There are so many people saying different things when it comes to what to eat for losing weight. Are carbs really that bad for weight loss?
And- If today I eat 8000kj of carbs vs 8000kj of meat & veg…would the carbs make me fatter?
For weight loss - carbs yes or no
[Deactivated] on 02/02/2017 - 19:39
Poll Options
- 119Carbs are bad for weight loss
- 12Carbs are good for weight loss
- 49Carbs have no effect on weight loss
Comments
- 1
- 2
How is it impractical?
Deficit diets don't work in the long run in everyday life
You eat at a caloric deficit, you lose weight. You eat at a caloric surplus, you gain weight. You eat at maintenance, your weight does not change.
Calories in/calories out is a simple concept that does not work for most as there are a number of factors that affect how the metabolism works.
Calories in/calories out is the law of thermodynamics, it is indisputable. If I am a 6'5" marathon running male I will have a higher metabolic rate and therefore require more calories. If I am a 5"3 sedentary female I will have a lower metabolic rate and therefore require less calories. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IF YOU EAT LESS CALORIES THAN YOUR TOTAL DAILY ENERGY EXPENDITURE(TDEE) YOU WILL LOSE WIGHT.
All you have to do is calculate your TDEE, there are calculators to estimate it online and you can then log your food intake/weight to determine it precisely, and then eat less than this. Boom. Guaranteed weight loss.
Weight loss is incredibly simple, yet can be excruciatingly hard for people with a lifetime of bad dietary habits. That doesn't change the fact that everyone will lose weight by eating under their TDEE.
"Calories in/calories out is a simple concept that does not work for most as there are a number of factors that affect how the metabolism"
Of course there are a number of factors that affect metabolism but what has this got to do with the premise that an overall calorie deficit results losing weight?
@Heracles26: I would love it to be so simple,A-B=C. That just doesn't represent how complex biological systems operate in a social environment of dynamic stimuli.
Sure put someone in a concentration camp and give them a reduced calorific intake.
Malnourished, starving but losing weight?
All I saying is if simple reductionalist Newtonian thinking of simple calorie counting worked we wouldn't have an obesity problem. If you have an achievable solution ( rather than the Final one) then sign me up because you'll make million$Of course in practice its not simple because most people are undisciplined and unable to control their habits for whatever specific reason.
However nothing about my comment was false, it really is as simple as overall calorie intake being less than overall calorie expenditure to result in weight loss (in healthy individuals free of disease etc).
The point still stands that if you eat under your caloric requirements (which are obviously impacted by genetics, lifestyle etc) you will loose weight.
What people tend to forget is as your lifestyle changes (age, diet, exercise, rest, illnesses etc), your caloric (or energy) requirements also change so it's never as easy as black or white - but the general principles of energy conservation apply.
I don't understand how people fail to comprehend cal in / cal out. The amount of misinformation regarding this and in the fitness industry in general is a joke.
@knk:
It's because people hate to accept that losing weight means feeling hungry a lot of the time, or eating loads of the sort of low-energy foods which they aren't used to. Magic solutions are more appealing.
@nrg2010:
"We have had 30 odd years of low fat diets, which can be considered to be part of the obesity issue."
Probably moreover related to increased sugar in foods a.k.a high caloric intakeIf they don't want a low-cal diet, they have another option - exercise more. We have an obesity problem because people don't want to do either of these.
Problem with that is that unless you're a professional athlete burning off that large pizza chips and whatever you decide to eat for dessert is near impossible lol
@airal3rt: Mate you're absolutely right. I've been on a few cutting/bulking cycles, and the partition of macronutrients doesn't really matter in term of weight loss, however it does make a differece whether you can keep it up or not.
For me personally I train weights 4-5 days a week and do a couple of HIIT per week. My carb intake has to be over 40% of my total intake to not feel shit. Protein has to be high on a cut to maintain muscle mass plus its thermic effect is great for fat loss. That leaves my fat intake around 20%, which is pretty low, but I can't afford lowering the other 2 macronutrients. I usually increase my fat intake a lot on a bulk though.
One other factor that's imporant too is, when eating at very low calories on a regular basis, I stop to lose weight completely. I've hit plateau like this twice. Fat loss resumed after I incrased my daily intake by a few hundred calories.
