If a calorie is a calorie, how does metabolism factor in?
Roboticist
Posts: 12 Member
So I understand that a calorie deficit, regardless of macros, will lead to weight loss. But does this rule conversely apply to weight gain? Considering several of my sedentary die-hard foodie friends who likely eat upwards of 3,000 calories each day, yet never seem to gain weight, I would assume that weight gain relies on more than just matters of calorie deficit or gain. How does metabolism play a role?
0
Replies
-
Given your name, I shall go with a robot analogy - a bigger robot is going to require more power to keep going than a smaller one, just because there's more of it that needs to be moved. The same is true of people. Because I'm short, I need fewer calories to maintain than someone taller than me. At the same time, because weigh ~72 kg, I need more energy/calories to maintain than someone of my height who is 65 kg. It's when we take in fewer than maintenance calories that we lose weight.0
-
I'm guessing your foodie friends don't track their intake? They likely eat intuitively and will eat 3000+ kcal on one day and then unintentionally balance it out over the next to days by eating a little less, breaking them even at the end of the week.0
-
I'm guessing your foodie friends don't track their intake? They likely eat intuitively and will eat 3000+ kcal on one day and then unintentionally balance it out over the next to days by eating a little less, breaking them even at the end of the week.
Just like a lot of people are "social drinkers", I suspect there are a lot of "social eaters" out there too. They eat heartily with friends out in public and claim to indulge all the time but generally don't bother much when they're home alone or with family.0 -
I doubt they are eating that many calories every single day.0
-
'foodie' (ugh) or not, no matter what they are eating......
If they are not gaining or losing they are creating a maintenance in their energy balance.
If they are losing weight they are creating a deficit in their energy balance.
If they are gaining weight they are creating a surplus in their energy balance.
This applies universally and is a basic function of the human body, anything else is semantics.0 -
If they truly eat that much, they must either have a lot more muscle mass or have very active lifestyles. Some people seem to eat a lot, but only do so around other people and are actually pretty light eaters when alone.
But as others have already mentioned - calories in = calories out will help you maintain your weight, a calories deficit will lead to weight loss and a caloric surplus will lead to weight gain. A calorie is still a calorie no matter which way you're trying to tip the scale, and your body will keep track of it.
That being said, you could binge on 1,000 calories and gain a pound or more overnight (even though 3,500 calories are in a pound), which may confuse you. This is where macros and micros come in - if you gained more than you consumed, it's probably either because of the sodium content of what you ate or if you ate mostly carbs then that also causes your body to store excess water temporarily which could also lead to scale fluctuations.
But water weight will come and go - a calorie is still a calorie.0 -
Roboticist wrote: »So I understand that a calorie deficit, regardless of macros, will lead to weight loss. But does this rule conversely apply to weight gain? Considering several of my sedentary die-hard foodie friends who likely eat upwards of 3,000 calories each day, yet never seem to gain weight, I would assume that weight gain relies on more than just matters of calorie deficit or gain. How does metabolism play a role?
you do realize that people have different rates of metabolism right?
beyond that, it's likely they are not consuming 3,000 calories day in and day out.0 -
peter56765 wrote: »I'm guessing your foodie friends don't track their intake? They likely eat intuitively and will eat 3000+ kcal on one day and then unintentionally balance it out over the next to days by eating a little less, breaking them even at the end of the week.
Just like a lot of people are "social drinkers", I suspect there are a lot of "social eaters" out there too. They eat heartily with friends out in public and claim to indulge all the time but generally don't bother much when they're home alone or with family.
I also suspect there are a lot of social eaters. I have skinny friends who can really put down a lot of food at social events, but in casual conversation they will mention that they only eat a yogurt for lunch at work. I think many even think they eat a lot, but they naturally don't.0 -
Roboticist wrote: »So I understand that a calorie deficit, regardless of macros, will lead to weight loss. But does this rule conversely apply to weight gain? Considering several of my sedentary die-hard foodie friends who likely eat upwards of 3,000 calories each day, yet never seem to gain weight, I would assume that weight gain relies on more than just matters of calorie deficit or gain. How does metabolism play a role?
A calorie is a calorie because a calorie is a unit of energy. Food contains calories. While the calorie (unit) doesn't change, how your body handles it does vary from person to person. How many calories are absorbed, how efficiently/quickly calories are burned, how the food affects your body, etc.
Also, people on this site constantly use the words "weight" and "fat" as if they are synonyms. Calories affect fat gain/loss. Calories plus many other things affect weight gain/loss.0 -
Eat two restaurant meals a day from a regular menu and you have 3000 cals for that day. Not too hard! Even as early as 10 years ago, I would say 15 of my 21 meals a week were eaten in a restaurant. I never watched portion sizes and because I would never let food go to waste, I ate everything on the plate! I must have had a faster metabolism back then or something (I never exercised regularly until about 5 years ago) as my highest weight was 165lbs (I'm 5'7")0
-
I am a "exhibitionist" cook and a social eater. When I'm out with friends, especially at restaurants, I'll eat 1500-2000 calories in one meal. Left to my own devices and without anyone else to feed, I'll eat meals like hummus and veggies that end at around 300 calories. My week generally ends up balancing itself out, and if it doesn't do so naturally, I am enough of a "foodie" to know what foods are calorie dense and what foods are nutrient dense, and figure out a few meals that will work to keep things back on whatever track I'm on. I very much doubt your friends eat the way you see them eating when they're alone, nor do I expect that they eat that way for every meal.0
-
When I was in my 20ies I always thought I ate a ton and never gained... I wasn't super social, but when I did go out to parties and whatnot I wasn't afraid of eating - I could pack away an enormous amount of food. People/friends always commented "how can eat so much and not gain weight?".
Looking back it was just like other people have said - I didn't eat that much at other times and I worked out a lot. I almost never ate breakfast and lunch was always small, but always ate a big dinner after working out. That's how I stayed small yet appear to "eat a ton".
0 -
Roboticist wrote: »So I understand that a calorie deficit, regardless of macros, will lead to weight loss. But does this rule conversely apply to weight gain? Considering several of my sedentary die-hard foodie friends who likely eat upwards of 3,000 calories each day, yet never seem to gain weight, I would assume that weight gain relies on more than just matters of calorie deficit or gain. How does metabolism play a role?
I like the question
Calorie - it is a measurement of energy from food in a basic way.
It is only one of many characteristics of an item we eat.
The nutritional breakdown is a very important part as well.
That is why I don't like the overly simple approach of a calorie is just a calorie for me personally as a way to consider food choices.
The answer is, in my little opinion, it really isn't something you can know or need to worry about.
Food prep and portion sizes vary, you really don't know the actual calorie count.
Gyms know metabolism matters. Many now offer metabolism testing. They have it where I go.
It has to do with how fast a furnace burns up wood. The wood still gives off heat (calories), so the calorie count of the wood is the same. Just one furnace may burn it faster than another. One may be more efficient. Older or newer.
I know hard gainers at the gym. They lift hard, slam all kinds of protein shakes... And often stay skinny. Their metabolism.
I lift moderately and eat moderately and gain muscle. But I struggle with adding body fat I don't want.
So we have actually had this conversation. In a way, it may appear a calorie isn't a calorie between the two of us, but that is because one does not look deeper into the differences in the people involved.
A unit of measure of energy output stays the same. How it gets used varies a bit.
0 -
If a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas, how does fuel efficiency factor in?0
-
I'm guessing your foodie friends don't track their intake? They likely eat intuitively and will eat 3000+ kcal on one day and then unintentionally balance it out over the next to days by eating a little less, breaking them even at the end of the week.
a lot of people who eat high calories are also extremely active, and are consuming lots of very nutrient dense foods that don't cause sugar spikes, or have lots of muscle tissue , which burns more calories at rest that fat tissue does0 -
Roboticist wrote: »So I understand that a calorie deficit, regardless of macros, will lead to weight loss. But does this rule conversely apply to weight gain? Considering several of my sedentary die-hard foodie friends who likely eat upwards of 3,000 calories each day, yet never seem to gain weight, I would assume that weight gain relies on more than just matters of calorie deficit or gain. How does metabolism play a role?
Your friends are eating less than you think they are or move a lot more than you.0 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »Roboticist wrote: »So I understand that a calorie deficit, regardless of macros, will lead to weight loss. But does this rule conversely apply to weight gain? Considering several of my sedentary die-hard foodie friends who likely eat upwards of 3,000 calories each day, yet never seem to gain weight, I would assume that weight gain relies on more than just matters of calorie deficit or gain. How does metabolism play a role?
I like the question
Calorie - it is a measurement of energy from food in a basic way.
It is only one of many characteristics of an item we eat.
The nutritional breakdown is a very important part as well.
That is why I don't like the overly simple approach of a calorie is just a calorie for me personally as a way to consider food choices.
The answer is, in my little opinion, it really isn't something you can know or need to worry about.
Food prep and portion sizes vary, you really don't know the actual calorie count.
Gyms know metabolism matters. Many now offer metabolism testing. They have it where I go.
It has to do with how fast a furnace burns up wood. The wood still gives off heat (calories), so the calorie count of the wood is the same. Just one furnace may burn it faster than another. One may be more efficient. Older or newer.
I know hard gainers at the gym. They lift hard, slam all kinds of protein shakes... And often stay skinny. Their metabolism.
I lift moderately and eat moderately and gain muscle. But I struggle with adding body fat I don't want.
So we have actually had this conversation. In a way, it may appear a calorie isn't a calorie between the two of us, but that is because one does not look deeper into the differences in the people involved.
A unit of measure of energy output stays the same. How it gets used varies a bit.
Nice explanation.
Metabolism can vary greatly from person to person. And yes sometimes people might be eating less than you know, but their TDEE could also be thru the roof.0 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »Roboticist wrote: »So I understand that a calorie deficit, regardless of macros, will lead to weight loss. But does this rule conversely apply to weight gain? Considering several of my sedentary die-hard foodie friends who likely eat upwards of 3,000 calories each day, yet never seem to gain weight, I would assume that weight gain relies on more than just matters of calorie deficit or gain. How does metabolism play a role?
I like the question
Calorie - it is a measurement of energy from food in a basic way.
It is only one of many characteristics of an item we eat.
The nutritional breakdown is a very important part as well.
That is why I don't like the overly simple approach of a calorie is just a calorie for me personally as a way to consider food choices.
The answer is, in my little opinion, it really isn't something you can know or need to worry about.
Food prep and portion sizes vary, you really don't know the actual calorie count.
Gyms know metabolism matters. Many now offer metabolism testing. They have it where I go.
It has to do with how fast a furnace burns up wood. The wood still gives off heat (calories), so the calorie count of the wood is the same. Just one furnace may burn it faster than another. One may be more efficient. Older or newer.
I know hard gainers at the gym. They lift hard, slam all kinds of protein shakes... And often stay skinny. Their metabolism.
I lift moderately and eat moderately and gain muscle. But I struggle with adding body fat I don't want.
So we have actually had this conversation. In a way, it may appear a calorie isn't a calorie between the two of us, but that is because one does not look deeper into the differences in the people involved.
A unit of measure of energy output stays the same. How it gets used varies a bit.
Nice explanation.
Metabolism can vary greatly from person to person. And yes sometimes people might be eating less than you know, but their TDEE could also be thru the roof.
They don't vary all that greatly in general.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/8641250
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-012-0193-40 -
NO!!!!!!!
A calorie is not a calorie!!!!!!
Theres so much more to it that a few forum lines cannot help explain. Please read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes and look up Peter Attia on YouTube, they are great starting points.
Good Luck.0 -
razorblade73 wrote: »NO!!!!!!!
