Calories vs calories
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's a change in CO, isn't it? It doesn't mean they'll lose on a surplus or gain on a deficit does it?DeguelloTex wrote: »
How would this work, exactly? From where would the extra energy come? Where would the extra energy go?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.
If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
How, exactly, will different types of food or macros cause a weight loss if calories in exceed calories out?
I'm thinking in terms of insulin. If you have a lot of insulin coursing through your system, that can slow weight loss by storing carbs as fat even if they should not be, as is the case with those who are IR. That won't happen if you reduce your insulin levels.
It could. CI CO is not an exact thing.
I'm eating between 1300 and 2000 calories per day. Most days are close to 1500 and I'm on a vLCHF diet where most days are below 30 g of carbs. I started this way of eating roughly 6 weeks ago when I weighed about 185 and now I weigh about 170; I'd like to weigh 140-150. That's over 2.5 lbs lost per week, but let's just say two pounds per week to account for water lost.
My TDEE was, or is, calculated somewhere between 1800 and 2200, depending on whether I say I am mildly active 1-3 times per week, which I usually am not, or whether I refer to my start weight or current weight. Let's say my TDEE was, and still is, 2200, and say I average 1500 cal/day. 2200-1500= 700 calorie deficit. Over the last 42 days that's a deficit of 29400 calories. Divide that by the 3500 calories to lose a pound and that is 8.4lbs, and this is assuming my TDEE (for an overweight 41 year old, prediabetic, 5'8" woman who has been very inactive due to hip and knee arthritis - for exercise I walked for about 7 hours in the last month and a half) is still 2200.
I've lost about 15lbs though, which is close to double that.
When I was drinking colas I would skip lunch to account for it. When I had a bag of candy, I would often skip dinner. Last year, while on mild steroids and when my prediabetes showed itself, I gained 20lbs. That's almost an extra 200 calories per day above my TDEE. I don't think I overate to that extent (I obviously did eat too much) but it is possible. I think the main problem was the foods I overate with. My body stored those sugars and carbs to fat very readily.
So I agree that CI<CO is the main thing for losing weight, but I do think the types of calories involved will affect it by making you gain or lose at a slightly different rate.0 -
No, it is an exact thing. It literally cannot mean what you think it might mean. Literally impossible.
Whether we can precisely measure intake and output of a person or not doesn't change this fact. We may not be able to predict where a falling leave will land, but that doesn't mean it is, or can be, violating the laws of physics.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »KittensMaster wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Who says that about food, though? Ever?KittensMaster wrote: »Food substances have many properties.
The calorie measurement is just one of them.
There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.
So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.
It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.
A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.
Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.
Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?
It happens all the time
You do it constantly
Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.
Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question
OP asked whether calories are the only important thing about food? Where?
I prefer to treat even newbies as if they are not, in fact, completely stupid, and therefore to assume that they know that the nutritional profiles of broccoli and a Ding Dong are not identical. YMMV, I guess.[/lemurcat12 wrote: »KittensMaster wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Who says that about food, though? Ever?KittensMaster wrote: »Food substances have many properties.
The calorie measurement is just one of them.
There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.
So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.
It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.
A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.
Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.
Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?
It happens all the time
You do it constantly
Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.
Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question
OP asked whether calories are the only important thing about food? Where?
I prefer to treat even newbies as if they are not, in fact, completely stupid, and therefore to assume that they know that the nutritional profiles of broccoli and a Ding Dong are not identical. YMMV, I guess.
I don't understand, are you calling me stupid? For asking a question on a motivational/ help forum.
No, not at all. I said I was assuming you were NOT stupid, and therefore that you did not need to be told that you shouldn't eat an unhealthy diet.I've said several time I wasn't asking because I wanted to use my calories on burgers, I was just curious
Yes, that's why I thought those who were telling you not to do that were missing the point.
I don't get why burgers are a bad thing to use calories on, though--lean ground beef doesn't even have that many calories, and although I usually do eat it without the bun you can include the bun as the starch part of the meal, have some vegetables on the side, and it's basically like any other healthy dinner, IMO.
And if you know a restaurant with an excellent high cal burger, that might be worth incorporating on occasion too, although to my mind the difference from the home-cooked burger really isn't worth the extra calories.
(And sorry for the digression here; I just have an incurable need to defend foods that are often stereotyped as "junk" when I wouldn't call them that.)I have lost 50lb to date eating healthily with the occasional treat, I'm new to calorie counting though so sometimes it's hard to switch my way of thinking from eating healthy foods 95% of the time to basically you can eat what you want within your calorie limit, that said I still wouldn't opt for loads of "burgers" I was just curious.
Makes total sense. And great job on the loss!0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's a change in CO, isn't it? It doesn't mean they'll lose on a surplus or gain on a deficit does it?DeguelloTex wrote: »
How would this work, exactly? From where would the extra energy come? Where would the extra energy go?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.
