Why is it all focussed on calories and not carbs?
Discussion
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.
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!!
Scarletpimpofnel said:
mooseracer said:
What are the carbs that are not sugar? Does the body not gain calories from those non sugar carbs? Or just less calories than from sugars?What is not on the label is the split of Sugar between naturally occurring sugars and added sugar (aka free sugars).
You can deliver calories from all three types. Nutrition and health effects can be different from the three. They are also converted into energy at different speeds (i.e. harder or easier for the body to break down).
Edited by C4ME on Wednesday 1st May 21:00
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.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff