[Satellites]

hi everyone!

just a quick question regarding diet and carbs. i'm calorie counting for a diet and do not want to follow any specific diet plan (ie atkins, south beach etc) because i've had success with simple calorie counting in the past. however, i've read soooo many conflicting opinions on the internet regarding carbs.

so i just want to get an idea from you all as to how many grams of carbs you try to eat during the day? today i had a look at the amount of carbs i eat and it's fairly high (~100g today, with cereal, bread and rice) but i don't eat refined/white carbs - only brown. is this okay? will it prevent me losing weight?

thanks!

[joltyness]

100g of carbs isn't high by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, you might want to eat more than that.

Carbs are not evil, they're as much a good macronutrient as healthy unsaturated fats and protein. It's just that most of us get them from bad sources, or eat too much of it.

Studies have shown that a strict macro balance doesn't really affect weight loss very much, but you might want to aim for something around 40% carb/30% fat/30% protein, with a good balance of sat/unsat fats and carbs from healthy sources. You should be OK as long as your diet isn't completely dominated by one or two (most westerners who do not keep track of their diets usually eat a ridiculous amount of carbs and fat and little protein).

[kaplods]

Originally Posted by joltyness

Studies have shown that a strict macro balance doesn't really affect weight loss very much

There are a couple major flaws in these studies (more limitations than flaws, because often they're addressed in the actual research - just not in the popular reporting of the researches findings. The limitations are mostly related to the study method itself and the subject pool.

As to the method, very often subjects are randomly assigned to different macro balances. Then the groups are compared. This means that if some people respond better to a low-carb diet and an equal number respond better to a high-carb diet, you're going to see "no difference" between the groups. If the differences are incredibly amazing, there's a chance that the researcher may notice (patients who did extraordinarily well or poorly compared to the rest of their group), but if the advantages are more subtle, that advantage will be lost during the statistical analysis (especially if there are other people in the other group who responded equally well or poorly on the other macro distributions).

This method assumes that all people are the same, and it's an unfair assumption. However if you assume that all people are not the same, you have to develop the study in a different way to determine which diets are best for which people. Most of the research is not designed this way. And the ones that have been, have found different results. For example there's been some researchers which has found that diabetics, people with PCOS, and insulin resistance do better on lower carb diets than on other diets).


And this leads into the other flaw, that of the chosen subject pool. Usually research is done in the university setting, and the subject pool tends to be university students - on the whole, younger, fitter, and healthier than the average. And to complicate things further, people with any comorbid health issues are often purposely excluded from the studies, to make the results easier to analyze (and to eliminate the complications of dealing with possible health risks to the subjects). This means that if low-carb is more effective for diabetics and folks with other endocrine or metabolic disorder, we'll never know because people with those disorders were often excluded from those studies (either purposefully or because endocrine disorders are less common in the subject pool).


I strongly suspect that low-carb diets benefit people with insulin issues more so than other segments of the population (I suspected this even before the research started coming out that supports that conclusion). I believe that some folks respond to different diets differently. Some respond best to a diet higher in calories from protein and fat, and others responb best to a diet higher in calories from carbohydrates. I also believe that young, healthy, fit bodies process calories more "fairly," than older, less healthy bodies. "A calorie is a calorie," may apply when you're 20 in decent health, and not when you're 50 and have diabetes.

Currently there aren't many studies that have tested these hypotheses. By not including (and/or not looking for) people who do respond more favorably to one type of macro balance than another, the research can't find them.


I can only suggest that people do their own research. Experiment with different macro balances (allowing 3 months for each diet variation), and repeat the experiments several times to be sure that the patterns you see aren't just coincidence.

Without at least a couple college courses in experimental design and statistics (and even with them), it's hard to be sure that you're noticing "real" patterns and not coincidence or placebo effect, but until the research catches up, we're left to be scientist AND lab rat.

Sometimes low-carb can seem to work better, because your body needs less water to operate on a low-carb diet, so the body flushes this extra water in the first weeks of the diet. The person things "wow, I can lose so much faster on low-carb," but it's really just the release of the un-needed water."

Likewise, when switching back to higher carb eating (because the body has to pick up the extra water it's going to need in those first couple weeks), people think "when you're on low-carb, you can never switch to any other type of diet, because you'll gain weight like mad - even if you're on starvation calories."

If you ignore the first month and compare month's two and three - you may find that you do no better or worse on low-carb as high-carb.