If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
How, exactly, will different types of food or macros cause a weight loss if calories in exceed calories out?
I'm thinking in terms of insulin. If you have a lot of insulin coursing through your system, that can slow weight loss by storing carbs as fat even if they should not be, as is the case with those who are IR. That won't happen if you reduce your insulin levels.
It could. CI CO is not an exact thing.
I'm eating between 1300 and 2000 calories per day. Most days are close to 1500 and I'm on a vLCHF diet where most days are below 30 g of carbs. I started this way of eating roughly 6 weeks ago when I weighed about 185 and now I weigh about 170; I'd like to weigh 140-150. That's over 2.5 lbs lost per week, but let's just say two pounds per week to account for water lost.
My TDEE was, or is, calculated somewhere between 1800 and 2200, depending on whether I say I am mildly active 1-3 times per week, which I usually am not, or whether I refer to my start weight or current weight. Let's say my TDEE was, and still is, 2200, and say I average 1500 cal/day. 2200-1500= 700 calorie deficit. Over the last 42 days that's a deficit of 29400 calories. Divide that by the 3500 calories to lose a pound and that is 8.4lbs, and this is assuming my TDEE (for an overweight 41 year old, prediabetic, 5'8" woman who has been very inactive due to hip and knee arthritis - for exercise I walked for about 7 hours in the last month and a half) is still 2200.
I've lost about 15lbs though, which is close to double that.
When I was drinking colas I would skip lunch to account for it. When I had a bag of candy, I would often skip dinner. Last year, while on mild steroids and when my prediabetes showed itself, I gained 20lbs. That's almost an extra 200 calories per day above my TDEE. I don't think I overate to that extent (I obviously did eat too much) but it is possible. I think the main problem was the foods I overate with. My body stored those sugars and carbs to fat very readily.
So I agree that CI<CO is the main thing for losing weight, but I do think the types of calories involved will affect it by making you gain or lose at a slightly different rate.
CI<CO is the ONLY thing. What you keep describing is potential implications to CO. An abnormal CO (insulin issues for example) simply changes the CO side of the equation. So, while individuals can have varying COs, it in no way means that CICO isn't the solution. It only means that your CO can be different from my CO, but for either of us to lose weight our respective CIs must be less than our COs. Stating that CICO is not an exact thing is false. Figuring out one's individual CICO is variable, but still exact. It just needs to be figured out.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »No, it is an exact thing. It literally cannot mean what you think it might mean. Literally impossible.
Whether we can precisely measure intake and output of a person or not doesn't change this fact. We may not be able to predict where a falling leave will land, but that doesn't mean it is, or can be, violating the laws of physics.
Either you believe I am wrong or I am not making my thoughts clear enough...I'm guessing you just think I'm wrong.
So you are saying that you believe that the type of calorie (carb vs fat vs protein) has absolutely no effect on how those calories are used. If I, for one month, I ate 1500 calories per day of mostly carbs or 1500 of mostly fats, it would have absolutely no bearing on how much weight I lost or at what rate I lost that weight?
This isn't physics, it's biology.0 -
At the high school I went to, we took physics as freshmen because they felt that all of the other sciences built upon it. You can't divorce them. It isn't "either or"; it's "and both."
Also, you have a medical condition, which complicates some things and where the biology aspect comes to play with the physics.0 -
In the absence of a medical condition which affected your ability to utilize those calories, you'd lose (presuming TDEE > 1500) the same amount of weight, subject to normal fluctuations that you'd see even if you ate exactly the same things in two different months. Now, if you ate fewer carbs you might have less water weight, but that's transient and not the result of the body's storing fat.DeguelloTex wrote: »No, it is an exact thing. It literally cannot mean what you think it might mean. Literally impossible.
Whether we can precisely measure intake and output of a person or not doesn't change this fact. We may not be able to predict where a falling leave will land, but that doesn't mean it is, or can be, violating the laws of physics.
Either you believe I am wrong or I am not making my thoughts clear enough...I'm guessing you just think I'm wrong.
So you are saying that you believe that the type of calorie (carb vs fat vs protein) has absolutely no effect on how those calories are used. If I, for one month, I ate 1500 calories per day of mostly carbs or 1500 of mostly fats, it would have absolutely no bearing on how much weight I lost or at what rate I lost that weight?
This isn't physics, it's biology.
If you had a medical condition that affected your ability to use those calories, CICO would still apply, but CO would be different between the two months because your body isn't fully utilizing the CI of one of those macros.
If you're saying that someone can eat less than TDEE and gain non-water weight or more than TDEE and lose it, I think you're wrong. If that's not what you're saying, then I am misunderstanding what you're saying.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions