PDA

View Full Version : Are Carbs and Calories the same thing?



motor head
04-28-2008, 03:04 PM
They seem to include the same foods from what Im reading, like bread. Does one just go with the other? If I cut out calories am I on a no carb diet? Whats the difference, thanks for any help,Dave

Auburn
04-28-2008, 03:10 PM
If I cut out calories am I on a no carb diet?

This is probably my favorite question ever. You would be on a no-carb diet. You'd also be on an air/water diet, and would die fairly quickly.

A Calorie is a unit of energy. A carbohydrate is just a term used to group organic compounds with similar structures.

motor head
04-28-2008, 03:13 PM
ah, I see, so Carbs are just high in calories, is that right?

Auburn
04-28-2008, 03:23 PM
No, a given carbohydrate has ~4 Calories/gram.

MJay
04-28-2008, 03:31 PM
To clarify for you:
Calories are a unit of energy. If you have a caloric excess you will gain weight - wether that be fat and/or muscle. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight.
Carbs ~4Kcals
Protein ~4Kcals
Fat ~9Kcals

Do some more reading around the site, it has a wealth of information.

motor head
04-28-2008, 03:34 PM
but things that are high in carbs automatically have alot of calories right?

Auburn
04-28-2008, 03:42 PM
but things that are high in carbs automatically have alot of calories right?

Not necessarily. If I ate 200 grams of carbs from Skittles at one sitting, I would consider that a good bit of carbs. But, it's only 800 Calories. That's a standard meal.

bjohnso
04-28-2008, 03:44 PM
To clarify for you:
Calories are a unit of energy. If you have a caloric excess you will gain weight - wether that be fat and/or muscle. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight.
Carbs ~4Kcals
Protein ~4Kcals
Fat ~9Kcals

Do some more reading around the site, it has a wealth of information.

And to clarify, those are Calories per gram.

MJay
04-28-2008, 03:50 PM
And to clarify, those are Calories per gram.

Oops, thanks.

motor head
04-28-2008, 03:55 PM
so what should I avoid more to lose the gut? Carbs or Calories?

Auburn
04-28-2008, 04:08 PM
Calories, but you can't avoid them. Just eat less.

Slim Schaedle
04-28-2008, 09:27 PM
This is probably my favorite question ever. You would be on a no-carb diet. You'd also be on an air/water diet, and would die fairly quickly.

A Calorie is a unit of energy. A carbohydrate is just a term used to group organic compounds with similar structures.

Damn, it's refreshing to see an intelligent answer pertaining to nutrition.


:)

Dirk Pitt
04-30-2008, 04:19 PM
Calories, but you can't avoid them. Just eat less.
Exactly. If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. If you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight. If you ate all your calories in butter or birthday cake, but still burned more than you ate you would still lose weight, although a diet like that would have a negative effect on your overall health.

thewicked
04-30-2008, 07:07 PM
This is probably my favorite question ever. You would be on a no-carb diet. You'd also be on an air/water diet, and would die fairly quickly.

A Calorie is a unit of energy. A carbohydrate is just a term used to group organic compounds with similar structures.

bingo!

thewicked
04-30-2008, 07:08 PM
Exactly. If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. If you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight. If you ate all your calories in butter or birthday cake, but still burned more than you ate you would still lose weight, although a diet like that would have a negative effect on your overall health.

YAHTZEE!!!

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
05-02-2008, 04:36 AM
My brain hurts. But the question has already been answered. *oww... brain*

Did you understand all of this, motor head? Good luck.

dumbbell
05-02-2008, 08:12 PM
This thread just gave me the best laugh EVER!