Other people will find important differences.

For example, in examining my food logs and symptom logs (my doctor recommended the symptom log to find patterns to my symptoms), I learned that my normally very low body temperature is higher (closer to normal) on low-carb (this may mean my metabolism is higher on low-carb, which would explain why to lose about the same amount of weight I can choose either 1500 traditional diet, or an 1800 calorie low-carb diet).

I was truly shocked to see any difference, because all my life I truly did believe that all calories burned equally.

Another difference I discovered was that low-carb controlled hunger better. This was a miracle in itself, because all of my life, I've lived with 24/7 hunger so severe I called it "rabid hunger." I'm hungrier on 5,000 calories of high carb eating, than on 1,000 calories of low-carb eating. With carbs, especially refined carbs, but even with concentrated whole-carb foods like fruit - the more I eat, the hungrier I get.

I don't believe that's true for everyone. I don't even believe it's always been true for me (the carb hunger yes, the metabolic advantage to low-carb, no).

When I was younger, I didn't notice any dramatic difference (except during the first two to three weeks) between the weight loss from low-carb or high-carb (though I never gave low-carb much of a chance, because I thought it was unhealthy).

Because there have been some newer studies that have found low-carb to have an advantage in some groups (the type II diabetics and the insulin resistant), I think the science is starting to ask the right questions (not whether low-carb more effective than high-carb for everyone, but what macro-balance works best for which people).

There's also anectdotal evidence that low-carb may be more beneficial for people with hypothyroid and other endocrine disorders as well as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue (but to my knowledge, no research yet).

I have no doubt that the research will eventually catch up, but for now we've got to experiment ourselves.

[QuilterInVA]

Carbs are also found in fruit and vegetables and even dairy. I'm sure you had more than 100 grams. Whole grains - and most bread is not whole grain - is the way to go. What kind of cereal do you eat? Steel cut or old fashioned oatmeal is whole grain, other kinds have some processing.

[Jonsgurl0531]

Well said Kaplods!

When I first dieted I struggled with calorie counting. I wasn't losing and I was STARVING. My Doctor would just tell me that I was estimating my calories or counting wrong and that calories in vrs calories out was all that mattered in weight loss. Well it didn't for me. It wasn't until I went low carb that I actually saw my weight go down. I didn't even have to count calories, I just watched my carbs. I get so frustrated when people say it doesn't matter what the calories are made of.. because to me and my weight loss it matters.

[yoyoma]

First off, I agree with Susan that you are probably eating more than 100 g of carbs unless you are measuring all foods and counting the carbs in all of them.

Not that's necessarily a bad thing. I agree wholeheartedly (as usual) with kaplods as well. Individuals vary (greatly) in how carbs affect them.

For myself, I've found that I have to be very strict with carbs or I tend to lose control of my diet. For me that means no bread (a low carb wrap once in a while seems to be OK but no whole wheat bagels or bread), and very limited servings of brown rice (1/2 cup, not every day) and even strict control on lentils, beans, and starchy veggies like winter squash (and I don't even particularly like white potatoes so I never eat them either).

But I was obese as a young child and I've yoyo-dieted for decades, so for most folks these measures would probably be unnecessary. For active people, like atheletes, carbs are an important source of much-needed energy and lots of healthy whole foods are packed with nutrients other than carb calories.

But for myself, I can tell you that I found it very very easy to gain weight on a diet of foods that most people would consider amazingly healthy (binging on things like red lentils) until I controlled my carbs very carefully.

[Koshka]

As other mentioned it may be more than 100g if you didn't actually look at the carb content of everything you ate. About 4 1/2 months ago I decided to add in counting carbs and trying to eat lower carb. I started out eating 40g of net carbs (carbs less fiber and sugar alcohols) and worked up to where now I usually am at 60 to 80 net carbs.

First, there are a lot of things that add carbs in addition to grains or even fruits and vegetables. For example, lowfat or nonfat salad dressing usually has higher carbs than a full fat salad dressing. Cheese sticks have carbs, etc.

I have found that for me in terms of weight loss I don't actually lose weight any faster eating low carb. That is, if I eat an average of X calories a week eating high carb and eat X calories a week eating low carb I will lose the same amount of weight. I also don't really find that eating carbs makes me crave carbs. Some people it does and causes them to eat more.

That said -- I've found that lower carb eating does have benefits that help me with weight loss. I find that if I eat I am aiming at X calories a day that eating lower carb I find it easier to stay within my goal. This is especially true eating out. If I go into a restaurant and say that I'm not going to eat carbs (or very few) then I right off the bat eliminate most of what causes really high calories in restaurants. I end up with something fairly plain and with vegetables for sides (yes, veggies have some carbs but nothing compared to grains) so overall calories are less.

I also find that with eating more protein and more fat (which you will if you eat less carbs) that it sticks with me longer so helps me with overall hunger.

At this point, I do eat grains although usually not more than 1 (occasionally 2 a day). Today I had a sandwich (whole grain sandwich rounds for bread) so for dinner I am more like to have something like chicken and vegetables rather than chicken and rice. I do sometimes have 2 grains a day although 95% of the time they are whole grains (occasionally eating out I will have non-whole grains). So, basically lower carb is just easier for me to follow even though I don't really lose more weight on it.

[SlowMovingWoman]

All of these posts were very helpful. kaplods yours was especially useful.
I to am diabetic. I don't eat sugar or white things but now considering
if I need to let go of whole grain things. It would be hard to not have a
bowl of cereal for breakfast, I have been eating that for years. Perhaps I
could have that if I didn't eat any other grain the rest of the day. Thanks
to all for your posts. Any input is welcome. SMW

[lin43]

For me, it makes no difference in my rate of weight loss whether I eat lots of carbs or not. I don't track macros because it's too much of a hassle for me. I think about food too much already counting calories, so I don't want to add one more restriction to the mix. However, my calorie counting app automatically calculates my macros, and sometimes, just for curiosity, I'll look. I regularly eat more than 100 grams of carbs a day, and have had no trouble losing.

However, I will say that a meal of only carbs tends to leave me dissatisfied. I get more satisfaction when I eat a meal of carbs, fat, and protein.

[theCandEs]

If you are diabetic, then I would highly recommend a low carb approach. I lost all of my weight doing the low carb thing. I don't eat bread of any kind (not even whole grain bread), and I've given up sugar and other starchy things. I eat non-starchy vegetables and meat almost all the time. I feel better, and I look better. My skin has cleared up. I don't get sick as often.

I have tried the low fat, high carb approach in the past, but it always made me feel terrible! Sickly, hungry.... I know there are some who can tolerate it, but I am not one of those people.

[canadianwoman]

Originally Posted by QuilterInVA

Carbs are also found in fruit and vegetables and even dairy. I'm sure you had more than 100 grams. Whole grains - and most bread is not whole grain - is the way to go. What kind of cereal do you eat? Steel cut or old fashioned oatmeal is whole grain, other kinds have some processing.

Actually getting your carbs from vegetables and fruit is a better way to go then getting them from whole grains. This is what I do. Even starchy vegetables are better for you then whole grains in my opinion. More nutritional bang for your buck.

[canadianwoman]

Originally Posted by Jonsgurl0531

Well said Kaplods!

When I first dieted I struggled with calorie counting. I wasn't losing and I was STARVING. My Doctor would just tell me that I was estimating my calories or counting wrong and that calories in vrs calories out was all that mattered in weight loss. Well it didn't for me. It wasn't until I went low carb that I actually saw my weight go down. I didn't even have to count calories, I just watched my carbs. I get so frustrated when people say it doesn't matter what the calories are made of.. because to me and my weight loss it matters.

Just out of curiosity how many carbs per day did you have to eat to lose?

[Ellen]

Believe it or not, I am not as concerned with weight loss as I am maintaining my blood sugar levels. (I am diabetic) I have tried many many diets without success. I was Vegan...did Sugarbusters, Atkins, Weight Watchers, Paleo, Fat free...nothing worked until I started on Bernstein's Diabetes solution. It is VERY low carb, and after a few weeks my astronomical blood sugars are almost normal. I don't recommend this type of diet for everyone. Like Kaplods said in her post, some folks respond better to low carb...

My advice- if you have trouble losing just counting calories, tweak. Remove grains, high sugar fruits... Bernstein's is really strict, and he claims he has not eaten fruit in 30 years and is healthier now than ever (he is diabetic himself) so it really is a matter of what is best for the individual. We are not all the same metabolically. I now eat 30 carbs max a day. Will eat this way probably the rest of my life - which will be most likely longer without the high blood sugar levels I was having...

You CAN eat very healthily on a very low carb regiment. 100 grams of carbs a day is lower than average, but not all that low...if it works, yay!