A calorie is not a calorie!!!!!!
Theres so much more to it that a few forum lines cannot help explain. Please read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes and look up Peter Attia on YouTube, they are great starting points.
Good Luck.
LOL just no.0 -
Also doesn't protein take more energy to burn.0
-
razorblade73 wrote: »NO!!!!!!!
A calorie is not a calorie!!!!!!
Theres so much more to it that a few forum lines cannot help explain. Please read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes and look up Peter Attia on YouTube, they are great starting points.
Good Luck.
Taubes got destroyed by Alan Aragon. Taubes has a hypothesis with nothing to back it up0 -
razorblade73 wrote: »NO!!!!!!!
A calorie is not a calorie!!!!!!
Theres so much more to it that a few forum lines cannot help explain. Please read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes and look up Peter Attia on YouTube, they are great starting points.
Good Luck.
Taubes got destroyed by Alan Aragon. Taubes has a hypothesis with nothing to back it up
This led me to a pretty interesting read here: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
The note about the Japanese diet is the most bizarre. Having lived there for three years, I was constantly inundated with omiyage cakes, sugared coffee in a can, pocari sweat (loaded with sugar), and beverages/foods as sugar-loaded as anything in the states. Not to mention alcohol and tons of white rice. The biggest differences would be:- Physical activity is a huge part of daily life -- particularly for children. In America we're actually cutting back on physical education which is completely mind-boggling.
- Portion sizes are dramatically smaller at home and at restaurants.
- Foods are balanced out with a protein, vegetable, grain, and fruit (it is much closer to what one might consider "clean eating." Bread is limited / special and not as "everyday" as here. Even so, the average Japanese school lunch is still 1100 calories (and believe me the kids need it).
Anyway, sorry for the tangent
.
A calorie is a calorie -- that's not to say that all food is equal in how your body reacts to it and gets nutrition from it. Not sure why this is a such a fight...0 -
razorblade73 wrote: »NO!!!!!!!
A calorie is not a calorie!!!!!!
Theres so much more to it that a few forum lines cannot help explain. Please read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes and look up Peter Attia on YouTube, they are great starting points.
Good Luck.
Taubes got destroyed by Alan Aragon. Taubes has a hypothesis with nothing to back it up
This led me to a pretty interesting read here: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
The note about the Japanese diet is the most bizarre. Having lived there for three years, I was constantly inundated with omiyage cakes, sugared coffee in a can, pocari sweat (loaded with sugar), and beverages/foods as sugar-loaded as anything in the states. Not to mention alcohol and tons of white rice. The biggest differences would be:- Physical activity is a huge part of daily life -- particularly for children. In America we're actually cutting back on physical education which is completely mind-boggling.
- Portion sizes are dramatically smaller at home and at restaurants.
- Foods are balanced out with a protein, vegetable, grain, and fruit (it is much closer to what one might consider "clean eating." Bread is limited / special and not as "everyday" as here. Even so, the average Japanese school lunch is still 1100 calories (and believe me the kids need it).
Anyway, sorry for the tangent.
A calorie is a calorie -- that's not to say that all food is equal in how your body reacts to it and gets nutrition from it. Not sure why this is a such a fight...
Because MFP forums wouldn't exist without semantics debates.0 -
'foodie' (ugh) or not, no matter what they are eating......
If they are not gaining or losing they are creating a maintenance in their energy balance.
If they are losing weight they are creating a deficit in their energy balance.
If they are gaining weight they are creating a surplus in their energy balance.
This applies universally and is a basic function of the human body, anything else is semantics.
Yes!! Exactly. A calorie is a unit of energy, thus why it's a balancing act and nothing more.
OP it is physiologically impossible for anyone to consistently consume over this balance and not gain weight. I agree with the rationales of the previous replies.0 -
Unless you're following someone around, hour by hour, for weeks and weeks...You cannot assume they eat "x" amount of calories per day. I eat 3,000 calories on Saturday quite often...rest of the week I'm in a tiny deficit.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions