synthesising usable fuel from fat (ketosis).

Carbohydrate is stored as glycogen which is a glucose polymer similar to starch (the plant equivalent). For every gram of glycogen stored in muscle or the liver, the body has to store three grams of water. When the glycogen stores are depleted, the water is released and if not required is excreted. Hence for every 1g of glycogen you lose in initial calorie restriction you'll lose 4g in total.

This is the reason why all diets relying on, particularly dramatic, calorie restriction 'work' and why seasoned dieters refer to 'water weight'. This isn't only true on intitial restriction it will happen whenever the body is replete with glycogen and exposes to a colorie deficit. It also works the other way too. If you've been restricting or exercising and have relatively depleted glycogen stores, when you top them up you store loads of water too.

interesting science above but it doesn't change the results!

lose 1 1/2 stone in 2 weeks, fit into smaller clothes, feel better, start eating anything again, put weight back on gradually over 6 months, rinse and repeat.

been doing this for 15 years and it works for me.

[Wills2]

Tye Green said:

interesting science above but it doesn't change the results!

lose 1 1/2 stone in 2 weeks, fit into smaller clothes, feel better, start eating anything again, put weight back on gradually over 6 months, rinse and repeat.

been doing this for 15 years and it works for me.

I think your idea of working is different to most peoples, you over eat then you under eat, try the middle setting, then you won't get fat in the first place.

[Tye Green]

Wills2 said:

Tye Green said:

interesting science above but it doesn't change the results!

lose 1 1/2 stone in 2 weeks, fit into smaller clothes, feel better, start eating anything again, put weight back on gradually over 6 months, rinse and repeat.

been doing this for 15 years and it works for me.

I think your idea of working is different to most peoples, you over eat then you under eat, try the middle setting, then you won't get fat in the first place.

you seem to have misunderstood.

there's no under-eating during the no-carb period (eat anything and in any quantity so long as there's no carbs) and no over eating the rest of the time. and it's not about getting fat, just more weight than optimum.

hopefully that's clear for you?

[Bluevanman]

Tye Green said:

you seem to have misunderstood.

there's no under-eating during the no-carb period (eat anything and in any quantity so long as there's no carbs) and no over eating the rest of the time. and it's not about getting fat, just more weight than optimum.

hopefully that's clear for you?

Your no carbs must be putting you into a calorie deficiency

[Tye Green]

Bluevanman said:

Tye Green said:

you seem to have misunderstood.

there's no under-eating during the no-carb period (eat anything and in any quantity so long as there's no carbs) and no over eating the rest of the time. and it's not about getting fat, just more weight than optimum.

hopefully that's clear for you?

Your no carbs must be putting you into a calorie deficiency

well, there's plenty of meat, fish & eggs etc so don't go hungry.

lots of people have lost weight rapidly by temporarily eliminating carbs. it's nothing new and was made mainstream by The Atkins Diet. it works for me and it works for lots of other people too. other types of diets work for other people too. there is currently insufficient knowledge on the body's function to have a simple one-size-fits-all solution to losing weight otherwise there would just be a pill for it

[C4ME]

^^^^ Absolutely true. Different eating plans suit different aims. As example, my partner is putting themselves into ketosis a week before trekking where there will be a severe shortage of food. They know their body will go into it anyway and therefore better to trigger it and manage any early side effects from adjusting before starting. Short term weight loss is another scenario where keto suits some people.

I defend carbs because I want people to get away from the a) 'all carbs are bad' and b) 'remove carbs from your diet for ever' messages that get pushed.

Everything in moderation.

[C4ME]

As an input into the calorie debate, over the last 6 years I have tracked my calories and established for myself a clear relationship between calorie intake and weight gain/loss. I have an upper and lower limit, at the upper I put weight on and at the lower I take it off. The trends are really clear.

On top of that then the sort of food consumed, irrespective of calories, determines my overall health. Mediterranean style and good nutrition and I feel better, skin looks better etc. More convenience type diet, sugary foods etc I feel worse. I can again really feel the difference.

I am old enough that youth can no longer compensate for a bad diet and over indulgence.

[Smurfsarepeopletoo]

Tye Green said:

well, there's plenty of meat, fish & eggs etc so don't go hungry.

lots of people have lost weight rapidly by temporarily eliminating carbs. it's nothing new and was made mainstream by The Atkins Diet. it works for me and it works for lots of other people too. other types of diets work for other people too. there is currently insufficient knowledge on the body's function to have a simple one-size-fits-all solution to losing weight otherwise there would just be a pill for it

There is a 1 size fits all solution, Calories in Vs Calories out. People lose weight quickly for 2 reasons when cutting carbs out, the first is the amount of water they lose, and the second is that they tend not to replace the calories they lose when they cut carbs out, a slice of bread is roughly around 130 calories, when you cut carbs out, you tend not to consume the same amount of calories.

[popeyewhite]

C4ME said:

^^^^ Absolutely true. Different eating plans suit different aims. As example, my partner is putting themselves into ketosis a week before trekking where there will be a severe shortage of food. They know their body will go into it anyway

O/T but surely carb load and take some complex carbs with her this close to travel? I mean if you want to go into ketosis early before some kind of endurance exercise you should start at least four weeks beforehand.... .

[C4ME]

popeyewhite said:

C4ME said:

^^^^ Absolutely true. Different eating plans suit different aims. As example, my partner is putting themselves into ketosis a week before trekking where there will be a severe shortage of food. They know their body will go into it anyway

O/T but surely carb load and take some complex carbs with her this close to travel? I mean if you want to go into ketosis early before some kind of endurance exercise you should start at least four weeks beforehand.... .

True. I put it badly using the word trekking. It is less endurance and more out in the wilderness with no food taken along. O/T for sure.

[Kermit power]

Smurfsarepeopletoo said:

There is a 1 size fits all solution, Calories in Vs Calories out. People lose weight quickly for 2 reasons when cutting carbs out, the first is the amount of water they lose, and the second is that they tend not to replace the calories they lose when they cut carbs out, a slice of bread is roughly around 130 calories, when you cut carbs out, you tend not to consume the same amount of calories.

If you reduce everything down to the extreme then yes, calories in/out works in a laws of science sort of way.

It's pretty meaningless to anyone in the real world though, because there are so many variables in both in and out that can't be measured outside a lab that 99% of attempts to track it are pretty much random.

[popeyewhite]

Kermit power said:

If you reduce everything down to the extreme then yes, calories in/out works in a laws of science sort of way.

It is science. What do you mean "sort of way"?

Kermit power said:

It's pretty meaningless to anyone in the real world though, because there are so many variables in both in and out that can't be measured outside a lab that 99% of attempts to track it are pretty much random.

I know a fair number of people who track their calories regularly and accurately enough to lose weight to the nearest pound within a given timeframe. Most serious sportsmen/women do exactly that. However the biggest variable for non-sportspeople is they lack the discipline to go that far.

[Kermit power]

popeyewhite said:

Kermit power said:

If you reduce everything down to the extreme then yes, calories in/out works in a laws of science sort of way.

It is science. What do you mean "sort of way"?

Laws of science sort of way. As in you cannot destroy energy, so energy consumed and not used has to be stored. In the real world, however, there are so many variables that it's not really usable science for 99% of the population with any degree of accuracy.

Kermit power said:

It's pretty meaningless to anyone in the real world though, because there are so many variables in both in and out that can't be measured outside a lab that 99% of attempts to track it are pretty much random.

popeyewhite said:

I know a fair number of people who track their calories regularly and accurately enough to lose weight to the nearest pound within a given timeframe. Most serious sportsmen/women do exactly that. However the biggest variable for non-sportspeople is they lack the discipline to go that far.

If they do it's either down to pure fluke or a completely inflexible routine for a whole host of reasons, mostly to do with the near impossibility of accurately measuring energy.

If you ever eat in a restaurant, your estimation of calories consumed is only ever going to be an approximation at best. 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.

If you're female, your weight may vary by anything up to 5lb depending on where you are in your monthly cycle.

If it's particularly cold, you'll burn more energy just maintaining a stable core body temperature.

If you ever base your calorie count on food labels, those can legally vary by up to 20% in the UK, so at best your calorie counting may average out over time if you're lucky.

Our bodies are really fking clever, so will automatically detect a reduction in calories coming in and respond to it by slowing our metabolisms in an attempt to maintain energy stores. Unfortunately whilst this would've been an essential survival mechanism for most of human history - and still is in times of famine - the rapid developments in food production since the agricultural revolution have turned it from a key survival rate into something of a sabotage mechanism.

Then consider the ability that most people without a dedicated sports science facility have to measure energy expended. You could go for a bike ride and log it on Strava, for example? That's going to give you a number for calories burnt which is completely and utterly meaningless! If you want to test it, go out and ride 10 miles on a nice flat straight road with a 10mph tail wind, then turn round and ride back into a 10mph headwind in the boggy field next to the road on a mountain bike wearing mud tyres to cope with the conditions. Do you feel like you've burnt the same amount of energy each way? According to Strava you will have, since you've just done two flat 10 mile bike rides!

Yes, a professional athlete already at a very low body fat with the time and support necessary to monitor and adapt everything precisely might be able to do it, but for all the above reasons and plenty more besides, nobody else can actually monitor energy in/out and the impact thereof with anything even remotely approaching accuracy.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's an intrinsically bad thing, but in reality any benefits that people think they're getting from meticulously recording all their calories in/out using apps like MFP and Strava could be just as easily replicated (far more sustainably because it's so much easier to keep doing and people won't get frustrated and give up if they can't "accurately" report a restaurant meal) by just keeping a simple food and exercise diary to help them keep themselves honest about snacking or not going to the gym for a few days.

[g3org3y]

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.