In regards to carbs: I want scientific facts, not personal experience.

A person without any medical problems, as long as he/she is eating in caloric deficit, does it matter if the "diet" includes carbs or not?

I'm so tired of going back and forth about this. Some say you need carbs for energy, others say avoid at all costs. When I was an athlete (competitive swimmer) I was told by my coach to eat carbs, now carbs are talked about on the net as if they equate to poison...

What are the facts?

Thank you.

I think "facts" depend on one's personal point of view. For every fact I find substantiating one side of the equation I can fine an equally supported fact supporting the other side.

Common sense to me says the following --if calories don't matter, then anorexics wouldn't "be". Anorexia is probably the most extreme example of calorie restriction and the fact that they lose significant amounts of weight when calorie restricting means that calories do matter. It also stands to reason that the body will adapt to fewer calories to preserve itself, which is why anorexics can live for years (but not forever) eating an apple a day. Dieters of course are somewheres inbetween.

It also stands to reason that there is new evidence showing that added sugar is a problem physiologically speaking. I won't go into more details, because anyone can google them, but current recommendations to limit the amount of added sugar to one's diet are out there for a reason.I also think that certain bodies may get more or less energy out of a specific type of calorie than others, so some may be better suited to low carb or high carb or whatever. However, there are no magic foods out there whereby one can eat unlimited amounts of one type of food and lose weight, meaning that calories at some point do matter.

Bottom line -- you can lose weight by calorie restricting regardless of the type of food that you eat. You can ose weight by low carbing it. You can lose weight by eating x number of Twinkies per day.You can lose weight on an all-rice diet I think the only "fact" in this matter is to find out what you can reasonably do and stick with it. I think some form of caloire restriction is required, whether intentional (i.e. you are a pastaholic and want to keep eating pasta so you'll have to cut down) or unintenitional (i.e. many low-carbers may find their intake is naturally restricted due to feeling fuller sooner with a higher fat and protein content diet).

I also think through personal experience (although you don't want personal experiences here) that low calorie high "junk food" diets are less satisfying than low calorie "real food" diets and that one has to make a fundamental shift in what one eats instead of simply limiting what one eats in order to have long-term change.

There is no end of "fad" diets and I ues that term only to mean diets that rise and sink in popularity and there is no "one answer fits all" in my opinion. If one truly believes that grains should never be eaten, go for it! If one can lose weight by eating only Twinkies, go for it! If one thinks that Primal is the way, go for it! Same goes for Atkins/Ornish/Pritiki/'Mediterranean/French/Outsmart the Female Fat Cell/Blood Type/you name it diet.Any of these ways will result in weight loss provided that energy expended is more than calories taken in and that this effect will be amelliorated by how an individual processes each calorie component (as this may be a unique thing). I've really never heard of a sedentary person being able to eat 6,000 calories a day (regardless of type or category of calorie) and losing weight. The harder thing is maintaining that weight loss and in that case, a personally realistic plan is the only thing that works. Trying to make a meatitarian into a vegan without a fundamental shift of paradigm may not work in the long run.

I know, probably didn't answer your qeustion but I really think there is no definitive answer. Science/personal experience/choice will play a huge role, and for many, it's like a religion and not even worth debating. Find what works for you and stick with it (as long as it isn't clearly dangerous and that your basic nutritional requirements are met). And don't assume that your personal answer is applicable or appropriate for everyone - nothing more annoying than having someone play the "blame game" with respect to one's weight loss because they think that you have to do what they have chosen to do .

From the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: (Here's a link to the article: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full)

"Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate... The human body, however, is not a perfect engine, and thus the thermodynamics may not be so pure. It is now known that the energy liberated from the combustion of a food is not identical to the energy available to the body from consumption of that food."

I only skimmed the article, but what I got out of it was that while theoretically speaking, a calorie is a calorie, there may be differences in how calories are metabolized and used as energy.

My understanding has always been that simple carbs (like glucose and pasta) are more quickly available to the body for a shorter period energy than complex carbs and protein because the latter take longer to metabolize. If you don't use the energetic equivalent of those simple carb calories through a calorie deficit, you put on weight. The idea is that once weight loss is complete, you're not going to want to maintain a deficit, so you'd want to choose carbs that provide energy throughout the day rather than simple carbs that provide an energy spike. That's what I was taught by professionals at my local hospital's Weight Management Clinic

I agree with misspixie that everyone has different requirements in regards to carbs. Some people thrive with low carb diets, and others lose all of their energy if they cut out carbs. I know you're looking for scientific facts, but if you're wondering how you should distribute carbs in your diet, your personal experience will hold the answer. Does cutting out carbs make you lose weight? Or does it make you tired? One big factor is activity level. If you're active, your body will be able to tolerate a higher amount of carbs without negative effects. If you're sedentary, carbs are more likely to be stored as fat because you aren't burning that energy.

I can't post links yet because of my post count, but I found studies that showed that low carb diets help lose weight, more so than low fat diets. I also found research by a doctor that showed that low carb diets reduce insulin levels, and as we should all know, insulin encourages fat storage.

What does that mean in regards to caloric deficit and the amount of carbs you eat? Depends on you. Some people have lost weight while eating junk simply because they were in a caloric deficit. Some people eat very few calories and still, the weight won't budge. I would ask the question, why would you want to eat junk food in the first place? Even if you're still losing weight, why keep poisoning your body? But that's your choice. I think you should try low carb and see how it feels. If you lose weight faster, great. If you get tired or generally don't feel good, then go ahead and add more. I'm just saying that studies show that carb intake does matter, at least for some people. I know that I won't dare eat a single piece of bread because if I do, I'll get exhausted, cranky, and I won't be able to concentrate. My body hates carbs! But some people's bodies love carbs. I trust that helped you out

I think it's as simple as energy in, energy out. What is not used is stored, what
is stored can be used later or not at all according to the in and out. Now what
kinds of foods might be considered as to how they make a person feel. Weight
loss can happen with nothing but candy if the in put does not exceed the out
put, but how does all candy make a person feel?

My body is my very own laboratory where I can conduct my own experiments
and note the results just by feeling how I feel according to what foods I put
in it and my out put of energy or lack of.

It's pretty cool that way.


.

A calorie is a measure of burnable fuel, but humans are not furnaces. For example dietary fiber is burnable, thus has calories, but those calories are indigestibl to humans, but not to all other critters.

We would starve to death on 2,000 calories of hay, even if we could manage to eat it. Cows, however can access those calories.

Many, if not most, calorie counting resources do not subtract out the inaccessible fiber calories, which can be misleading. For dieting purposes, we really only want to count the accessible calories, not those we're going to poop out, undigested.

Problem is, there's a lot we don't know about calorie absorption, and a lot of variables that affect digestive efficiency.

Sugar alcohols (also known as fruit sugars), cellulose, inulin, and resistant starched are all at least partially undigestible (thus containing calories humans cannot access). While no one can digest cellulose, the jury is still out on some of the others, and there's even evidence that the absorption/digestion rate may vary from person to peson, thus a food that I can get 100 useable calories from, might provide you 75 ot 150.

All calorie counts and calorie counting can do is provide a maximum possible calorie count (for weight loss, you might call it an estimation of "worst case scenario").

We know that cellulose calories are completely undigestible by humans, thus calorie counting resourses are allowed (but not required) to subtract those calories from their counts. This is one reason why different resources can list such different calorie counts for the same food. Some subtract the fiber calories, and some do not.

Even with all these problems, calorie counting remains one of the most useful dieting tools, because even a rough estimate is better than none all.

I personally have always preferred exchange plans, because they not only account for calories, but also support a more nutritious diet by requiring servings from a number of food groups.

Either way though, you're only working with very rough estimates of food "counts," but a rough estimate is still better than none.

This isn't a board full of scientists. We are all experimenting with what works for us and therefore I only have my personal experience to add to this.

A calorie is a calorie the same way that a dollar is a dollar. What I choose to do with my dollars will either benefit me or not. I can buy something frivolous or I can buy something that will enhance my life. Same thing with a calorie. There is a bottom line with calories, if you burn more than you take in you will lose weight. The only hinderance is if this is a sustainable way to eat consistantly.

I don't like to participate in huge debates about carbs. I don't wish to interfere with other people's perception of food. I just know that when I single out a single food (be it sugar, carbs or fat) it just propels me to eat more and more of it. And if I do eat a "bad" food it makes ME bad. It's all nonsense.

Is there a single athlete out there who doesn't eat carbs? I don't know for sure I've never researched it but I'm willing to bet not. Athletes are scientists of their bodies, I trust them. I know athletes in my life, people who run marathons and triathlons and they all eat carbs.

In my own experience I need carbs to survive. I don't need a lot of carbs, I'm fine with small servings of carbs. We all should be fine. It's when someone crosses the line and eats too many that things go awry, but that's true of any indulgence.

Because the equation is complex to get precise results doesn't mean that the energy equation is invalid or not useful.

Of course it isn't but that doesn't mean we can't read and understand science.

This is a bit of a complex subject if you want to dive into it. I'm going to quickly summarize.

The science tells us that if you lock people up and control every bite they eat that calories trump everything. These are called ward studies and they are very expensive to run. You put people in a caloric deficit and they will lose fat.

Beyond that most people are capable of thriving on a variety of diets but ultimately it depends on their genetics and their lifestyle. In simple terms, some people are more insulin resistant than others.

Thus, in the real world, macronutrients do matter. Some people will do better on high carb diets but most of us will do best on moderate or low carb diets because most of us are fairly sedentary. This doesn't change the fact that we gain or lose fat due to calories. Calories still trump everything.

Most of us not being scientists does matter. Even if we read up on a subject and post legitimate findings those findings can still be disputed scientifically. A calorie is a calorie as much as a fact is a fact. If it can be disputed it will be disputed.

While this is sort of true it isn't relevant to the context of this thread because this isn't an academic debate on an esoteric complex topic.

This thread is asking if a calorie is a calorie and how much does carb intake matter. In this context you don't need a Ph.D to understand the basics of the topic. The science is only confusing if you venture into a low carb fanatic forum where they eschew science and turn their dietary choices into some sort of religion.

I'm not trying to single you out at all because your post was quite good overall in my opinion but this initial part bothers me and speaks to the entire reason I post on this site. Note my signature which contains by a brilliant quote by Kaplods on this matter.

When you consider all the information in the correct context what you're saying here is not true, at all. When taken one fact at a time out of any context, you're right. Facts with no context can appear to be conflicting which leads us to the problem. People want to sell books, make money and be famous. Thus, many highly educated people in this industry end up obfuscating the truth, not to mention the thousands of charlatans out there.

A perfect example of this is Taubes. He is a very intelligent man and has probably done more than any single person outside of Atkins to educate the masses that a high fat diet does not mean an unhealthy diet. Having said that, he is in the business of selling books. He blantantly disregards the role that calories play and talks like a lawyer/politician. Even though what he says is always factual it is extremely misleading.

If you were to ask him if calories matter he would probably say something like "We've known for many years that counting calories is not an effective tool for losing weight and keeping it off" and then site some studies which he has memorized showing how calorie counting doesn't work long term and how carbs and insulin are the true devil. Meanwhile he is ignoring the studies which show the opposite.

In my opinion the facts are pretty clear on these issues but they are also easily manipulated to make people think something is true when it isn't. Calories matter, always. Different people will react differently to various levels of carbs based on genetics and lifestyle.

This answers my question. I'm just going back to my days as an athlete compared to today's diet advice for low carb. I guess it makes sense to gauge (within reason) depending on activity level...assuming there's no medical issues with insulin.

I was asking because I was beginning to wonder if I should be avoiding carbs but I guess as long as I'm running and in a deficit...

Assuming diabetes doesn't run in your family you'll probably be fine. More so if the bulk of your diet is whole foods and not processed.

It did, thank you.