Why counting calories could be making you fatter.
Options
Replies
-
ceoverturf wrote: »BrentJulius wrote: »
Oh brother.BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.
I've argued that they aren't important... for particular circumstances. Just wanting to lose weight = not at all important.
Of course they are. How do you come to the conclusion they aren't?
CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.
Therefore not important for general, nondescript weightloss. If they were then I wouldn't have lost weight 5 years ago when I had no concept of calories or macros.
The first example will cause greater loss of LBM and subsequent drop in BMR than the second (assuming the macro shift is to proteins). The second path will result in greater weight loss.
Actually, it's the one that you will stick to that will result in the greater weight loss.
0 -
Especially when you count calories in your banana split, your bacon, ham, and cheese omelet served with fried hash browns, not to mention butter laden toast, then your two slices of pizza for lunch, followed with an ice-cream brownie delight. Then for an early dinner, your steak and loaded potato, three glasses of wine, and surprise! a free dessert! Yep, counting calories can definitely curtail your eating lifestyle.0
-
ceoverturf wrote: »BrentJulius wrote: »
Oh brother.BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.
I've argued that they aren't important... for particular circumstances. Just wanting to lose weight = not at all important.
Of course they are. How do you come to the conclusion they aren't?
CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.
Therefore not important for general, nondescript weightloss. If they were then I wouldn't have lost weight 5 years ago when I had no concept of calories or macros.
Be careful with using an example lime that because it can be successfully debated when we compare diets on extreme end of the scale due to TEF.
Meh. People will still lose weight regardless of their macro breakdown. Will it change what kind of weight they lose? Yes. But that falls under "body composition."0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »BrentJulius wrote: »
Oh brother.BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.
I've argued that they aren't important... for particular circumstances. Just wanting to lose weight = not at all important.
Of course they are. How do you come to the conclusion they aren't?
CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.
Therefore not important for general, nondescript weightloss. If they were then I wouldn't have lost weight 5 years ago when I had no concept of calories or macros.
The first example will cause greater loss of LBM and subsequent drop in BMR than the second (assuming the macro shift is to proteins). The second path will result in greater weight loss.
And yet both people will lose weight.
Again, difference between general nondescript weight loss where the person just wants to be slimmer and having specific body composition goals.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »BrentJulius wrote: »
Oh brother.BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.
I've argued that they aren't important... for particular circumstances. Just wanting to lose weight = not at all important.
Of course they are. How do you come to the conclusion they aren't?
CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.
Therefore not important for general, nondescript weightloss. If they were then I wouldn't have lost weight 5 years ago when I had no concept of calories or macros.
The first example will cause greater loss of LBM and subsequent drop in BMR than the second (assuming the macro shift is to proteins). The second path will result in greater weight loss.
Actually, it's the one that you will stick to that will result in the greater weight loss.
Yup. higher protein will be better suited to those with particular body composition goals, but plenty of people don't have those types of goals and just want to be skinnier. in which case whatever method lets you maintain your required deficit is the best method. Eat a varied diet of food you enjoy in a way you enjoy, within your caloric needs, and you will lose weight.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Yeah, I just did some mathematics stuff on iifym. Looks like you lose a whooping 10 calories of BMR per pound of LBM you lose.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Right. Which is all just a complicated way of saying that in every way that actually matters to people looking to improve their health, all calories are NOT equal.
Do I need to get the kilometers out again?
1 km = 1 km, or 1 mile = 1 mile if you're that way inclined.
You can traverse that distance in multiple different ways, and it is definitely better for you to go that distance on foot or with a bike on occasion instead of in a car all the time.
But that does not change anything about the distance. At. All. The mile don't give a *kitten* how you traverse it, it's still a mile.
We're not talking about "miles" - we're talking about weight loss and health. And it damn sure does matter for weight loss how you traverse the miles.
Macros matter for weight loss. Which means all calories are not equal, for weight loss.
They don't really all that much. An energy deficit gets equalized by energy you've got stored. I guess if you were to lose exclusively muscle you'd lose more weight for the same deficit because muscle doesn't yield as many calories as fat for the same weight. But that doesn't really happen now, does it?
That's not why.
Why do we have protein intake guidelines when eating in a deficit? Because of the desire to preserve lean body mass. What is proportional to your lean body mass? Your BMR. What happens when your LBM goes down, all else being equal? Your BMR goes down.
A person eating X calories heavy on carbs and light on protein will lose less weight than the same person eating the same X calories over the same period of time but heavy on the protein and light on the carbs.
Macros matter for weight loss. All calories are not equal for weight loss.
MFP is full of people needing to lose 50+ pounds. If a quarter of the weight loss shifts from fat to LBM, that's a difference in BMR of 150 calories/day - using your numbers.
If you want to argue that 10% of a 1500 calorie budget isn't meaningful...feel free! :drinker:0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »BrentJulius wrote: »
Oh brother.BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.
I've argued that they aren't important... for particular circumstances. Just wanting to lose weight = not at all important.
Of course they are. How do you come to the conclusion they aren't?
CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.