@nrg2010: Yeah metabolism plays a role in fat loss. If you starve yourself, your metabolism is gonna crash and your NEAT level drops signifantly to the point where you may not see immediately fat loss even if you are on a caloric deficit.
But the law of thermodynamics still holds true. "calories" in vs "calories out" still works. It just means now your "calories out" is signicantly reduced and your assumed deficit may not exist anymore.
You think obesity is because of low fat intake? What blasphemy is that? It's because of processed carbohydrates and overconsumption of that crap. You never lose/gain weight becuase you eat a certain thing/macronutrient. Remember the law of thermodynamics? You gain weight by consuming more energy than you burn. All those processed carbs make it easy to overconsume.
Only if you're bulking. When cutting I just polish off a single tub of low fat vanilla icecream . (Which ironically has almost an identical amount of calories to full fat with more sugar and less fat….I'd rather the fat).
Fat intake for me is a huge one, when cutting I have to keep it at a minimum of 40g and eventually I still turn into an insufferable bastard. Cheat meal seems to clear that up.
@knk: From what i can see, fat is not what makes you feel terrible, it's the prolonged metabolic stress that you put on yourself during a cut. I rarely feel bad physically or mentally on a cut, it's just the heavy weights start to get really heavy that bothers me a lot.
Try eat as much low-GI carbs as you can while your calories allow.
this is probably the best 'diet' out there as your not changing your 'whole' life to lose weight so it's a ton easier. Just not eating when your bored is key!
Where did you obtain those macronutrient figures?
Work most efficiently in what regard?
Would that ratio work well for an elite athlete as well as a sedentary 90 year old?
Of course it is a complex subject that is why I have tried to explain it in a simple manner if the only goal is weight loss
Sonko et al (1994), NHMRC 1999, 2003, US:Canadian Dietary Reference Intakes (FNB:IOM 2002), Pelletier et al 1995, Keusch 1990, Hislop et al 1986, Lubin et al 1981, 1986, Toniolo et al 1994, Kerstetter et al 2003, Weisburger, 1988..etc
@Heracles26: I don't think the human body has evolved much in the last couple of decades.
Here's a nice summary though.
http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/MacronutrientRatio.html
You'll see that at the bottom of the page is a nice quote from 1906.No it hasnt but our understanding of it has changed. The fact that you cannot cite any recent studies to support these claims is evidence enough.
Heracles is 100% correct.
Ninjastud has obviously attended/completed one of those shonky "be a personal trainer" courses and has a very limited and/or outdated knowledge of CURRENT peer reviewed research in the matter.
I challenge you Ninjastud to find anything that quotes "50℅ carbs" is most efficient. I'll wait.
@zeggie: http://www.bodybuilding.com/content/macro-math-3-keys-to-dia… This one is dated 25 January 2017. There is no science behind it and the 'very' latest research shows that specific macro-nutrient ratios for specific body types is rubbish, but I doubt that will deter those who think they know everything and will neg anyone they don't like the sound of.
Those who own use the 'My Fitness Pal' app. have the idea macro-nutrient levels helpfully programmed in , based on the research that their sources has undertaken.
Guess what ratio's they recommend?
But of course you will have some random reason to justify why you reject that also I guess.
Oh, and I didn't attend any shonky course as you suggest.
My current research is into the impact of certain over the shelf supplements (specifically pre-workout and post workout recovery) on weight lifting performance for higher age groups.
My specialty is the area of our aging population and athletic performance/life enhancement."bodybuilding.com" and "My Fitness Pal" is not what I would consider to be peer reviewed research lol.
Not to mention that crappy article dissents from your earlier posts lol.
@zeggie: Where do you think the above mentioned sources obtain their information from?
You seem to have reverted to some kind of 'I know better than you' competition.
I am happy to leave you with that delusion.
Arbitrary macro-nutrient ratios in my opinion. Its just not that simple….
Traditionally:
endomorph need lower carbs.
mesomorph moderate carbs.
ectomorph higher carbs.If you have a bit of reading into it you'll find that the whole body type thing is defunct and most of us have a very small variance in our metabolic rates.
The fat guy, he eats more calories. The skinny guy, he eats less.
"Eat whatever you want with the only caveat being not to go above this calories limit."
So with this logic I will be aesthetically no different at 11.59pm at the end of the day in these two situations:
a) Ate 4000 Cal of sugar at 8:00AM then worked off that 4000 Cal at 5pm
b) Ate 4000 Cal of oats at 8:00AM then worked off that 4000 Cal at 5pmCompletely wrong
This is the reason why people say 'oh I gave dieting a go but it didn't work for me' and are put off from trying again.
- Your body is not a bank account. It doesn't tally up the credits and debits at the end of the day then apply the changes instantly
- The above logic is one of the biggest oversimplifications. There are so many factors that go into eating and training. good/bad fat intake , high/low GI carb digestion and delivery to bloodstream and muscles rate, genetics, total lean muscle mass v total fat mass , type of exercise done and so on and so on
The human body is a complex thing … it doesn't work on a simple addition and subtraction rule.
Its probably close to a very complex formulaMaybe I should have said "eat a balanced diet with the only caveat being not to go above this calorie limit"
and we are talking about body weight here, not body composition or aesthetics.
Nobody is denying this is a complex issue and it is made more complex in light of disease and other factors such as culture etc.
But, in a healthy individual, which I assume OP is, a simple calorie deficit, a balanced diet, and regular exercise will result in weight loss. He is not an elite athlete, there is no need to discuss nutrient timing or macronutrients to a large degree.
And again we are talking about simple body weight here, not health, not aesthetics, just body weight
It doesn't apply the 'credit' or 'debit' instantly, but in terms of fat, that is exactly how it works (this stuff only makes sense when averaged over the long term… Digestion and changes to body composition are not instant).
Specific nutrition and training will affect what your body composition looks like (you won't grow much muscle without exercise). And given that muscle and fat hold different amounts of energy per kilogram, sure, these factors do have some effects on weight.
However, at the end of the day, whether you lose or gain weight is entirely down to the the balance of energy you consume and expend. If you consume less than you expend, you will lose weight over the long term. Water weight can of course cause fluctuations, but it is not possible to become fat without eating more than you burn.
Carbs are fine in moderation IMO.
Your body is smarter than you realise. Cut out carbs, it will make you hungrier so you eat more other stuff etc etc
Havent we learned from the million studies out there, a balanced moderate diet and moderate exercise is the key to weight loss. Not cutting out this or that.
Simple carbs don't make you feel full though, what you should aim for is complex carbohydrates. Your body digests simple carbs very quickly since their molecular structure is much shorter and they are quickly turned into glucose. Complex carbs OTOH take much longer to digest, meaning you feel full for longer while not getting a massive spike in blood sugar levels.
We are also more prone to eating simple carbs because they're often cheaper and taste nicer. E.g a plate of piping hot Singaporean noodles is full of carbs and it tastes awesome but is bad for our body. You're more likely to go for the noodles over say, quinoa with steamed brocolli and cauliflower (which also contains carbs, but is so much healthier for you).
It's worth noting that the only real "simple" carb is sugar. From what you've written it sounds like you're referring to lower GI sources of carbs which they say will make you feel fuller for longer. Personally I haven't noticed a difference though.
"Havent we learned from the million studies out there, a balanced moderate diet and moderate exercise is the key to weight loss. Not cutting out this or that."
No eating at a caloric deficit is. If your balanced moderate diet happens to be less calories then sure it'll work.
The problem alot of people have is that a "balanced diet" can still include high calorie foods. Most people won't realise the difference between a salad loaded with avocado and mayonaise compared to something more leafy with a bit of balsamic for example. One will have 3x the calories, but hey it's "salad".
Your body is smarter than you realise. Cut out carbs, it will make you hungrier so you eat more other stuff etc etc
Completely not true at all, why don't you try a high protein low carb diet, i will guarantee you will not feel hungry at all. You might crave some stuff, but that just withdrawal from those delicious pizzas…
When you eat more protein than your body needs, some of the amino acids in the protein will be turned into glucose via a process called gluconeogenesis.
This will actually undo all the hard work you put into your low carb diet.
What you actually need most of is fat, followed by protein and then carb. You need to feet yourself fat to make your body burn fat… once it's switched to fat burning mode (called Ketosis), that's when you start to see some progress.
I completely agree with you scrimshaw, complex carbs on a calorie deficit is the way to go. Ketosis diets have always made me feel ill. I think to conclude this whole convosersation is each their own diet. It's trial and error. There seems to be lots of debate but I guess not everything works for everyone.
What may work for someone may not work for someone else. Cutting carbs personally has been nothing but distrimental, and has only promoted muscle loss. For others it works.
It's great to see Australia population is becoming more knowledgeable on such things. Better for health in our overall community. The days of health ignorance had been superseded.
aerona
I vouch 100% for LCHF if you are type 2 diabetic and/or overweight. I wouldn't have classified myself overweight at 77kg and 175cm… but after strict keto diet I shredded 10kgs and reduced insulin intake 95% (previously on a large dose due to carb sugar heavy diet) and without any exercise at all. Now I am hitting the gym in a bid to put some lean muscle. Problem I have now is that need some carbs to do it… bottom line is low carb diets are very effective.
If today I eat 8000kj of carbs vs 8000kj of meat & veg
Doesn't make sense because meat and veg contain carbohydrate.
Most Australians simply eat too much because we're controlled by marketing and behavior modifiers such as portion sizes.
Foods that are high in proteins and fats causes satiety (feeling full) immediately. If you want to experience this make a protein shake with protein powder and you will feel full and you won't want to eat more.
Foods that are high in carbohydrates have a delay of about 20 minutes in causing satiety. This means that we just keep shoveling it in and then feel full. For example breakfast cereal.
So consistently choosing foods that are high in fats and proteins will cause you to eat less without having to exercise any will power.
No meat contains a significant amount of carbohydrates. Starchy vegetables like potatoes and pumpkins do though. Of course it's easy to add carbs to them via sauces, crumbs, batters, etc.
Lol. How many carbs are in a steak?
zero in most steak as you probably know but it seems @Diji1 does not
lol why are people still upvoting Diji1?
His very first sentence is completely incorrect
To address your first query, if you ate 8000kj of carbs every day but the fat content wasn't too high then you probably wouldn't gain too much weight, but your body needs protein to maintain (or build) muscle mass so without it you'd most likely lose muscle tone and strength over time.
Weight loss is a complicated equation with a lot of variables and there are a whole bunch of people out there claiming that different things work better than others, but from the perspective of someone who's dropped over 60kg since they were 18, it's high protein low carb all the way.
Having said that not all carbs are bad, it's the processed carbs you really want to stay away from - so white flour, white sugar, all that sort of stuff. Generally I'm not too worried about eating healthy carbs (rolled oats, fruit, brown rice) throughout the day but I keep dinner as low carb as possible - that's just what seems to work for me.
Exercise is important too though, I've heard plenty of statements to the effect of "90% of the results you get from going to the gym are due to diet" but figuratively speaking you still need to get to the gym for those results to happen in the first place.
ultimately weight loss comes down to restricting your calorie intake. people have lost weight eating nothing but twinkies, but you would probably not want to do that.
you need to distinguish between complex carbs and refined carbs, not just lump both of them into a single "carbs" group. certainly you should cut out refined carbs. resistant starches also adds another level of complexity. some starchy vegetables can be made less insulinogenic by cooling and then reheating. then there are genetics/epigenetics considerations which might affect how your body handles carbs and fats
I find that when really cutting calories that protein (shakes and tuna om nom nom) helps the hunger better than carbs (bread, crackers, rice) on a calorie/hunger ratio. Regardless of whether it's suppose to trick your body into burning more fat, you probably want to boost the amount of protein in your diet if you're going to count and restrict calories.
Diet can work well with exercise. It's certainly how you build muscle and stamina and burn some extra calories. However you will lose weight if you're determined with your diet. You just need to reduce your caloric intake well below what your body uses (like 25% deficit at least?) every day. It will take time. You will be hungry. There will be no immediate results. But after a while there should be noticeable weight loss every week.
As for 8000 carbs vs protein. I can only imagine that over an extended amount of time they'd probably end up being similar weights however body composition would be weird. Carbs probably more easily get stored as fat. Muscles might shrink without protein. However some people swear by protein diets.
I can only speak from personal experience so here goes:
I feel/look bloated in the abdominal area when I've eaten meals containing carbs like bread, rice, noodles.
If I go several days avoiding such things, my stomach is clearly flatter. I also feel less lethargic, but that could be a mind-thing.
Mind you, I don't avoid fruits. I devour fruit - I don't fear naturally occurring sugars, nor do I feel that I suffer any obvious negative effects health-wise because of that sugar intake.
My norm is to eat very little processed food, which may also help keep my weight down reasonably effortlessly. No sweets on any regular basis. Treats now and then. I do enjoy alcohol rather frequently, and diet soft drinks.
Experiment with different things for yourself - cut out one item at a time from your regular diet, for a week or two, and see if it has any effect. There is science but I still believe every individual can experience different results, and it's ultimately the best way to learn if you're 'testing' your body and practising mindful eating, careful food choices, and being aware of your daily intake (calorie-wise and food groups wise).
same here, eating too much bread makes me feel bloated so the min I cut them I feel better… so I rarely eat bread, only carbs I eat is the ones in veggies etc…
hard for me to find a diet to lose weight having hypothyroidism…
Same for me. I am a pre-diabetic though. I did lite n easy for a while and other meal delivery diets but I wasn't losing much on them because a lot of the meals were high in carb. I started making my own meals after that with lower carb and the weight fell off. Most of my weight is around my stomach as well which sucks!
battled weight all my life. low carb high fat diet is the only thing that has worked for me long term. I feel better than ever, have more energy, sleep better, stopped snoring, hormone levels balanced out. after spending the last few years researching it's the way I will eat for the rest of my life. I can't recommend it enough. some good podcasts to listen to are 2ketodudes who spend allot of time going over the science.
all the best!
yeah Keto is great for weight (fat) loss, tried for 6 months on slow keto and lost 7 kg's.
But I gained it all back when I went back to eating normally again :(
It's hard to keep up Keto when your work gets in the way. The next thing I will try is replacing some of my food with soylent and cutting down calorie intake.
I would recommend turning it into a lifestyle and not reverting back to 'normal' It is now normal for me, and I find it muhch easier than restricting calories!
I've been on a keto lifestyle for two years now. It was strict keto for most of the first year. Now that I've reached a goal weight it's just a moderate low carb diet to maintain. I continue to avoid rice, pasta, bread, potato etc like the plague (I have zero desire for it anymore) but I can happily indulge in the odd dessert knowing it's not going to throw my body out of whack. I still keep most days to ~30g of carbs so when a slice cake pushes me close to 100g for a day it's not a big deal at all.
Perhaps speak to a doctor, or to a registered dietitian? In any case, please avoid random advice on the lines, and look at some sources which are reputable, such as The Conversation, which articles are written by researchers and experts in their fields, but in a language that is easily understandable.
Doctors are not trained in the nutrition department. My father is a GP and while he's knowledgeable about health in general, nutrition is not his forte. I wouldn't go to him for dieting advice for e.g, but he could tell me about what my blood test results are and the precursors of bad health.
Some doctors also believe that eating eggs correlate to having high cholesterol, although a nutrition specialist who's been keeping up to date with the latest studies made in the past 3 years would laugh at that piece of advice.
The problem is that most nutrition specialists (aka dieticians) are still being trained up with 1970s era theory. i.e. they still subscribe to that whole food pyramid baloney, or at least a variation of it.
90% of GPs have no idea about correct nutrition. Sad but true
Losing weight requires a lifestyle change , either eat as your doing and add x amount of exercise to lose the weight you want or eat healthier and exercise by walking , swimming cycling +each week one day eat at a restuarant , chocolate etc etc
Don't get too hung-up on counting calories.Eat healthy , drink plenty of water and exercise.
Slow and steady is what wins the race :)
yep, eat less = weight loss.
Check this site out - www.dietdoctor.com - LCHF is a great way to lose weight without feeling ravenously hungry. Carbs peak your insulin levels quickly & make you very hungry when they drop - eat more carbs, the cycle continues….I have lost 14kg in the last year on LCHF without any drama & kept it off easily, not super hungry & feel stacks better. Simple sugar is not a good energy source for your health. Do some reading & find out for yourself…it is not as simple as calories in vs calories out. Choosing the right calories is very important for your long term health. GL
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full
Definitely not as simple as energy in energy out…… Nature, for whatever reason, moves the goalposts.
Yup. This is correct.
In a simple overarching process, simply reducing caloric intake to a deficit works. This is especially effective for those unhealthily overweight and eating well above their basal metabolic requirements, to begin with.
