[speakeasy]

I hear a lot of guys say if you want to lose belly fat, then stay away from carbs. Can someone explain to me why it makes any difference if you eat carbs or fat or protein with regards to losing weight, especially belly fat.

I don't fully understand how this works. If you eat 1500 calories, why does it matter if they come from carbs or fat? It's still 1500 calories, right? And if you burn 2000 calories a day through your normal daily routine what difference does it make? You'd still have a calorie deficit. I know low carb diets are all the rage, but I'm trying to understand the science behind this or if it's just another empty fad.

[Soma]

Simple carbohydrates (sucrose, starch) readily convert to glucose and raise insulin levels. Elevated insulin levels induce fat storage, converting excess glucose to fat cells. Though a caloric deficit is the primary factor in losing weight, modulating insulin levels by avoiding simple carbs forces the body to burn fat to compensate for the energy deficit instead of muscle.

[Frank Rook]

(11-29-2014 09:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I hear a lot of guys say if you want to lose belly fat, then stay away from carbs. Can someone explain to me why it makes any difference if you eat carbs or fat or protein with regards to losing weight, especially belly fat.

I don't fully understand how this works. If you eat 1500 calories, why does it matter if they come from carbs or fat? It's still 1500 calories, right? And if you burn 2000 calories a day through your normal daily routine what difference does it make? You'd still have a calorie deficit. I know low carb diets are all the rage, but I'm trying to understand the science behind this or if it's just another empty fad.

Soma nailed the explanation perfectly.
It really is the SIMPLE CARBS that you should be staying away from. Sugary drinks like your Coke, Pepsi & flavored juices. White breads & cakes & high fructose syrup processed foods.
You still need carbs. Preferably COMPLEX CARBORHYDRATES. They have more fiber. Harder to break down (therefore not giving your body insulin spikes). Brown bread, brown rice, lentils, peas & green vegetables are examples of complex carbohydrates.

If your daily caloric expenditure was 2000 calories & your daily food intake was 1000 calories worth of Lindy West's elite brand Chocolate ice cream & say 500 calories worth of some mall cop approved doughnuts, you'd still have a 500 calorie deficit. But you would be very far from healthy.

[Hades]

There are a lot of factors at play with the macronutrients.

Basically carbs will make you fat. The insulin/fat storage mechanism inherent in carbs and (over the long term) eventual insulin resistance contribute to fat storage and can contribute to metabolic syndrome.

Fat doesn't make you fat. It's a readily available energy source. Eating more fat can make you better at burning body fat. It's also a necessary macronutrient for hormones.

Protein is like the overlord of all macronutrients. You can't really eat too much of it and it's impossible to gain weight by eating it. It tends to satiate. It also has a thermogenic effect meaning that about a third of all protein calories you eat are burned just to digest it. Speaking of which, it has only four calories per gram so you have to eat a lot more of it than you would think to get your macros in.

Guys who say they "eat a lot of meat" are still probably averaging under a pound per day, which would be less than 35 grams of protein (chicken breasts) or something like 140 protein calories. That would only be like fifty calories burned from the thermic effect, however it would definitely add up over time.

So if you're going to diet, you don't have to avoid carbs. However you need to be aware of what you're eating. As a general rule of thumb, go with high protein + high carb + low fat or high protein + high fat + low carb and you should be OK. I tend to cycle between the two on a weekly basis when dieting.

[civpro]

Because they are misinformed or spouting lies, and that includes the responders in this thread. It does not make a difference. A calorie is a calorie.

[Soma]

(11-30-2014 03:40 PM)civpro Wrote:  

Because they are misinformed or spouting lies, and that includes the responders in this thread. It does not make a difference. A calorie is a calorie.

Enjoy your trans fats.

[redbeard]

MikeCF has TWO great podcasts that go into detail on this...the episode about "Carb Cycling" and the episode about "losing Body Fat" both discuss this topic.

They can be found here:

https://soundcloud.com/dangerandplay

At the end of the day every BODY is different, but in general starchy carbs + fat = huge insulin response = huge fat storage.

(11-30-2014 09:10 AM)Hades Wrote:  

So if you're going to diet, you don't have to avoid carbs. However you need to be aware of what you're eating. As a general rule of thumb, go with high protein + high carb + low fat or high protein + high fat + low carb and you should be OK. I tend to cycle between the two on a weekly basis when dieting.

Carb cycling is great.

Carbs help send protein to your muscles. My current diet is low carb + high fat as much as possible and then low fat + high carb after I lift. I don't even think of it as a diet (something we should all try to do). I just avoid carbs and then refeed after I lift.

[redbeard]

(11-30-2014 03:40 PM)civpro Wrote:  

Because they are misinformed or spouting lies, and that includes the responders in this thread. It does not make a difference. A calorie is a calorie.

If a calorie is a calorie, why don't I eat jolly ranchers and protein powder all day? Ultimate low fat + high carb diet!

[Hades]

(11-30-2014 03:40 PM)civpro Wrote:  

Because they are misinformed or spouting lies, and that includes the responders in this thread. It does not make a difference. A calorie is a calorie.

I guess a calorie is a calorie if you never bother actually looking up the subject.

Quote:

-----------------------------------------------------
The thermic effect of food is the energy required for digestion, absorption, and disposal of ingested nutrients. Its magnitude depends on the composition of the food consumed:
Carbohydrates: 5 to 15% of the energy consumed
Protein: 20 to 35%
Fats: at most 5 to 15 %[5]

----------------------------------------------------

Processed foods and TEF

Research has found that the thermic effect of food (TEF) contributes to the fact that calories may not all be equal in terms of weight gain.

In one study, seventeen subjects ate, on two different days, two bread-and-cheese sandwiches that were the same in terms of calories (the subjects were free to choose either 600 or 800 kcal meals), but one was ″whole food″ (a multi-grain bread, containing whole sunflower seeds and whole-grain kernels, with cheddar cheese), while the other was ″processed food″ (white bread and a processed cheese product).

For each subject, the researchers measured the extra energy, beyond that due to the basal metabolic rate, that the subject expended in the six hours following the consumption of the meal; that energy divided by the energy content of the meal was (after multiplying by 100) reported as the percent DIT coefficient. The average percent DIT coefficient for the ″whole food″ sandwiches was (19.9±2.5)%, while for the ″processed food″ sandwiches, it was (10.7 ±1.7)%—a difference of a factor of 2.

When the DIT values are subtracted from the total meal energy, it follows that the subjects obtained 9.7% more net energy from the ″processed-food″ meal than from the ″whole-food″ one.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_dynamic_action

I don't even much care for this particular study, but it gives serious credence to the broscience sentiment of "eating clean". It's pretty hilarious because it even shoots holes in the theory that all carbs are created equally.

(11-30-2014 04:26 PM)redbeard Wrote:  

Carb cycling is great.

Carbs help send protein to your muscles. My current diet is low carb + high fat as much as possible and then low fat + high carb after I lift. I don't even think of it as a diet (something we should all try to do). I just avoid carbs and then refeed after I lift.

It's a pretty great way to keep weight off. I've sworn off diets during the winter and holiday season but when spring rolls around it's back to the whey protein, chicken breasts, eggs, bacon, and broccoli.

[civpro]

(11-30-2014 03:55 PM)Soma Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 03:40 PM)civpro Wrote:  

Because they are misinformed or spouting lies, and that includes the responders in this thread. It does not make a difference. A calorie is a calorie.

Enjoy your trans fats.

You are confusing health with body composition. We're talking about body composition here. Obviously eating too much trans fat will make you sick. It will not necessarily make you fat though.

(11-30-2014 04:28 PM)redbeard Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 03:40 PM)civpro Wrote:  

Because they are misinformed or spouting lies, and that includes the responders in this thread. It does not make a difference. A calorie is a calorie.

If a calorie is a calorie, why don't I eat jolly ranchers and protein powder all day? Ultimate low fat + high carb diet!

If you get in some vegetables to get your daily vitamins and minerals, and you eat some meat or dairy to get your daily fat requirement, then yes you can fill up the rest with protein powder and junk food like jolly ranchers. One researcher lost weight on a twinkie diet.

(11-30-2014 04:36 PM)Hades Wrote:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_dynamic_action

I don't even much care for this particular study, but it gives serious credence to the broscience sentiment of "eating clean". It's pretty hilarious because it even shoots holes in the theory that all carbs are created equally.

So you factor in the thermic effect of food, add the qualifier "net", the principle still remains the same. Net calories in, net calories out.

[Mufasa]

I dont really know the science of it to the extent that u guys have stated so maybe Im full of shit but heres my spiel:

This is based on shit that I've learned as a college/pro athlete and from usa nutrition talks

To lose one pound you have to burn about 3500 calories.
Now whatever you eat produces your fuel which is made readily available in your glycogen stores. When you dont use these energy stores they are stored in the body as fat. so if you eat 5000 calories and only use 2000 the remaining 3500 gets stored as fat (one lb). Americans are typically so fat cuz we eat so goddamn much that its hard to burn off 10000 calories worth of intake when you sit behind a desk all day.

Now this is where shit can get messy...
Protein is not a favorable source of energy because its primarily used by the body to repair shit. When you eat a high protein low everything else you body goes into your fat stores for fuel--unless youre one fat motherfucka. This will also dip into you protein intake because fuck you thats why--kidding: doing all physical activity requires a bit of protein intake for fuel.
However as your body fat decreases and you continue to exercise your body can become catabolic. The fuel has to come from somewhere and what happens is the body starts eating itself--your muscle. And trust me that shit is super wack (and burns).

How to burn fat:
During short bust exercises (anaerobic: sprinting, weight lifting, jumping--basically quick movements that last shorter than 9 seconds) your body will use your readily available glycogen/fuel that is typically from what you have eaten recently. When it is done with that it will change over to your fat stores for energy/fuel and is change over largely an inefficient process. But for the most part these motions happen too quickly to really access your fat stores.

To access fat stores you need more indurance based exercises (aerobic: cycling, running, swimming, exercises that last longer than 9 seconds) your body will go to your readily available stores and determine that it needs a big source of fuel and access your fat stores.
How it effects your physical appearance is more of a genetic thing imo ("that shit will got straight to your hips", "thunder thighs", etc). My self for instance: 7.5% body fat but it feels and looks like its all in my stomach (maybe im being dramatic).

This is all my theory now:
I think the reason you see endurance based athletes typically with leaner frames is from years for training by accessing your fat stores for fuel/energy. The body is a marvelous thing and I believe that endurance athletes have adapted to accessing fat stores almost directly for tens of years. And since changing from a more aerobic energy system to an aerobic energy system is inefficient for body the aerobic system stays "on" continually accessing your fat stores for energy in similar situations where a normal person's body would access energy aerobically (burning readily available fuel).
My logic is based on a conversation I had with my weight coach years ago about drinking--if you havent figured it out from phelps: swimmers got the club turnin up on a tuesday. Swimming is a heavy aerobic sport even for sprinters. Because of this our body's fuel burning system is dominantly the aerobic system that accesses fat stores. And to be efficient that energy system just stays in the "on" position. Because it stays "on" we are able to drink our asses off and our bodies quickly burn through the beer calories as they are stored. My coach explained it to me this way and topped it off saying that swimmers oven/fire is always burning and consuming fuel even when it really doesnt need to. Other sports are largely anaerobic (basketball, football, track sprints, etc.) and dont burn stored energy as quickly or efficiently.

Lastly there are sports/exercises that are in the middle (rowing, middle distance running, decathalon, skiing, snowboarding, etc) and even in anaerobic exercises there are parts where you switch between energy systems (basketball played over a long time, decathalon, parts of football, etc).

Clearly its possible to train your body to stay in the "on" possition but I'm not sure how long that adaption takes to occur. It most certainly can be turned off quickly though--Ive seen olympians BALOON once they stop swimming...


life comes at you fast...

Hope this helps. If someone already addressed what I just said my bad--I was typing this while watching the walking dead.

edit: there are empty calories (french fries, white rice, shit like that) that do nothing for you. I think someone mentioned it above

[Hades]

(11-30-2014 05:54 PM)civpro Wrote:  

So you factor in the thermic effect of food, add the qualifier "net", the principle still remains the same. Net calories in, net calories out.

If your general rule is "calories in, calories out", with the qualifier that "due to the thermic effect of protein (and to a lesser effect, carbs), you can effectively state that 'more protein calories in, less protein calories out".

Therefore it would actually be more precise to state - "the only calorie that is a calorie with respect to the thermic process is a fat calorie".

What good is a rule when it only applies to one of three macronutrients?

Why does every idiot with a slide rule and a nutrition minor insist on simplifying diet when protein is clearly superior in all respects?

And furthermore, this thread is about (in the title, even) "carbs vs fat vs protein". I actually brought useful and actionable information to the table that stated a measurable and scientifically verifiable difference between the macronutrients. You brought nothing to the discussion except passive aggressive insults towards forum members who probably spend a lot more time doing actual research on the subject.

I'll requote your post to illustrate my point further. You clearly don't understand what I wrote.

(11-30-2014 05:54 PM)civpro Wrote:  

So you factor in the thermic effect of food, add the qualifier "net", the principle still remains the same. Net calories in, net calories out.

Quote:

To make the math easy, "net" calories in are exactly the same for the three macronutrients.
So with respect to "net calories in", 900 protein calories = 900 carb calories = 900 fat calories.

900 protein calories in -> 300 burned due to thermic effect -> 600 protein calories "out".

900 carb calories in -> 135 burned due to thermic effect -> 765 carb calories "out".

900 fat calories in -> arguably zero burned due to thermic effect -> 900 fat calories "out".

"Net calories in" with respect to "net calories out" ->
1.5 protein calories = 1.17 carb calories = ~1 fat calorie.

QED

I'm not surprised that these reductionist understandings and ignorant suppositions still exist, in a world where people are aware that calories measure the same amount of food energy in joules, they forget that it still has to be metabolized by the body to be converted into energy, which naturally results in waste energy. Some macros are just more efficient than others.

[civpro]

Could you please tell me exactly what point you're trying to make? I did not deny that there is a Thermic Effect of Food that needs to be factored in particularly in the case of protein to shave off a couple hundred calories in a high-protein diet. What I'm arguing against is popular broscience notions that calorie counting doesn't matter and that certain foods are "dirty" and fattening irrespective of the context of their caloric value. And you don't seem to buy into those notions yourself, so we don't actually disagree on anything.

[Hades]

I'm arguing in favor of broscience. If you eat enough protein and avoid either carbs or fats (you can cycle), calorie counting doesn't matter.

And according to that study I found on wikipedia, apparently eating clean is actually a thing, and somehow non-processed foods have a higher TEF even if they're mostly carbs. Never would have expected that.

Also sorry about being a dick over the internet. I just care a lot about the topic and find the nuance interesting enough that I get mad whenever anybody says 'calories in, calories out'. I will say that calorie counting is a useful metric and has its place with a lot of people (usually fatties) who are shocked to find out that their "1500 calorie per day diet" is actually a lot closer to 4000 calories.

[Ensam]

(12-01-2014 08:43 AM)Hades Wrote:  

I'm arguing in favor of broscience. If you eat enough protein and avoid either carbs or fats (you can cycle), calorie counting doesn't matter.

And according to that study I found on wikipedia, apparently eating clean is actually a thing, and somehow non-processed foods have a higher TEF even if they're mostly carbs. Never would have expected that.

Also sorry about being a dick over the internet. I just care a lot about macronutrients and find the nuance interesting enough that I get mad whenever anybody says 'calories in, calories out'.

That's just as misguided of an idea as a Calorie is a Calorie.

The differences that the type of Calorie (by which I mean an Atwater Calorie which already includes some correction for the availability of the energy) has on total energy available are on the order of 10-20% of Calories consumed. So basically if you eat clean you can probably safely get away with eating 10% more than you could if you ate dirty. After that point you will gain weight - a certain amount of which will be fat.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I don't know anything about Thermic Effects although it does make sense, but I would say that the most overlooked problem with carbohydrates is not their actual calorie value - it's their deadly combination of palatability and density.

Put another way, you are way more likely to overeat if you're consuming ice-cream, coke, waffles, candy bars and similar stuff. You simply don't notice how much of these energy-dense foods you've taken in until it's too late. And these foods are usually extremely palatable, so it takes only a minute to gorge on a massive amount. By comparison, no matter how much fried food you consume, gorging on (even denser) vegetable oil will very quickly make you feel sick and prevent you from stuffing yourself.

So what I want to say is: the primary problem with simple carbs is not their number of calories, but the fact that it's nearly impossible to stick to a set number of calories with them. They are the ultimate "stealthy" food and will easily trick you into thinking that you "only ate a bit". So it's better to either stay away from them, or consume them only in environments where you can't just walk to the pantry and grab another one.

I admit that I don't have the willpower to eat just half of a Twix bar and then stop. If you have it, more power to you.

[Hades]

(12-01-2014 08:56 AM)Ensam Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 08:43 AM)Hades Wrote:  

I'm arguing in favor of broscience. If you eat enough protein and avoid either carbs or fats (you can cycle), calorie counting doesn't matter.

And according to that study I found on wikipedia, apparently eating clean is actually a thing, and somehow non-processed foods have a higher TEF even if they're mostly carbs. Never would have expected that.

Also sorry about being a dick over the internet. I just care a lot about macronutrients and find the nuance interesting enough that I get mad whenever anybody says 'calories in, calories out'.

That's just as misguided of an idea as a Calorie is a Calorie.

The differences that the type of Calorie (by which I mean an Atwater Calorie which already includes some correction for the availability of the energy) has on total energy available are on the order of 10-20% of Calories consumed. So basically if you eat clean you can probably safely get away with eating 10% more than you could if you ate dirty. After that point you will gain weight - a certain amount of which will be fat.

Yeah that's where the broscience part comes in.

While it is scientifically possible to turn into a fatty on a "clean" diet, it's not as easy as if you were trying to become fatter on a diet of twinkies, ice cream cake, and pizza.

While it is also scientifically possible to get leaner on a diet of crap food, why bother when you can substitute more of your diet with protein.

[heavy]

(12-01-2014 03:37 AM)civpro Wrote:  

Could you please tell me exactly what point you're trying to make? I did not deny that there is a Thermic Effect of Food that needs to be factored in particularly in the case of protein to shave off a couple hundred calories in a high-protein diet. What I'm arguing against is popular broscience notions that calorie counting doesn't matter and that certain foods are "dirty" and fattening irrespective of the context of their caloric value. And you don't seem to buy into those notions yourself, so we don't actually disagree on anything.

There's truth to calorie counting... Less calories = Lose weight (ceteris paribus)
There's truth to broscience... Change diet ~ (can equal) Lose weight (ceteris paribus)

Regardless civpro, the question was "Carbs vs fat vs protein", which you didn't really answer...and the other responses definitely helped provide insight as to the difference between the three.

[Giovonny]

(11-29-2014 09:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Can someone explain to me why it makes any difference if you eat carbs or fat or protein with regards to losing weight, especially belly fat.

I will try to explain..

Our bodies process and store these things differently.

Depending on our genetics and metabolism, fat can be used as fuel, used to replenish fatty tissue in the body, put into short term storage (energy reserves), or put into long term storage (body fat).

Depending on our genetics and metabolism, carbs can be used as fuel, put into short term storage (energy reserves), or put into long term storage. (body fat)

Depending on our genetics and metabolism, protein can be used to rebuild tissue, used as fuel, or put into storage.

This all dependents on ones own unique body chemistry, metabolism, genetics, lifestyle, fitness regime, etc.

Everyone's body processes food differently.

We all must experiment with fats, carbs, and proteins to determine what is best for our specific body.

---

In regards to belly fat, like I said, everyone's body processes foods differently. Some people are genetically designed to be more fatty; Others are genetically designed to be more muscular.

Some people can eat carbs and fat and their body will quickly turn this into energy reserves.

Other people can eat the same thing and their bodies will quickly turn it into belly fat.

(11-29-2014 09:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

If you eat 1500 calories, why does it matter if they come from carbs or fat?

It DOES NOT matter if your only goal is to "lose weight".

However, it DOES matter if your goal is to build muscle and reduce body fat.

[Cr33pin]

Not all calories are created equal..... the only thing equal in this world are women, they are a mans equal. (just kidding they are the superior gender!!)

[StrikeBack]

This sums up pretty well:

http://www.jtstrong.com/articles/2014/10...iet-goals/

Quote:

WHAT ARE THE DIET PRINCIPLES?

There are five basic diet principles of varying impact on diet success. Here they are in order of magnitude:

1.) CALORIE BALANCE: ~50% effect magnitude
– Eating a hypocaloric diet to lose fat, hypercaloric diet to gain muscle

2.) MACRONUTRIENT AMOUNTS: ~30% effect magnitude
– How much protein, carbohydrate and fat you take in per day

3.) NUTRIENT TIMING: ~ 10% effect magnitude
– How many meals you spread out per day, whether you time your food intake to activity (workout window)

4.) FOOD COMPOSITION: ~5% effect magnitude
– Protein quality, Glycemic Index, Fat Type

5.) SUPPLEMENTs: ~5% effect magnitude
– Whey protein, glycemic carb supplements, creatine, stimulants, casein

[dog24]

I would say a calorie is a calorie to the natural average gym goer, how much difference is it going to make on his body eating nothing but brown rice and chicken breast all day.
That shit takes a lot of time out of your day, going to the supermarket, cooking and sitting down to eat multiple times a day.
And for what? Youre gonna maintain that lifestyle 10+ years?
Of course there are some guys in here that are pretty serious about powerlifting or who are using PEDs but if not is it really worth it? Wouldnt it be better to do just a bit of cardio everyday after a normal routine and then do something else more productive.

[peterthephoenix]

Calories are the #1 priority. However macros are #2. You could eat jolly ranchers and lose weight, you just need to eat less than your basal metabolic rate.

If you ate you bodyweight in pounds x 12 = X, XXX calories in jolly ranchers each day you would lose weight. But you would feel terrible and be hungry all the time.

[OBJ Snakebite]

(11-29-2014 09:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I hear a lot of guys say if you want to lose belly fat, then stay away from carbs. Can someone explain to me why it makes any difference if you eat carbs or fat or protein with regards to losing weight, especially belly fat.

Gary Taubes wrote a book on the subject. You can read about the process in its exhaustive, mind-numbing medical detail.

(11-29-2014 09:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I don't fully understand how this works. If you eat 1500 calories, why does it matter if they come from carbs or fat? It's still 1500 calories, right? And if you burn 2000 calories a day through your normal daily routine what difference does it make? You'd still have a calorie deficit. I know low carb diets are all the rage, but I'm trying to understand the science behind this or if it's just another empty fad.

Your body is not a calculator. It also doesn't like carbs all that much, and when it gets them, it wants to use them up first, before getting to fat. It uses insulin to prevent fat from getting out of the fat cells, and converts sugar into fat for storage. You get fatter.

Read the book, it does a better job of explanation.

[FretDancer]

Many members have already added great points.

I will add that the great benefit of low carb diets is not just the low quantity of carbohydrates, but the extra higher quantity of Protein that should be ingested to compensate.

In other words, low carb diets are usually high protein diets, in theory.

Higher protein is always a better choice, if you have it.