Therefore not important for general, nondescript weightloss. If they were then I wouldn't have lost weight 5 years ago when I had no concept of calories or macros.
The first example will cause greater loss of LBM and subsequent drop in BMR than the second (assuming the macro shift is to proteins). The second path will result in greater weight loss.
And yet both people will lose weight.
Again, difference between general nondescript weight loss where the person just wants to be slimmer and having specific body composition goals.
It's more than that - one will lose MORE weight than the other, for the same number of ingested calories. It's not just about "composition" - it's about the rate of weight loss.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Yeah, I just did some mathematics stuff on iifym. Looks like you lose a whooping 10 calories of BMR per pound of LBM you lose.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Right. Which is all just a complicated way of saying that in every way that actually matters to people looking to improve their health, all calories are NOT equal.
Do I need to get the kilometers out again?
1 km = 1 km, or 1 mile = 1 mile if you're that way inclined.
You can traverse that distance in multiple different ways, and it is definitely better for you to go that distance on foot or with a bike on occasion instead of in a car all the time.
But that does not change anything about the distance. At. All. The mile don't give a *kitten* how you traverse it, it's still a mile.
We're not talking about "miles" - we're talking about weight loss and health. And it damn sure does matter for weight loss how you traverse the miles.
Macros matter for weight loss. Which means all calories are not equal, for weight loss.
They don't really all that much. An energy deficit gets equalized by energy you've got stored. I guess if you were to lose exclusively muscle you'd lose more weight for the same deficit because muscle doesn't yield as many calories as fat for the same weight. But that doesn't really happen now, does it?
That's not why.
Why do we have protein intake guidelines when eating in a deficit? Because of the desire to preserve lean body mass. What is proportional to your lean body mass? Your BMR. What happens when your LBM goes down, all else being equal? Your BMR goes down.
A person eating X calories heavy on carbs and light on protein will lose less weight than the same person eating the same X calories over the same period of time but heavy on the protein and light on the carbs.
Macros matter for weight loss. All calories are not equal for weight loss.
MFP is full of people needing to lose 50+ pounds. If a quarter of the weight loss shifts from fat to LBM, that's a difference in BMR of 150 calories/day - using your numbers.
If you want to argue that 10% of a 1500 calorie budget isn't meaningful...feel free! :drinker:
I would argue that an apples's worth of calories less per day isn't the end of the world.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »BrentJulius wrote: »
Oh brother.BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.
I've argued that they aren't important... for particular circumstances. Just wanting to lose weight = not at all important.
Of course they are. How do you come to the conclusion they aren't?
CICO. Eating 70% carbs on 1500 calories when your maintenance is 2000 calories will not make you lose less fat than eating 20% carbs on 1500 calories.
Therefore not important for general, nondescript weightloss. If they were then I wouldn't have lost weight 5 years ago when I had no concept of calories or macros.
The first example will cause greater loss of LBM and subsequent drop in BMR than the second (assuming the macro shift is to proteins). The second path will result in greater weight loss.
And yet both people will lose weight.
Again, difference between general nondescript weight loss where the person just wants to be slimmer and having specific body composition goals.
It's more than that - one will lose MORE weight than the other, for the same number of ingested calories. It's not just about "composition" - it's about the rate of weight loss.
Would they though? Even if you take into account that LBM loss reduces your BMR a bit, a pound of LBM yields less calories than a pound of fat, in reverse at the same deficit, the more of the used energy comes from LBM, the more weight you lose.0 -
I probably ought to watch the actual show - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05nhyt8/the-truth-about-2-calories0
-
Weight loss and fat loss are not synonyms when you're studying body composition. I wonder how much additional "weight loss" in the low-carb group was water and glycogen.0 -
True for the first month, maybe. Most of these studies that like to compare high carb to low carb are really comparing a higher protein diet in disguise, with protein having a definite TEF advantage and why we should compare studies with protein held as a constant, put that never happens it seems. Also the low carb participants are generally directed to eat without restriction while the high carb group is calorie restricted. What normally happens is the low carb group eat fewer overall calories for the first few (6) months where satiety factors in but then normally the carbs start to creep back into their diets and aren't really consuming the same low carb diet and consuming more overall calories and hence the weight loss over longer comparisons don't pan out as well.
Weight loss and fat loss are not synonyms when you're studying body composition. I wonder how much additional "weight loss" in the low-carb group was water and glycogen.0 -
I don't understand what is so hard to get about if you just want to lose weight and do not care about recomp and what not then calorie deficit is all that matters; however, if you have body recomp goals (build muscle/lose body fat/recomp/etc) then macros, coupled with calorie intake becomes more important...
MFP taking simple concepts and making them complex, just because since 1990....geez0 -
+1I don't understand what is so hard to get about if you just want to lose weight and do not care about recomp and what not then calorie deficit is all that matters; however, if you have body recomp goals (build muscle/lose body fat/recomp/etc) then macros, coupled with calorie intake becomes more important...
MFP taking simple concepts and making them complex, just because since 1990....geez
0 -
A whole bunch of citations lacking from the last few replies.0
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions