A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie

Carnivor0us

should i even comment??..

here i go.

i am #team i believe a calorie isn't a calorie. i am a pear shaped girl and suffer from pcos. i have diabetes in my family. notice that when i eat more carbs i store fat (even when i am active). when I minimize my carbs and stick to healthy fats and protein... i can eat AS much as i want and still lose weight easily.

i cant believe people believe in this calorie in calorie out thing. only americans obsess with this and look at how fat we are.

You gain more weight when eating more carbs because you're eating more calories.

Calories in vs calories out is a biochemical fact.

I suggest you read up on PCOS. It's not that simple. I strongly doubt you'll ever be in the position to know what you're talking about in regards to that particular syndrome.

jonnythan

should i even comment??..

here i go.

i am #team i believe a calorie isn't a calorie. i am a pear shaped girl and suffer from pcos. i have diabetes in my family. notice that when i eat more carbs i store fat (even when i am active). when I minimize my carbs and stick to healthy fats and protein... i can eat AS much as i want and still lose weight easily.

i cant believe people believe in this calorie in calorie out thing. only americans obsess with this and look at how fat we are.

You gain more weight when eating more carbs because you're eating more calories.

Calories in vs calories out is a biochemical fact.

I suggest you read up on PCOS. It's not that simple. I strongly doubt you'll ever be in the position to know what you're talking about in regards to that particular syndrome.

Actually I have my med school applications in right now so you might be surprised

Hormonal disorders affect the calories out part. It doesn't invalidate the equation, not by a long shot.

Carnivor0us

should i even comment??..

here i go.

i am #team i believe a calorie isn't a calorie. i am a pear shaped girl and suffer from pcos. i have diabetes in my family. notice that when i eat more carbs i store fat (even when i am active). when I minimize my carbs and stick to healthy fats and protein... i can eat AS much as i want and still lose weight easily.

i cant believe people believe in this calorie in calorie out thing. only americans obsess with this and look at how fat we are.

You gain more weight when eating more carbs because you're eating more calories.

Calories in vs calories out is a biochemical fact.

I suggest you read up on PCOS. It's not that simple. I strongly doubt you'll ever be in the position to know what you're talking about in regards to that particular syndrome.

Actually I have my med school applications in right now so you might be surprised

Hormonal disorders affect the calories out part. It doesn't invalidate the equation, not by a long shot.

Wow, I'm impressed. You might learn something then.

blackgirlfit

damn yall going in lol.

morkiemama

Bump for later.

mrmagee3

should i even comment??..

here i go.

i am #team i believe a calorie isn't a calorie. i am a pear shaped girl and suffer from pcos. i have diabetes in my family. notice that when i eat more carbs i store fat (even when i am active). when I minimize my carbs and stick to healthy fats and protein... i can eat AS much as i want and still lose weight easily.

i cant believe people believe in this calorie in calorie out thing. only americans obsess with this and look at how fat we are.

You gain more weight when eating more carbs because you're eating more calories.

Calories in vs calories out is a biochemical fact.

I think you're at danger of confusing correlation and causation. Yes, if one gains weight, one will be taking in more calories than they use. That goes without saying. But what the law of thermodynamics doesn't infer (especially as it relates to this particular dietary concern) is causality.

You are saying that she is intaking a ton of food, so her body is storing the excess as fat.

Another valid way to interpret the situation, albeit a bit more complicated way, is as follows:
Her body is not good at processing carbohydrates and utilizing glucose as energy (due to insulin resistance, PCOS, or several other disease states). So her blood sugar is high after she eats carbohydrates. The body is not getting the same energy bump from carbs that a person who normally processes carbs would get -- so what does the body do? Tells you you're still hungry, because you haven't met your energy needs yet. So you eat more. By the time your insulin production catches up and gets your body the energy it needs, you have all this "extra". That gets stored as fat. When it comes time to "exercise it off", her body resists fat oxidation, again due to the insulin resistance issues.

In the one explanation, she's a lazy glutton that could lose weight if only she could stop stuffing her face with Doritos.
In the other explanation, her body functions in a way that makes her predisposed to adipose tissue gain, and makes the conventional "eat less, exercise more" paradigm almost guaranteed to not work for her -- her body is telling her she's still hungry when she eats "normally", so restricting food and upping exercise (something that will generally signal her to intake more) is extremely difficult to do. Maintainability, in my eyes, should be a focus of any dietary restriction. If you're losing weight, but hating life, what's the point?

The low carb high fat answer is a response specifically to scenario two. It seems like it works for her. I know, at similar caloric levels, I feel significantly better on LCHF than I did on low fat restricted calorie diets, and I lose weight significantly more easily.

jonnythan

should i even comment??..

here i go.

i am #team i believe a calorie isn't a calorie. i am a pear shaped girl and suffer from pcos. i have diabetes in my family. notice that when i eat more carbs i store fat (even when i am active). when I minimize my carbs and stick to healthy fats and protein... i can eat AS much as i want and still lose weight easily.

i cant believe people believe in this calorie in calorie out thing. only americans obsess with this and look at how fat we are.

You gain more weight when eating more carbs because you're eating more calories.

Calories in vs calories out is a biochemical fact.

I think you're at danger of confusing correlation and causation. Yes, if one gains weight, one will be taking in more calories than they use. That goes without saying. But what the law of thermodynamics doesn't infer (especially as it relates to this particular dietary concern) is causality.

You are saying that she is intaking a ton of food, so her body is storing the excess as fat.

Another valid way to interpret the situation, albeit a bit more complicated way, is as follows:
Her body is not good at processing carbohydrates and utilizing glucose as energy (due to insulin resistance, PCOS, or several other disease states). So her blood sugar is high after she eats carbohydrates. The body is not getting the same energy bump from carbs that a person who normally processes carbs would get -- so what does the body do? Tells you you're still hungry, because you haven't met your energy needs yet. So you eat more. By the time your insulin production catches up and gets your body the energy it needs, you have all this "extra". That gets stored as fat. When it comes time to "exercise it off", her body resists fat oxidation, again due to the insulin resistance issues.

In the one explanation, she's a lazy glutton that could lose weight if only she could stop stuffing her face with Doritos.
In the other explanation, her body functions in a way that makes her predisposed to adipose tissue gain, and makes the conventional "eat less, exercise more" paradigm almost guaranteed to not work for her -- her body is telling her she's still hungry when she eats "normally", so restricting food and upping exercise (something that will generally signal her to intake more) is extremely difficult to do. Maintainability, in my eyes, should be a focus of any dietary restriction. If you're losing weight, but hating life, what's the point?

The low carb high fat answer is a response specifically to scenario two. It seems like it works for her. I know, at similar caloric levels, I feel significantly better on LCHF than I did on low fat restricted calorie diets, and I lose weight significantly more easily.

Right, so it's calories in vs calories out. Whether it's hard to stop eating doesn't change the equation.

Carnivor0us

should i even comment??..

here i go.

i am #team i believe a calorie isn't a calorie. i am a pear shaped girl and suffer from pcos. i have diabetes in my family. notice that when i eat more carbs i store fat (even when i am active). when I minimize my carbs and stick to healthy fats and protein... i can eat AS much as i want and still lose weight easily.

i cant believe people believe in this calorie in calorie out thing. only americans obsess with this and look at how fat we are.

You gain more weight when eating more carbs because you're eating more calories.

Calories in vs calories out is a biochemical fact.

I think you're at danger of confusing correlation and causation. Yes, if one gains weight, one will be taking in more calories than they use. That goes without saying. But what the law of thermodynamics doesn't infer (especially as it relates to this particular dietary concern) is causality.

You are saying that she is intaking a ton of food, so her body is storing the excess as fat.

Another valid way to interpret the situation, albeit a bit more complicated way, is as follows:
Her body is not good at processing carbohydrates and utilizing glucose as energy (due to insulin resistance, PCOS, or several other disease states). So her blood sugar is high after she eats carbohydrates. The body is not getting the same energy bump from carbs that a person who normally processes carbs would get -- so what does the body do? Tells you you're still hungry, because you haven't met your energy needs yet. So you eat more. By the time your insulin production catches up and gets your body the energy it needs, you have all this "extra". That gets stored as fat. When it comes time to "exercise it off", her body resists fat oxidation, again due to the insulin resistance issues.

In the one explanation, she's a lazy glutton that could lose weight if only she could stop stuffing her face with Doritos.
In the other explanation, her body functions in a way that makes her predisposed to adipose tissue gain, and makes the conventional "eat less, exercise more" paradigm almost guaranteed to not work for her -- her body is telling her she's still hungry when she eats "normally", so restricting food and upping exercise (something that will generally signal her to intake more) is extremely difficult to do. Maintainability, in my eyes, should be a focus of any dietary restriction. If you're losing weight, but hating life, what's the point?

The low carb high fat answer is a response specifically to scenario two. It seems like it works for her. I know, at similar caloric levels, I feel significantly better on LCHF than I did on low fat restricted calorie diets, and I lose weight significantly more easily.

Right, so it's calories in vs calories out. Whether it's hard to stop eating doesn't change the equation.

I hope you don't go into endocrinology. What this means is that macros are just as important as calories.

jonnythan

should i even comment??..

here i go.

i am #team i believe a calorie isn't a calorie. i am a pear shaped girl and suffer from pcos. i have diabetes in my family. notice that when i eat more carbs i store fat (even when i am active). when I minimize my carbs and stick to healthy fats and protein... i can eat AS much as i want and still lose weight easily.

i cant believe people believe in this calorie in calorie out thing. only americans obsess with this and look at how fat we are.

You gain more weight when eating more carbs because you're eating more calories.

Calories in vs calories out is a biochemical fact.

I think you're at danger of confusing correlation and causation. Yes, if one gains weight, one will be taking in more calories than they use. That goes without saying. But what the law of thermodynamics doesn't infer (especially as it relates to this particular dietary concern) is causality.

You are saying that she is intaking a ton of food, so her body is storing the excess as fat.

Another valid way to interpret the situation, albeit a bit more complicated way, is as follows:
Her body is not good at processing carbohydrates and utilizing glucose as energy (due to insulin resistance, PCOS, or several other disease states). So her blood sugar is high after she eats carbohydrates. The body is not getting the same energy bump from carbs that a person who normally processes carbs would get -- so what does the body do? Tells you you're still hungry, because you haven't met your energy needs yet. So you eat more. By the time your insulin production catches up and gets your body the energy it needs, you have all this "extra". That gets stored as fat. When it comes time to "exercise it off", her body resists fat oxidation, again due to the insulin resistance issues.

In the one explanation, she's a lazy glutton that could lose weight if only she could stop stuffing her face with Doritos.
In the other explanation, her body functions in a way that makes her predisposed to adipose tissue gain, and makes the conventional "eat less, exercise more" paradigm almost guaranteed to not work for her -- her body is telling her she's still hungry when she eats "normally", so restricting food and upping exercise (something that will generally signal her to intake more) is extremely difficult to do. Maintainability, in my eyes, should be a focus of any dietary restriction. If you're losing weight, but hating life, what's the point?

The low carb high fat answer is a response specifically to scenario two. It seems like it works for her. I know, at similar caloric levels, I feel significantly better on LCHF than I did on low fat restricted calorie diets, and I lose weight significantly more easily.

Right, so it's calories in vs calories out. Whether it's hard to stop eating doesn't change the equation.

I hope you don't go into endocrinology.

You're saying that hormonal issues that make people eat more calories or make their bodies use fewer calories invalidates calories in vs calories out.

It doesn't. Calories in vs calories out is a biochemical fact. Period, end of story. Yes medical conditions may make one side or the other harder to control or predict, but it's still a valid equation.

jonnythan

What this means is that macros are just as important as calories.

..... You do realize that calories come only from macros, yes?

Of course macros are important, for various reasons. But they don't invalidate CICO.

mrmagee3

Right, so it's calories in vs calories out. Whether it's hard to stop eating doesn't change the equation.

I've already stated that I agree with that, twice in this thread. I'm not sure what the benefit is of restating it over and over again, or that telling someone "CICO" is a worthwhile contribution when in application to dietary philosophy for a unique person with a unique biochemical situation.

It'd be like if your car wasn't starting, so you pulled it into my garage. I take a look at it, throw the keys back to you, and say, "you have an energy problem." It's technically correct, but functionally not all that useful.

In this case, "CICO" ignores the wide range of dietary recommendation that can be tailored to an individual who is trying to lose weight and not seeing the same results as others who are doing similar things.

jonnythan

Right, so it's calories in vs calories out. Whether it's hard to stop eating doesn't change the equation.

I've already stated that I agree with that, twice in this thread. I'm not sure what the benefit is of restating it over and over again, or that telling someone "CICO" is a worthwhile contribution when in application to dietary philosophy for a unique person with a unique biochemical situation.

It'd be like if your car wasn't starting, so you pulled it into my garage. I take a look at it, throw the keys back to you, and say, "you have an energy problem." It's technically correct, but functionally not all that useful.

In this case, "CICO" ignores the wide range of dietary recommendation that can be tailored to an individual who is trying to lose weight and not seeing the same results as others who are doing similar things.

I was responding to a poster who said that she "cant believe people believe in this calorie in calorie out thing."

Sqeekyjojo

Right, so it's calories in vs calories out. Whether it's hard to stop eating doesn't change the equation.

I've already stated that I agree with that, twice in this thread. I'm not sure what the benefit is of restating it over and over again, or that telling someone "CICO" is a worthwhile contribution when in application to dietary philosophy for a unique person with a unique biochemical situation.

It'd be like if your car wasn't starting, so you pulled it into my garage. I take a look at it, throw the keys back to you, and say, "you have an energy problem." It's technically correct, but functionally not all that useful.

In this case, "CICO" ignores the wide range of dietary recommendation that can be tailored to an individual who is trying to lose weight and not seeing the same results as others who are doing similar things.

It's technically correct and functionally useful - all you'd be saying is 'you're out of gas'.

mrmagee3

It's technically correct and functionally useful - all you'd be saying is 'you're out of gas'.

No, because it could have a full tank. It could be a poor starter, it could be a misfiring engine, it could be a broken fuel pump, it could be any number of a hundred things. Details matter.

That being said, I'm sure someone could find a better analogy.

mrmagee3

Right, so it's calories in vs calories out. Whether it's hard to stop eating doesn't change the equation.

I've already stated that I agree with that, twice in this thread. I'm not sure what the benefit is of restating it over and over again, or that telling someone "CICO" is a worthwhile contribution when in application to dietary philosophy for a unique person with a unique biochemical situation.

It'd be like if your car wasn't starting, so you pulled it into my garage. I take a look at it, throw the keys back to you, and say, "you have an energy problem." It's technically correct, but functionally not all that useful.

In this case, "CICO" ignores the wide range of dietary recommendation that can be tailored to an individual who is trying to lose weight and not seeing the same results as others who are doing similar things.

I was responding to a poster who said that she "cant believe people believe in this calorie in calorie out thing."

My mistake -- I was responding to the post in which you quoted me, is all.

etoiles_argentees

Who's right? The better question is, why does it matter? If you've found something that you're comfortable with, that you can live with, and has worked for you, congratulations.

From an excellent post this was the stand out point.

SanteMulberry

I simply cannot "afford" empty carbs in my calorie allotment if I am to stay healthy.

Total nonsense.

Open your diary, and let's talk about the calories you can "afford."

I have already cut and pasted a page out of my food diary for you in the past, and you gave up, with just a few grumbles about how I could have cut cream out of my coffee and had enough calories leftover for a small scoop of ice cream. But, you see, every item that is in my food diary has a purpose. The coffee (both decaf and regular) is essential as a part of my potassium supply (coffee is quite high in potassium). (I have become quite ill in the past from a lack of potassium while dieting.) The sugar and chemicals in ice cream would do me NO good and ice cream supplies a LOT of sodium and not much in the way of potassium. I also use coconut milk (a good source of potassium) in addition to the table cream, for my coffee. Studies have shown that dairy fat (especially from organic, grass-fed cows--which is what I use) is an important part of reaching (and maintaining) a desirable level of body fat. There is no such thing as organic /non-chemical laden ice cream. What don't you understand about, "I DON"T EAT SUGARY/STARCHY/BAD FAT/CHEMICAL-LACED FOOD--NOR DO I WANT TO." ? And the corollary to that is, "I TELL OTHERS ABOUT HOW THIS HAS WORKED FOR ME." Will it work for everyone? I suspect it will, but the only way to know is if extensive studies are done and time after time it proves to be so.

UsedToBeHusky

This thread has grown tiresome.

Sqeekyjojo

There is no such thing as organic /non-chemical laden ice cream.

Milk.

Egg.

Cream.

Sugar to taste.

Vanilla.


Make custard, allow to cool, put in tub, put in freezer. Take out a couple of times and break up with a fork and return to freezer. Plenty of that calcium, protein and fat, as well as some sugar. Separate it into individual small portions and freeze separately.

jonnythan

There is no such thing as organic /non-chemical laden ice cream.

This is funny, because it's technically true. Water, sugar, cream, and milk are all chemicals. Actually, cream and milk are mixtures and suspensions of thousands of chemicals.

jwdieter

There is no such thing as organic /non-chemical laden ice cream.

This is funny, because it's technically true. Water, sugar, cream, and milk are all chemicals. Actually, cream and milk are mixtures and suspensions of thousands of chemicals.

Plutonium and water are the same thing too. And a 400-lb person is the same as air. So don't worry, be happy, and everything related to food and weight is completely irrelevant.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

should i even comment??..

here i go.

i am #team i believe a calorie isn't a calorie. i am a pear shaped girl and suffer from pcos. i have diabetes in my family. notice that when i eat more carbs i store fat (even when i am active). when I minimize my carbs and stick to healthy fats and protein... i can eat AS much as i want and still lose weight easily.

i cant believe people believe in this calorie in calorie out thing. only americans obsess with this and look at how fat we are.

I agree as I am in the same boat as you. I have been able to heal a Pituitary tumor, Thyroid issues, reverse T2 Diabetes, reduce symptoms of PCOS and healed from Adrenal Gland Fatigue.

On the occasion I have veered from the path of eating as I normally do, I get awful joint and muscle aches, pains and severe muscle spasms.

I like to feel my best and be able to function normally. So, I have learned that I can not veer from my path or feel bad, have aches and pains and either my weight is at a stand still or I gain.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

To whomever stated that CICO is a biochemical fact.............................that is laughable.

Trying to use the “Laws of Thermodynamics” to explain human biological functions is pure folly. Scientific laws only apply to laboratory situations where variables are controlled and systems are closed off from all other systems.
The human body is NOT a closed system and our lives DO NOT take place in laboratories. To put it simply, calories are units of heat, not measures of potency.
ALSO…
When it comes to attaining optimal health and weight loss, there are a number of variables that are just NOT the same from person to person.
Remember, we are not inanimate objects and we are not living in a closed system.
Here is a short list of examples of the variables that create challenges for the “calorie in/calorie out” myth:
First, we are each unique. You may have heard this called; biochemical individuality.
NATURE
Genetics
What is your ancestry? Are you from a cold climate or warm climate? How does your body handle starchy carbohydrates? How does your body handle fatty proteins? How do you do with the sun? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Secondly, physiologically, how have we handled our environment and time.
NURTURE
Sleep (Are you allowing your body to recover?)
Toxins (Tobacco, Alcohol, Sugar, Artificial Sweeteners)
Food Sensitivities (Gluten, Soy, Dairy, etc.)
Medications (Over The Counter, Prescription)
Stress (Chronic and Acute)
Quality of Health (Recent Illnesses, Immune System Health, Degenerative Disease, etc.)
Hormonal Health (Insulin, Cortisol, Glucagon, Leptin, etc.)
Age (Menopause, Andropause, Accelerated Aging)
Past Caloric Restriction History (Dieting, Bulimia, Anorexia, etc.)

jonnythan

Scientific laws only apply to laboratory situations

Sounds like you've got a really strong understanding of fundamental science.

DatMurse

Scientific laws only apply to laboratory situations

Sounds like you've got a really strong understanding of fundamental science.

yep
sounds like someone needs to go back to high school science class

magerum

Scientific laws only apply to laboratory situations where variables are controlled and systems are closed off from all other systems.

Toxins (Tobacco, Alcohol, Sugar, Artificial Sweeteners)

These two are just...LOLWUT?!

Quilled

jonnythan

Your entire premise is that it's OK to mislead people because it's for their own good.

That's not for you to decide. It's for them to decide.

Also for them to decide whether or not they are going to believe what you say. Everyone is different in the way their mind works and how easily influenced they are. For arguments sake you could say someone who was easily influenced by just hearing what you say or reading what you type is someone who likely is easily influenced in general and likely to binge eat. So demonizing and leading to avoidance, may be a good tool for them.

Personally I am a bit of a skeptic, call me a pessimist but I don't automatically believe everything someone tells me. Now I dont spend my whole life second questioning anything I am told but I heavily rely on research of many options to make decisions for myself.

I wouldnt call avoidance or even demonizing EDNOS, I would call them SED (Selective Eating Disorders)(Selective eating disorder (SED) (also known as perseverative feeding disorder) is an eating disorder that prevents the consumption of certain foods). Eating disorders are not all conveniently evil and tied into one box. I have an SED, mine has nothing to do with calories or weight, mine has everything to do with textures and tastes. They aren't always horrible "Selective eating should not be of a concern as long as there are no negative effects on social, physical and emotional development." People have asked if I have an ED because I will pull half the bread off a hot dog bun when i eat it. Its got nothing to do with calories for me, its just that if I try and chew that much bread it gets a disgusting gooey and cement like texture in my mouth and I hate the taste/texture it creates. So I pull off half the bread.

Personally I see nothing wrong with an 'eating disorder' in which someone avoids junk food, especially if they have binge issues. For me, avoidance of sugar is just easier because if I give in I get addicted and crave it, the kicker being I dont even like sugar/sweet foods but I will crave them.


Everything can be extreme but if someone wants to avoid junk food, even for the rest of their life, it doesnt mean they have an eating disorder. Perhaps this hits close to home because I always got lectured for not being grateful for KFC and eating it. Why would I eat something so horrible for me if i dont want it? Why is avoiding stuff that you can live without and only causes you problems, so bad?

Some people can get away with rewards, I have certain reward foods, but I also live around people who as soon as they do 'rewards' lose all control and so for them demonizing (even if they are the ones demonizing and not someone else) and avoidance is not inherently bad.

But obviously everyone is so different that sometimes demonizing wont work for them. But to say it wont work at all and is horrible I dont think is right either.

BeachIron

There is no such thing as organic /non-chemical laden ice cream.

This is funny, because it's technically true. Water, sugar, cream, and milk are all chemicals. Actually, cream and milk are mixtures and suspensions of thousands of chemicals.

Plutonium and water are the same thing too. And a 400-lb person is the same as air. So don't worry, be happy, and everything related to food and weight is completely irrelevant.

Some people fail even high school level chemistry.

jwdieter

Some people fail even high school level chemistry.

Or fail to take the analogy to the most basic level. Take your pick.

mommabenefield

300+ posts of nonsense