Fats vs. Carbs

[jpzsports]

They would both die eventually.

I know hypothetical questions aren't great, but I'm just trying to keep things simple for clarification.

Let's say, I'm trying to meet a specific calorie count for each day in order to lose, or gain weight. We'll just use 2000 for example.

And let's say, it's near the end of the day, and I've already gotten enough protein for the day (1 g per lb of body weight). But I'm still 200 calories short of my daily allowance.

Does it matter where I get these 200 calories? I feel like having a protein/complex carb snack would be far superior than 200 calories of lard oil.


Another example/question. Let's say I need 2000 calories a day to maintain my weight. But I only ate 1800 calories of fat. Would I lose weight? It just seems so hard to comprehend.
Would the weight still be lost, but the body composition be changed? How would this affect one's body fat % ?

[PhiSig2298]

I know hypothetical questions aren't great, but I'm just trying to keep things simple for clarification.

Let's say, I'm trying to meet a specific calorie count for each day in order to lose, or gain weight. We'll just use 2000 for example.

And let's say, it's near the end of the day, and I've already gotten enough protein for the day (1 g per lb of body weight). But I'm still 200 calories short of my daily allowance.

Does it matter where I get these 200 calories? I feel like having a protein/complex carb snack would be far superior than 200 calories of lard oil.


Another example/question. Let's say I need 2000 calories a day to maintain my weight. But I only ate 1800 calories of fat. Would I lose weight? It just seems so hard to comprehend.
Would the weight still be lost, but the body composition be changed? How would this affect one's body fat % ?

On the first example, I would make sure both protein and fat macros were reached

Second example, highly doubt anyone would eat 1,800 of pure fat. That would be a lot of oils, butters and such. Most fats come with other macronutrients Yes, the weight would slowly decrease but you would lose muscle mass with the fat loss.

[IamJonsCranium]

I've been getting a little confused with comparing fats vs. protein vs calorie intake. Some say weight gain is purely caused by a surplus of calories. While I agree partially, I also feel like it depends on where those calories come from.

Do foods that are high in fat cause weight gain because they are high in fat, or just because they tend to also be high in calories? I know that 1 gram of fat has 9 calories vs 1 gram of protein/carbs has 4.

Let's say someone at a 2000 calorie diet of pure protein and another person ate pure fat. They're both the same calories, but wouldn't the protein one lead to more muscle and a leaner body? And wouldn't the fat diet lead to a higher body fat % ?

And lastly, many people are saying how a diet high in carbs is what is really causing obesity, etc. Because too many carbs ends up being converted to fat. I agree, but shouldn't fats still be kept somewhat low (besides healthy fats) since fat is already fat? So it's basically the same as a carb that's been converted already.

Does fat make you fat or is it purely calorie surplus that does?
Can a diet high in protein lead to fat gain just as much as an identical calorie diet of fats/carbs? It seems like that's what the "calorie surplus people" are saying but it seems hard for me to fully agree...

Thanks for any input

Excess calories in make you fat, for the most part.

As far as carbs go, that depends on one's metabolism, from my understanding. If you have a slow metabolism and eat a load of simple carbs, your body won't use these carbs as fast as they need to be used, so they're stored. As fat.

[hulk4]

Excess calories in make you fat, for the most part.

As far as carbs go, that depends on one's metabolism, from my understanding. If you have a slow metabolism and eat a load of simple carbs, your body won't use these carbs as fast as they need to be used, so they're stored. As fat.

No, DNL rarely occur

[IamJonsCranium]

No, DNL rarely occur

Please expand on this.

A spike in blood sugar = spike in insulin = increase in enzymes which lead to lipogenesis = lipogenesis

I'm in way over my head and read this on Wiki, so if I'm wrong, please explain.


ETA: I know a few people who had trouble losing weight. They went on a low carb diet and got the job done.

[hulk4]

Please expand on this.

A spike in blood sugar = spike in insulin = increase in enzymes which lead to lipogenesis = lipogenesis

I'm in way over my head and read this on Wiki, so if I'm wrong, please explain.


ETA: I know a few people who had trouble losing weight. They went on a low carb diet and got the job done.

It seems like Lyle's site doesn't work for me right now, so i'll post the link of the thread on his forum where he talks a bout what I said. The link to the article is on this thread.

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=7003

[PhiSig2298]

Please expand on this.

A spike in blood sugar = spike in insulin = increase in enzymes which lead to lipogenesis = lipogenesis

I'm in way over my head and read this on Wiki, so if I'm wrong, please explain.


ETA: I know a few people who had trouble losing weight. They went on a low carb diet and got the job done.

Weight loss is more calories burned than
Consumed.. Carbs tend to make a person hold more water weight so eliminating carbs could have made them lose weight however it was most likely water.

[Cumulonimbus]

DNL is rare, usually happens with low fat high CHO intakes. Carbs simply suppress fat oxidization and shift your body's main energy source to CHO. Outcome is the same, you still get fat lol.

[jpzsports]

This is a very interesting topic. Here's another question for you guys:

What makes cake bad for you? Is it:
- the high amount of carbs (that can be converted to fat)
- the high amount of fat (which is already fat)
- or purely just because it's high in calories
- or because of it's impact on hormones, etc. (e.g. it's simple sugar spike insulin, so fat storage goes up)

[synthetic]

op, not all macro calories are the same.

alcohol carb = 7 calories /g
regular glucose carb = 4 calories / g
sugar alcohol carb (malintol, sorbitol) = 2 calories / g

normal long chain fat = 9 calories / g
medium chain fat = 8.3 calories / g

[PhiSig2298]

This is a very interesting topic. Here's another question for you guys:

What makes cake bad for you? Is it:
- the high amount of carbs (that can be converted to fat)
- the high amount of fat (which is already fat)
- or purely just because it's high in calories
- or because of it's impact on hormones, etc. (e.g. it's simple sugar spike insulin, so fat storage goes up)

Cake is not bad for you...

[IamJonsCranium]

This is a very interesting topic. Here's another question for you guys:

What makes cake bad for you? Is it:
- the high amount of carbs (that can be converted to fat)
- the high amount of fat (which is already fat)
- or purely just because it's high in calories
- or because of it's impact on hormones, etc. (e.g. it's simple sugar spike insulin, so fat storage goes up)

IMO:
The high sugar content.
The high calorie content.

In moderation it's fine. In bulk, it's this stuff that causes type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Sugar is actually addictive. The more you eat the more you want. It keeps you coming back for more due to the insulin spikes/blood sugar crashes.

[jpzsports]

Alright makes sense. So would you agree with this statement:

It comes down to calories in vs calories out when it comes to losing weight, but it's the quality of calories (complex carbs, proteins vs simple sugars, bad fats) when you talk about body composition (having more muscle and less fat).

[IamJonsCranium]

Alright makes sense. So would you agree with this statement:

It comes down to calories in vs calories out when it comes to losing weight, but it's the Macros (carbs, proteins, fats) when you talk about body composition (having more muscle), but it's the quality of calories (complex carbs, proteins vs simple sugars, bad fats, micronutrients) that determine overall health.

See bold

EDITED a couple times, so if someone quotes me hopefully they get the finished product

ETA100: The 'macros' part is worded poorly... calories in vs out is part of your macros, protein/carb/fat intake is the other part. If you over eat, you'll gain fat. If you don't eat enough protein, you won't gain muscle.

ETA a billion: Can't stop editing.. added "micronutrients"

[PhiSig2298]

Alright makes sense. So would you agree with this statement:

It comes down to calories in vs calories out when it comes to losing weight, but it's the quality of calories (complex carbs, proteins vs simple sugars, bad fats) when you talk about body composition (having more muscle and less fat).

If you properly consume the needed macronutrients, then yes.. Although I don't consider simple sugars as bad

[synthetic]

Cake is not bad for you...

not bad for you if they want to look like you. Cake 95% of the time it is made with artificial transfat. Also its high in sugars that make is easy to go over your macros, and lacking any nutritional value

[PhiSig2298]

not bad for you if they want to look like you. Cake 95% of the time it is made with artificial transfat. Also its high in sugars that make is easy to go over your macros, and lacking any nutritional value

I'm a work in progress, thanks for belittling me on my body.

[jpzsports]

How about this:

Is it possible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time?

[PhiSig2298]

How about this:

Is it possible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time?

For people who are starting out or extremely overweight then yes.. But what do I know? Look at my body

[jpzsports]

Alright so for an intermediate to advanced bodybuilder trying to continue to build muscle and no gain any fat, would would be the best diet plan? How many surplus calories?

[PhiSig2298]

Alright so for an intermediate to advanced bodybuilder trying to continue to build muscle and no gain any fat, would would be the best diet plan? How many surplus calories?

Waiting for synpathetic to give us the answer

[MikeK46]

Alright so for an intermediate to advanced bodybuilder trying to continue to build muscle and no gain any fat, would would be the best diet plan? How many surplus calories?

Not gain any fat? Good luck being in a surplus and not gaining ANY fat. Maybe in fantasy land or AAS land.

If you want to get back to reality, a 300-500 calorie surplus is enough to max out muscle protein synthesis with minimal fat gain.

[jpzsports]

Not gain any fat? Good luck being in a surplus and not gaining ANY fat. Maybe in fantasy land or AAS land.

If you want to get back to reality, a 300-500 calorie surplus is enough to max out muscle protein synthesis with minimal fat gain.

I agree. And I should've said minimum fat gain rather than none.

How do you feel about the debate of purely focused on calories in/out vs. what those calories are made up of in regards to macronutrients?

[FitnessTom]

I agree. And I should've said minimum fat gain rather than none.

How do you feel about the debate of purely focused on calories in/out vs. what those calories are made up of in regards to macronutrients?

I got my ass chewed up trying to debate this last night.

Did you ever check out Alan's article reviewing Dr lustig's fructose lecture? That is a cal in cal out debate if i ever seen one.

In my opinion there are good arguments from both sides. Very hard to understand which side is best, if you are being 100% objective, because there are studies that disprove both sides of the argument.

Until last night I would have argued against cals in cals out based on how different foods change how well your body metabolizes food and whether it stores fat. There is overwhelming evidence, however, from what I was shown here, that these differences are minimal, when compared to caloric deficit/surplus.

I think everyone here pretty much agrees that cals in cals out is just as important as your macro ratio. The main points I learned was that meal frequency/timing is irrelevent, and that the wrong macro ratio will lead to malnutrition and/or loss of lean mass which can speak for problems blamed on sugar.

[Ghosting]

not bad for you if they want to look like you.

Ok, that was seriously uncool.

[AlwaysTryin]

Ok, that was seriously uncool.

everything he does is

[HDMiBarry]

I may be mistaken, but I thought one of Lyle's articles stated that carbohydrate consumption was the main factor controlling whether the body chooses to oxidize carbohydrates or fats for energy. That said, shouldn't your macronutrient consumption also take your training goals into account? If I'm training energy systems that are mostly anaerobic, then carbohydrate consumption could be beneficial. If I'm training to keep my body fat low and maybe use triglycerides as a consistent source of energy, then keeping carbs low would be a priority.

I would never say that calories in and out don't determine weight gain or loss, but I think macronutrient consumption could be further tailored to one's specific goals.

Let me know if I've gotten mixed up somewhere.

[jpzsports]

I got my ass chewed up trying to debate this last night.

Did you ever check out Alan's article reviewing Dr lustig's fructose lecture? That is a cal in cal out debate if i ever seen one.

In my opinion there are good arguments from both sides. Very hard to understand which side is best, if you are being 100% objective, because there are studies that disprove both sides of the argument.

Until last night I would have argued against cals in cals out based on how different foods change how well your body metabolizes food and whether it stores fat. There is overwhelming evidence, however, from what I was shown here, that these differences are minimal, when compared to caloric deficit/surplus.

I think everyone here pretty much agrees that cals in cals out is just as important as your macro ratio. The main points I learned was that meal frequency/timing is irrelevent, and that the wrong macro ratio will lead to malnutrition and/or loss of lean mass which can speak for problems blamed on sugar.

Even with all the evidence of purely cals in/out, I still feel like what those calories are made of can make a huge difference. If me and my friend both ate the same amount of calories and reached our needed macros for the day, but my diet was whole grains, fruits, veggies, and lean proteins compared to his diets of cheeseburgers and tacos, I would have to think my body composition would be much healthier and more muscle/less fat than his.

And regarding your last point, I still believe timing plays a role too. Having a ton of carbs before bed (8 hours of inactivity) must be different than upon waking.


EDIT:
Here's a great excerpt from Dr. Jim Stoppani, who I highly look up to and has excellent advice and info:

Is a calorie truly a calorie? Not always, because different types of calories can affect your body and your results differently. Dietary fat, for example, is more "fattening" than protein or carbs because it's less likely to be used to build your body. Granted, carbs can potentially make you fat, but they also directly fuel your training. Protein? That's a no-brainer: It builds muscle. Fat does neither, but it isn't useless; moderate amounts of it support vitamin absorption and help manufacture hormones.

But if you're trying to get ripped, you must minimize your consumption of fat. Protein, on the other hand, not only adds to your muscle - key in boosting the metabolism - but actually increases your metabolism more directly. The body burns more calories processing protein than it burns to process carbs or fat, known as the thermic effect of food. That's the main reason diets that include a lot of protein result in greater fat loss than low-protein diets, even when both diets contain the same amount of calories.

So basically I believe that yes, calories in vs out can impact one's weight, but not all calories are the same and eating a properly balanced diet with high protein, good fats and complex carbs is far superior to just monitoring one's calories.
Where those calories come from greatly affect body composition.

[alan aragon]

Did you ever check out Alan's article reviewing Dr lustig's fructose lecture? That is a cal in cal out debate if i ever seen one.

It was more like me kicking around a 3-legged puppy. Dude couldn't defend his arguments worth crap.

[Joseph1990]

It was more like me kicking around a 3-legged puppy. Dude couldn't defend his arguments worth crap.

In after AA.