6 ms·

> Eating 200-2500 at 50-60% carbs tends to make me fat-ter than eating 3000 at 20%. This is horse shit. It does not matter what form the calories are in, if yo

by ebbv 12y ago

> Eating 200-2500 at 50-60% carbs tends to make me fat-ter than eating 3000 at 20%. This is horse shit. It does not matter what form the calories are in, if you are eating too many you will gain weight. If you eat less than you need you will lose weight. Source: I lost over 100 lbs in 2010-2011.

mason55 12y ago
The two sides of this argument always talk past each other. As someone who lost 100lbs I'm sure you know this but lots of people don't. * Calories in vs. calories out is 100% what determines how much weight you gain or lose. * Your macronutrient ratios determine how that weight is partitioned (muscle vs fat) and have some control over hormones that contribute to hunger, like leptin. The end result is that cutting out carbs can help people get to a calorie deficit without feeling hungry like they would on a "standard" low fat diet.
- ebbv 12y ago
  Cutting carbs helps because carbs aren't filling/satisfying. That's true. But he wasn't making that claim. He was making the old woo-woo claim that you can eat way too many calories in fat and still lose weight. The only way to lose weight is to have a calorie deficit.
- jemacniddle 12y ago
  Unless your protein intake is severely lower than 50g/day the partitioning is minimal at best. Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit, 40-60g/fiber per day usually increases satiation. What exactly do you mean by 'standard low fat diet'?
  - commandar 12y ago
    >Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit My personal experience is quite the opposite. When I did the whole low carb thing, I was having to intentionally supplement my calorie intake because I was eating 800-1000 calories per day otherwise which I felt was too low (my BMR at the time was ballpark 3000 calories, so figure burning around 3600/day even sedentary). The only other time in my life that I've had to make a conscious effort to eat enough was when I was on prescription adderall in high school and would sometimes forget to eat for an entire day. Outside of that, I eat, and eat too much, honestly. I quit the keto thing after about 6 months because, frankly, I missed pasta too much, but the whole appetite suppression thing with it is very real in my experience and is one of the most commonly reported side effects I've seen online.
  - mason55 12y ago
    > What exactly do you mean by 'standard low fat diet'? Sorry, I was referring to what has been the standard recommendation for losing weight and being healthy - low fat, low protein, high carb. > Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit, 40-60g/fiber per day usually increases satiation I disagree a million times over. I'm a 6'1" 190lb male who frequently cuts on 1700 calories and I can feel stuffed all day by consuming lots of lean protein and vegetables. For example two pounds of chicken breast each day would leave me absolutely stuffed with room for another 750 calories for carbs and fat.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Sorry, I was referring to what has been the standard recommendation for losing weight and being healthy - low fat, low protein, high carb. I've never in my life heard anyone recommend "low fat, low protein, high carb" for losing weight and being healthy (as a maintenance diet for people without special needs like losing weight, sure, I've seen that.) Even 30ish years ago, while "low fat" was prominent, a focus on lean protein sources as a main source of calories was common. And, "low carb" to the extreme has been the common recommendation, in various forms, since the late 1990s.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Calories in vs. calories out is 100% what determines how much weight you gain or lose. No, its not. Muscle and fat don't take the same calorie surplus/deficit per pound to gain or lose, so calories in vs. calories out will not tell the whole story of how much weight you gain or lose. I believe, in fact, that it takes less of a calorie surplus to gain a pound of muscle than the calorie deficit to lose a pound of fat, so that its actually possible to gain weight over time on a net calorie deficit, within certain bounds.
edgyswingset 12y ago
I'm not qualified to discuss this in detail, but we shouldn't necessarily discount the biochemistry of people and how they differ. Some people process carbohydrates much less efficiently than others, making it harder to lose weight. While the baseline is absolutely true (you can't stuff an excess of calories in your body on a no-carb diet and expect weight loss), it is more complicated than that.
johnward 12y ago
Not necessarily "horse shit". We know sugars produce insulin responses. We know insulin causes growth/weightgain. We know carbs most directly convert to sugar, followed by protein, followed by fat. So in theory you may be able to eat more fat and protein without gaining AS much weight. Now if you are at a calorie deficit you aren't going to gain I agree with that but I can consume more calories of high fat / low carb and still lose weight. The bottom line with dieting is find something that works for you.
uniformlyrandom 12y ago
> It does not matter what form the calories are in This is horse shit. Carbohydrates are very easy to transform to glucose, therefore you get a spike in glucose levels from a carb-reach meal. An excess of glucose gets converted and stored as fat. The same amount of calories consumed as fat or proteins would take much longer to process, thus not causing a spike in glucose level, thus not triggering a fat storage process. Reference: http://www.livestrong.com/article/264767-how-is-excess-glucose-stored/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/264767-how-is-excess-gluco...
adventured 12y ago
In fact it does matter where the calories come from. It matters dramatically. You eat doritos, white pasta, white bread, pizza and Mt. Dew. Consume 2,000 calories per day. I'll eat broccoli, chicken breasts, eggs, and bacon at 2,000 calories per day. Let's compare results after six months. Can you lose weight by keeping your terrible diet below X calories - good luck with that - but yes you can, assuming you can handle what the hyper carb diet does to your body's sense of being full and energy levels. However we will not have the same results, and you can eat more calories in my diet than you can in yours, because to process my diet burns more calories than yours, and the protein in my diet will aid your muscle retention a lot more than the high sugar diet. Hint: protein is a vastly superior intake vs junk carbohydrates. 300 calories from chicken are NOT used or processed by the body the same way as 300 calories from a Mt. Dew. Broccoli burns a lot of calories during the process of digestion relative to its calorie count.
- ebbv 12y ago
  You are 100% wrong. First off, neither of us are going to significantly lose weight at 2k/day. That's not much of a deficit unless you are really, really fat or really, really active. Secondly, yes I can eat garbage like McDonald's and Wendy's and only eat 1500 calories/day and lose weight. That's exactly what I did.

by ebbv 12y ago

mason55 12y ago

The two sides of this argument always talk past each other. As someone who lost 100lbs I'm sure you know this but lots of people don't. * Calories in vs. calories out is 100% what determines how much weight you gain or lose. * Your macronutrient ratios determine how that weight is partitioned (muscle vs fat) and have some control over hormones that contribute to hunger, like leptin. The end result is that cutting out carbs can help people get to a calorie deficit without feeling hungry like they would on a "standard" low fat diet.

ebbv 12y ago
Cutting carbs helps because carbs aren't filling/satisfying. That's true. But he wasn't making that claim. He was making the old woo-woo claim that you can eat way too many calories in fat and still lose weight. The only way to lose weight is to have a calorie deficit.
jemacniddle 12y ago
Unless your protein intake is severely lower than 50g/day the partitioning is minimal at best. Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit, 40-60g/fiber per day usually increases satiation. What exactly do you mean by 'standard low fat diet'?
- commandar 12y ago
  >Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit My personal experience is quite the opposite. When I did the whole low carb thing, I was having to intentionally supplement my calorie intake because I was eating 800-1000 calories per day otherwise which I felt was too low (my BMR at the time was ballpark 3000 calories, so figure burning around 3600/day even sedentary). The only other time in my life that I've had to make a conscious effort to eat enough was when I was on prescription adderall in high school and would sometimes forget to eat for an entire day. Outside of that, I eat, and eat too much, honestly. I quit the keto thing after about 6 months because, frankly, I missed pasta too much, but the whole appetite suppression thing with it is very real in my experience and is one of the most commonly reported side effects I've seen online.
- mason55 12y ago
  > What exactly do you mean by 'standard low fat diet'? Sorry, I was referring to what has been the standard recommendation for losing weight and being healthy - low fat, low protein, high carb. > Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit, 40-60g/fiber per day usually increases satiation I disagree a million times over. I'm a 6'1" 190lb male who frequently cuts on 1700 calories and I can feel stuffed all day by consuming lots of lean protein and vegetables. For example two pounds of chicken breast each day would leave me absolutely stuffed with room for another 750 calories for carbs and fat.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Sorry, I was referring to what has been the standard recommendation for losing weight and being healthy - low fat, low protein, high carb. I've never in my life heard anyone recommend "low fat, low protein, high carb" for losing weight and being healthy (as a maintenance diet for people without special needs like losing weight, sure, I've seen that.) Even 30ish years ago, while "low fat" was prominent, a focus on lean protein sources as a main source of calories was common. And, "low carb" to the extreme has been the common recommendation, in various forms, since the late 1990s.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Calories in vs. calories out is 100% what determines how much weight you gain or lose. No, its not. Muscle and fat don't take the same calorie surplus/deficit per pound to gain or lose, so calories in vs. calories out will not tell the whole story of how much weight you gain or lose. I believe, in fact, that it takes less of a calorie surplus to gain a pound of muscle than the calorie deficit to lose a pound of fat, so that its actually possible to gain weight over time on a net calorie deficit, within certain bounds.

edgyswingset 12y ago

I'm not qualified to discuss this in detail, but we shouldn't necessarily discount the biochemistry of people and how they differ. Some people process carbohydrates much less efficiently than others, making it harder to lose weight. While the baseline is absolutely true (you can't stuff an excess of calories in your body on a no-carb diet and expect weight loss), it is more complicated than that.

johnward 12y ago

Not necessarily "horse shit". We know sugars produce insulin responses. We know insulin causes growth/weightgain. We know carbs most directly convert to sugar, followed by protein, followed by fat. So in theory you may be able to eat more fat and protein without gaining AS much weight. Now if you are at a calorie deficit you aren't going to gain I agree with that but I can consume more calories of high fat / low carb and still lose weight. The bottom line with dieting is find something that works for you.

uniformlyrandom 12y ago

> It does not matter what form the calories are in This is horse shit. Carbohydrates are very easy to transform to glucose, therefore you get a spike in glucose levels from a carb-reach meal. An excess of glucose gets converted and stored as fat. The same amount of calories consumed as fat or proteins would take much longer to process, thus not causing a spike in glucose level, thus not triggering a fat storage process. Reference: http://www.livestrong.com/article/264767-how-is-excess-glucose-stored/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/264767-how-is-excess-gluco...

adventured 12y ago

In fact it does matter where the calories come from. It matters dramatically. You eat doritos, white pasta, white bread, pizza and Mt. Dew. Consume 2,000 calories per day. I'll eat broccoli, chicken breasts, eggs, and bacon at 2,000 calories per day. Let's compare results after six months. Can you lose weight by keeping your terrible diet below X calories - good luck with that - but yes you can, assuming you can handle what the hyper carb diet does to your body's sense of being full and energy levels. However we will not have the same results, and you can eat more calories in my diet than you can in yours, because to process my diet burns more calories than yours, and the protein in my diet will aid your muscle retention a lot more than the high sugar diet. Hint: protein is a vastly superior intake vs junk carbohydrates. 300 calories from chicken are NOT used or processed by the body the same way as 300 calories from a Mt. Dew. Broccoli burns a lot of calories during the process of digestion relative to its calorie count.

ebbv 12y ago
You are 100% wrong. First off, neither of us are going to significantly lose weight at 2k/day. That's not much of a deficit unless you are really, really fat or really, really active. Secondly, yes I can eat garbage like McDonald's and Wendy's and only eat 1500 calories/day and lose weight. That's exactly what I did.