However our bodies are unique therefore each individual responds differently to various parameters. One method will perform with varied results compared to another person. Foods and components of food are unique as well; your body will process variants differently (e.g. simple and complex carbohydrates). In contrast, one thing we all have in common is that our bodies are excellent feedback responders. Simply reducing calories will only go so far before needing to think about a smarter method. This is why most people trying to shift closer to a healthy weight range find the last 5 to 10 percent of their goal the hardest.
Anyway, caloric deficit can be a good start but is not sustainable. Low carb high fat high protein is a smarter method. Low carb high fat high protein high fibre is even better. As a beginner, perhaps look at a modified Paleo diet; follow it in general principle but allow yourself some minor cheats/treats to make it an easier mental transition.
Keep in mind thatas you lose weight, your total energy needs drop too (unless you gain a lot of muscle, which is hard to do if you're eating at a deficit). It's one of the reasons the last few kilos are harder… You need to keep lowering your intake as the weight drops.
Less, not no. Carbs are delicious.
I disagree, they are almost tasteless fillers. its what you put on them that tastes great, You wouldnt eat a plain boiled potato of pasta.
What, boiled kipfler potatoes and sweet potatoes are delicious!
No thanks! Much prefer bacon, butter and fatty meats. :)
Download and start using "My fitness pal". It's free.
Not only will it keep track of your calories and macros, (fat, carbs, protein intake), it will also educate you on the composition of the foods you eat.
Furthermore it will give you a good idea of what exercise burns most calories.
I have mine linked to a smart scale, (weight and body fat monitor) and a Garmin Fenix wearable which records my steps, exercise, hiking routes etc.
After a few months of that combination I have never looked or felt better. I even have my six pack back, and I haven't seen that for a while.
To lose wight your metabolism needs to burn more energy than you eat.
"Carbs" as you call them, are essential for energy. Without carbohydrates your body has to try find energy in one of the other macronutrients (burning fat/protein) which can cause you to feel sluggish and useless.
To throw another variable into the equation lean muscle is more metabolic hungry than fat. Having more muscle means you can move a lot less to burn the same amount of calories.
Carbohydrates aren't the enemy.
You will definitely lose weight if you severely cut carbs because nearly everything delicious is carbs. Protein and fat, on the other hand, will make you feel sick after not very much of it. If you can't eat carbs but can eat as much protein and fat as you want your appetite will reduce so you'll lose weight.
Fat is more delicious (bacon vs white rice). Even more delicious is fat and sugar together (chocolate).
Burn more energy than what you you take in x Exercise = Weight loss
And by exercise i'm not talking about pumping iron at the gym, it can be as simple as taking a brisk 30 minute walk at least 3 times a week.
It might not be rapid weight loss, but its a sure way to lose weight and get in the right habit.
Rapid, fad diets may get you faster results but you can't maintain that and you'll end up putting back what you lost + some.
Weight loss is 20 percent physical activity and 80 percent diet related.
It is possible to lose weight efficiently simply by being more selective in your diet and choosing smaller portion sizes
You can only exercise so much during any given time, and you will even then hit a wall in terms of physical fitness, but food intake is a variable easily controlled everyday.
That said, you want to avoid a phenomenon called 'skinny fat', where you are skinny but still flabby. This is where your body composition is still mostly fatty but lacking in muscle tone. Resistance training fixes this.
I thought this would be an ideal thread to ask all you food conscious people what do you do about your lunch?
Me and my workmate are from different parts of europe, but we are both stuggling every day with our lunch options when driving around Sydney. It is very difficult to get anything else than wheat/pastry based food (burgers, meat pies, pork rolls). We would rather prefer home cooking style foods: carb (pasta,potato,rice), meat, salat, which are very hard to get, unless you visit asian restaurants, but having noodles every day gets a bit too boring.Slow cook a huge batch of something on the weekend. Take a portion to work each day. Easy. Cheap.
I went on extremely low carb diet a few years back, lost 5kgs in a week, gained 10 back the next month! Hahaha :) go for complex carb diet instead!
You need to consider that the KJ or calories calculated for foods is not what your body will absorb from the food.
A calorie is calculated by burning a sample of the ingredient, and measuring the heat output.
Total calories of a dish are then estimated from the ingredients.
100 calories worth of broccoli may not contain 100 calories of energy that your body can actually absorb, some of the measured calories are undigestible fiber.
You will always be better off eating vegetables, then meats, then fruits / sugars , if you want to lose weight
Yeah this is the concept of net carb. Vegetables of the non starchy variety will have carbohydrate in the form of plant Fiber, but you can't digest plant fiber
What you can digest makes up for total net carb. You will see this info on the nutritional panel on the packaging of some foods.
You need the SS diet, Subway and Smoothies. You can basically eat as much as you want, even if that's 2 footings a day. I lost 10 kgs in 9 weeks.
I'm going to say a big part of that was brain mass… this is the stupidest thing I'll read all week
Who the fook are you to tell people what works and what doesn't. I'm sharing a tactic that kept me healthy and full whilst I shed the pounds.
Also the macros are all pretty close to spot on with this diet so it is you that is the one that is the retard.
Your tactics may have put you in a caloric deficit but it's all around stupid to tell someone to do it. They should be understanding how and why they're losing weight not be like oh Subway and Smoothies bro it's all you need.
@knk: The how is to eat less and the why is to be healthy. Sometimes you just gotta make healthier choices and get the ball rolling. Everyone else has already suggested calories and macros anyway.
Sugar is bad because it's a carbohydrate.
Carbohydrates essentially = sugar and is totally non essential for human survival.
Diets high in protein and fat are natural (that's animal protein and fat) and yield greater health than carbohydrate rich diets.
The idea that consuming fat increases one's body fat has been totally debunked by science.
Choose protein and fat over sugar/carbs, you'll feel full quicker, have more long lasting energy and feel better for it.
I'm not saying eat 3 million calories of fat a day - that'd be unhealthy. You still need to be conscious of the number of calories you consume, and this is so much easier to do if you "feel" full. Sugar/carbs do not make you feel full for any length of time. Fat and protein does.
Fats are actually good for you, just as long as its the "good" fats and at moderated intake.
Sugar is the worst thing for both healthy and non-healthy people.
Countries with an Obesity Epidemic all have one thing in common: high sugar consumption.But let's not forget the most important thing about being healthy - its mostly psychological.
If you don't have the right mindset, you won't lose weight under your regular circumstances.
Once you've fixated that you will INVEST your time and effort on your health, then should you consider all things else.1 - Mindset
2 - Food intake
3 - Exercise output
4 - Other relevant things (genes, medication, etc etc)Worth noting because there's so much misinformation about it too that good or bad fats have the same amount of calories per gram. Ie they make you just as fat.
Unfortunately you can't just drizzle olive oil all over everything.
None of the 3 macornutrients (carbs, protein and fat) is bad. They are all essential to a healthy body. Yes, carbs convert to glucos in the blood, which is what sugar converts to eventually as well, but you are saying since sugar is bad then carbs in general are bad too? WTF?
Your brain and nervous system require carbohydrates to function properly/optimally, not to mention how carbohydrates stimulates protein systhesis and gives you energy for intense physical exercises.
Even when I go into the 10% body fat range, I still have a high carb intake to help sustain my training and give me a better mood. No I don't eat procesed sugar if that's what you think I eat.
No single macronutrient will make you fat, excessive consumption of any of them will make you gain weight.
Absolutely - from a nutrient POV, there is little difference between carbs and sugar (especially more refined carbs).
Your brain and nervous system require carbohydrates to function properly/optimally" ??
Let's look at this…
Carbs come in three forms:
- Simple carbohydrates, or sugar as we normally call them.
- Complex carbohydrates, often referred to as starches.
- Complex (non-digestible) carbohydrates, this is fibre and is not really digested, so.
Simple carbs are, sugar. Complex carbs that are digestible are broken down to sugars in our stomachs, and present to the rest of our body the same as simple carbs.
So yes, our brains and nervous systems do require glucose to function properly, but we get enough from our foods that are not high in carbs. We do not require foods high in carbohydrates to function properly. They are at best a cheap supply of non essential calories (if you're consuming other foods).
I don't know why this is so hard.
Eat whatever you want. Just burn off more than you put through exercise and you magically lose weight.
- 1
- 2
Figure out how many calories you need to eat a day (use online calculators to determine this then it's a bit of a guessing game over time to determine a more accurate figure)
Subtract 500 cals from that figure.
Eat whatever you want with the only caveat being not to go above this calories limit.
Exercise a few times a week.
Lose weight
It's all about energy expenditure and intake. If you're free from any diabetes etc then carbs aren't going to make you fatter. They may make you retain water which may bloat you and make you feel fatter though