TwiloMike
05-04-2008, 01:38 PM
They seem to include the same foods from what Im reading, like bread. Does one just go with the other? If I cut out calories am I on a no carb diet? Whats the difference, thanks for any help,Dave

Think of it this way: every food (oversimplified but it's appropriate here) has calories. Carbs definitely have calories but the reason carbs are focused on is because of how they are processed by your system and the role they play in muscle building, fat building, etc. You can play with calorie reduction, increases, etc. and if you are trying to reach a specific goal you will have to delve deepr and consider the "food groups" (remember high school health ed?) and the roles they play toward or against your goals. This is why people talk specifically about carbs, proteins, fats. Does this answer your question?

kique
05-05-2008, 08:48 AM
the body uses carbs as its first choice for energy, therefore when you eat alot of them and dont expend energy you store the energy as fat, but theres nothing wrong with carbs, learn to distinguish what processed carbs are & stay away from them :hello:

Slim Schaedle
05-05-2008, 10:28 AM
the body uses carbs as its first choice for energy

Actually, the first source is ATP.


And there are several ways of regeneration of ATP, carbohydrates being one source.


This depends on diet, activity, etc.


When you eat alot of them and do not expend energy, carbhydrates are stored as glycogen.

Again, this depends on what "alot" is, current training, diet, insulin sensitivity, hormones, etc.

But to say they are stored as fat if do not need them immediately is incorrect.

There is also nothing "wrong" with processed carb sources. However their are better options.

(I got pretty ripped eating only white flour bagels for carbs one time)

Auburn
05-05-2008, 11:00 AM
Yeah, carbs don't really get stored as fat that often unless you're eating low-fat or have a ridiculously high carb intake for a few days. But, they block oxidation of ingested fat, which is where people get the idea that carbs make you fat.

kique
05-05-2008, 04:22 PM
Actually, the first source is ATP.


And there are several ways of regeneration of ATP, carbohydrates being one source.


This depends on diet, activity, etc.


When you eat alot of them and do not expend energy, carbhydrates are stored as glycogen.

Again, this depends on what "alot" is, current training, diet, insulin sensitivity, hormones, etc.

But to say they are stored as fat if do not need them immediately is incorrect.

There is also nothing "wrong" with processed carb sources. However their are better options.

(I got pretty ripped eating only white flour bagels for carbs one time)
i was talking along the lines of macronutrients not going to technical terms like atp, when someone eats alot of carbs and doesnt workout they dont get fat?, and what is that fat? stored energy... if thats not common sense.. go eat your processed carbs and blame it on your "bulking" all knowledgeable one:tuttut:

Slim Schaedle
05-05-2008, 06:57 PM
i was talking along the lines of macronutrients not going to technical terms like atp, when someone eats alot of carbs and doesnt workout they dont get fat?, and what is that fat? stored energy... if thats not common sense.. go eat your processed carbs and blame it on your "bulking" all knowledgeable one:tuttut:

lol!


umm, ... wtf?



You are still wrong even if you only want to talk about macronutrients.

Even then, do you think ATP comes from nowehere?

Do you know what source the heart uses for energy?

Yes, sometimes it is good to simplify things, but not if that simplification is incorrect.

Jordanbcool
05-06-2008, 03:40 PM
ATP isn't that complicated its just the lowest possible form of energy that is used by the body (used at the cellular level). Calories are a measurement of energy related to food. Carbohydrates are a macronutriet. Carbohydrates are also used almost exclusively for energy either immediately or stored for later as fat. This is why recently people have been targeting them in the dieting scene. Calories are the key to losing weight but depending on what macronutrients you consume it will dictate on what you lose and your overall health among other important factors (such as activity)

Slim Schaedle
05-06-2008, 03:58 PM
I remember the first time I argued with Jordan, it was about ATP, lol

Remember that? lol



Carbohydrates are also used almost exclusively for energy either immediately or stored for later as fat.

Eh...not exactly.

The whole instant energy thing is blown out of proportion.

Even with an adequate daily intake of carbohydrates, I can load up my glycogen stores pretty high berore it will start spilling over to fat (of course, this varies from person to person and also depends on total caloric intake).


But in general, you are going to store it as glycogen before fat.

Jordanbcool
05-06-2008, 04:16 PM
I remember the first time I argued with Jordan, it was about ATP, lol

Remember that? lol




Eh...not exactly.

The whole instant energy thing is blown out of proportion.

Even with an adequate daily intake of carbohydrates, I can load up my glycogen stores pretty high berore it will start spilling over to fat (of course, this varies from person to person and also depends on total caloric intake).


But in general, you are going to store it as glycogen before fat.

I agree but this also depends if you are glycogen depleted (lets say you've been on a ketogenic diet for a while) or you have been recently involved in an activity. It also depends on the type of carbohydrate you've consumed (simple/complex) and it depends on a person's metabolic rate, calories, and finally the weather. lol...Basically that how the carbohydrate is used depends on a huge list of factors. I was just trying to say that once glycogen stores are full and your body has no other use for it the carbohydrate will be converted to fat and stored for later use.

Slim Schaedle
05-06-2008, 04:18 PM
I agree but this also depends if you are glycogen depleted

No

No

No


EDIT: I just saw your edit......

This goes back to the RESULTS thread.

Do you realize how many carbohydrates it takes to max out glycogen stores?


More importanly, do you realize how hard it is to maintain that max?

Jordanbcool
05-06-2008, 04:21 PM
No

No

No

Wouldn't it affect the conversion of carbohydrates to fat if a person was completly full as far as glycogen goes? I was always under the impression that it would.

Slim Schaedle
05-06-2008, 04:22 PM
Wouldn't it affect the conversion of carbohydrates to fat if a person was completly full as far as glycogen goes? I was always under the impression that it would.

Yes, but see above.

Progress
05-06-2008, 04:39 PM
Do you realize how many carbohydrates it takes to max out glycogen stores?


More importanly, do you realize how hard it is to maintain that max?

No, but I'd like to.

My guess is that it varies by individual based on activity, genes and bodyweight.

Slim Schaedle
05-06-2008, 04:52 PM
No, but I'd like to.

My guess is that it varies by individual based on activity, genes and bodyweight.

Pretty much comes down to amountt of lean body mass (in terms of capacity), but other factors will apply.

If you are familair with UD2, all the calculation are in the book.

I forget off-hand.

My carb intake would need to be somewhere around 1,500g/day to maintain full storage.

Progress
05-06-2008, 05:03 PM
Pretty much comes down to amountt of lean body mass (in terms of capacity), but other factors will apply.

If you are familair with UD2, all the calculation are in the book.

I forget off-hand.

My carb intake would need to be somewhere around 1,500g/day to maintain full storage.

Ah, yes. That makes sense. So someone who starts with little LBM and eats, regularly, as much as you and I do on carb-up, which I wouldn't put past many Americans, would likely max that glycogen store (since their muscles are not large/dense enough to hold it) and thus the excess calories from carbs would spill into fat. Is that right?

Auburn
05-06-2008, 05:07 PM
My carb intake would need to be somewhere around 1,500g/day to maintain full storage.

I hope you mean from a glycogen-depleted state it would take ~1500 g/Carbs to refill. 1500g/day is a ridiculous figure from any multiple-day perspective since very few people will hit complete depletion in a day.

Jordanbcool
05-06-2008, 05:19 PM
Pretty much comes down to amountt of lean body mass (in terms of capacity), but other factors will apply.

If you are familair with UD2, all the calculation are in the book.

I forget off-hand.

My carb intake would need to be somewhere around 1,500g/day to maintain full storage.

It doesn't really matter to get into a big discussion over it. In a hypothetical situation, lets say you are completely full of glycogen. This means, liver, all your muscles etc. and you aren't in any immediate need of energy (in reference to any physical activity) and you eat a ton of carbohydrates (again the numbers are irrelevant because this would vary on many factors because a large amount of carbohydrates for one person's body may be only a trivial amount to another person) then the excess carbohydrates will spill over into fat storage. Also the average person does not have very much muscle mass, does little activity and generally knows very little about nutrition. This should be considered when thinking about how readily carbohydrates will be stored as fat to the average American.

Slim Schaedle
05-06-2008, 05:32 PM
I hope you mean from a glycogen-depleted state it would take ~1500 g/Carbs to refill. 1500g/day is a ridiculous figure from any multiple-day perspective since very few people will hit complete depletion in a day.

Whoa, good point...I can see where what I said could be taken the wrong way.


I should have clarified and said that from depletion roughly 1,500 grams would fill me up, and in order to maintain full stores, I would have to continue to eat a high amount in the days thereafter, taking into consideration BMR, activity, etc.

For myself, that number would have to be high, b/c my body utilizes carbohydrate very efficiently, while not so much for fatty acids.

I could literally sit around and do nothing for a few days, and notice myself considerably "flatter" looking from gradual depletion.

Jordanbcool
05-06-2008, 05:34 PM
I hope you mean from a glycogen-depleted state it would take ~1500 g/Carbs to refill. 1500g/day is a ridiculous figure from any multiple-day perspective since very few people will hit complete depletion in a day.

Draining your body completely of glycogen isn't that hard. All I would have to do is simply not eat any carbohydrates for a day or two. Combined with strenuous physical activity and the rate will be even faster. I deplete my body all the time when I diet. It sucks, its hard to get a pump.

Progress
05-06-2008, 05:36 PM
For myself, that number would have to be high, b/c my boy utilizes carbohydrate very efficiently, while not so much for fatty acids.

I could literally sit around and do nothing for a few days, and notice myself considerably "flatter" looking from gradual depletion.

Haha, I like how you referred to your body as "my boy." Unless that was a typo.

But I agree about the depletion. It's absolutely true. From tonight until Thursday night I'm flat. Nothing beats the quasi-pump that comes on Friday and Saturday, though.

Slim Schaedle
05-06-2008, 05:36 PM
Haha, I like how you referred to your body as "my boy." Unless that was a typo.


hahahaha


I just fixed it before you posted.


(PS: am I confusing you with someone, or did you used to live in Cincinnati?)

Progress
05-06-2008, 05:37 PM
Draining your body completely of glycogen isn't that hard. All I would have to do is simply not eat any carbohydrates for a day or two. Combined with strenuous physical activity and the rate will be even faster. I deplete my body all the time when I diet. It sucks, its hard to get a pump.

I'm a UD2 noob on my fourth week. I've noticed that on depletion workouts, from week to week, my pump has been gradually decreasing as I limit carbs.

Progress
05-06-2008, 05:38 PM
hahahaha


I just fixed it before you posted.


(PS: am I confusing you with someone, or did you used to live in Cincinnati?)

Ninja Edit.

Auburn
05-06-2008, 05:38 PM
Draining your body completely of glycogen isn't that hard. All I would have to do is simply not eat any carbohydrates for a day or two. Combined with strenuous physical activity and the rate will be even faster. I deplete my body all the time when I diet. It sucks, its hard to get a pump.

You can deplete the liver pretty quickly (3 days being the outside for most sedentary people, if I remember right). But, complete full-body muscular depletion pretty much requires intention if you want to do it in a few days...which means workouts devoted to the type of lifting that goes through glycogen quickly...which really suck without carbs.

Slim Schaedle
05-06-2008, 05:40 PM
Yeah Jordan, completely depleting is going to take a little more work than sitting around.

Progress
05-06-2008, 05:43 PM
hahahaha


I just fixed it before you posted.


(PS: am I confusing you with someone, or did you used to live in Cincinnati?)

Ah! You did it again!

Yes, I went to Xavier and then worked in Cincinnati for two years after that. Now I'm back in Buffalo.

Progress
05-06-2008, 05:45 PM
which means workouts devoted to the type of lifting that goes through glycogen quickly...which really suck without carbs.

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.

Slim Schaedle
05-06-2008, 05:50 PM
Ah! You did it again!

Yes, I went to Xavier and then worked in Cincinnati for two years after that. Now I'm back in Buffalo.

Sun Chemicals or something, right?

Progress
05-06-2008, 05:51 PM
Sun Chemicals or something, right?

Sun Chemical, that's right. Then I took a job with Sherwin Williams. Then I got into law school and said goodbye to that Queen City and hello to this one.