Is it really just all about the Calories?

lemurcat12

I thought the deal with IR was that you don't store blood glucose so well. Insulin basically helps with storage when your body is reacting properly -- increase in blood glucose signals need for insulin and insulin acts to store glucose as glycogen in the muscles and liver and as fat (obviously this is grossly over-simplified). When you are IR, your body doesn't do that as effectively, so blood glucose remains high longer, which is not good, and also more and more insulin is released, which also is not good. I believe for some this also may result in cravings, because you don't react to the presence of insulin signalling that you have gotten what you need.

hamptontom

i've been struggling with this notion as well, even though i know it to be true, where absolutes are concerned.

when i started, i adhered to a very-low carb, not much else but baked chicken and steamed veggies diet, and i lost around 40 pounds in ten weeks.

in the time since adapting the "a calorie is a calorie, whether it's from a baked chicken breast or a chocolate bar" mentality, i've been logging religiously (but not working out as much as before, due to a shift change...excuses, i know, but reporting as much in the interest of full disclosure), and never eating back exercise calories (as before), but not avoiding carbs (pasta, bread, rice, grains) as much as before. my initial threshold was around 1700 calories - as I've lost weight, it's gone down to 1590 - but i've lost half the amount of weight in the subsequent 10 weeks as i did in the first 10 weeks.

i'm attributing this to a decline in frequency of visits to the gym, but it's hard not to wonder if it might also have a little to do with relaxing the scrutiny of my nutritional input as well. it's hard not to wonder, you know?

savageman69

hamptontom wrote: »

i've been struggling with this notion as well, even though i know it to be true, where absolutes are concerned.

when i started, i adhered to a very-low carb, not much else but baked chicken and steamed veggies diet, and i lost around 40 pounds in ten weeks.

in the time since adapting the "a calorie is a calorie, whether it's from a baked chicken breast or a chocolate bar" mentality, i've been logging religiously (but not working out as much as before, due to a shift change...excuses, i know, but reporting as much in the interest of full disclosure), and never eating back exercise calories (as before), but not avoiding carbs (pasta, bread, rice, grains) as much as before. my initial threshold was around 1700 calories - as I've lost weight, it's gone down to 1590 - but i've lost half the amount of weight in the subsequent 10 weeks as i did in the first 10 weeks.

i'm attributing this to a decline in frequency of visits to the gym, but it's hard not to wonder if it might also have a little to do with relaxing the scrutiny of my nutritional input as well. it's hard not to wonder, you know?

no your issue is you are a male eating less than half the females on here....think about that.

ericGold15

hamptontom wrote: »

i'm attributing this to a decline in frequency of visits to the gym, but it's hard not to wonder if it might also have a little to do with relaxing the scrutiny of my nutritional input as well. it's hard not to wonder, you know?

To lose 4 pounds a week of non-water weight you have to be in calorie deficit of 2000 kCal a DAY. So either you were exercising like a demon, or you lost quite a bit of water weight along with your dieting in the first 10 weeks.

I'll bet on the latter, and say that your continuing loss of 2 lbs a week is outstanding. I'll not be surprised to hear that your weight loss slows down even more or you plateau for a while.

hamptontom

ericGold15 wrote: »

To lose 4 pounds a week of non-water weight you have to be in calorie deficit of 2000 kCal a DAY. So either you were exercising like a demon, or you lost quite a bit of water weight along with your dieting in the first 10 weeks.

I'll bet on the latter, and say that your continuing loss of 2 lbs a week is outstanding. I'll not be surprised to hear that your weight loss slows down even more or you plateau for a while.

initially, i'd agree with your assessment - i was around 280 pounds at 5', 9", and was walking every single day, and eating around 1700-1800 calories, then began biking not long after, and increasing exercise while not eating back any of the exercise calories. BUT - i was working during the day, and would often go to the gym/bike trail right after work almost daily.

after dropping from 279 down to around 235 or so, i reassessed my BMR/TDEE numbers down to 1590 from the original MFP calculator number of around 1750 or so, and have been staying there ever since, but I've abandoned my initial carbohydrate ban, have allowed myself the consumption of diet soda (since it's zero calories), and - as I mentioned before - have moved to second shift (3pm to midnight) and haven't been anywhere near as disciplined about exercise as I was before (although I got in 30 miles on the bike over the weekend, and make a point of doing at least an hour on the elliptical at least three times a week, and have gotten in 6.5 miles per day the last three trips).

I'm not disappointed with my progress, and I had mentally prepared myself for a slowdown after I'd lost some weight, as it stands to reason that the last pounds would be much harder to lose than the initial weight would be. I get that, certainly.

But it's hard not to wonder whether my nutritional choices are a factor sometimes. I think that's all I was saying.

PikaKnight

hamptontom wrote: »

ericGold15 wrote: »

To lose 4 pounds a week of non-water weight you have to be in calorie deficit of 2000 kCal a DAY. So either you were exercising like a demon, or you lost quite a bit of water weight along with your dieting in the first 10 weeks.

I'll bet on the latter, and say that your continuing loss of 2 lbs a week is outstanding. I'll not be surprised to hear that your weight loss slows down even more or you plateau for a while.

initially, i'd agree with your assessment - i was around 280 pounds at 5', 9", and was walking every single day, and eating around 1700-1800 calories, then began biking not long after, and increasing exercise while not eating back any of the exercise calories. BUT - i was working during the day, and would often go to the gym/bike trail right after work almost daily.

after dropping from 279 down to around 235 or so, i reassessed my BMR/TDEE numbers down to 1590 from the original MFP calculator number of around 1750 or so, and have been staying there ever since, but I've abandoned my initial carbohydrate ban, have allowed myself the consumption of diet soda (since it's zero calories), and - as I mentioned before - have moved to second shift (3pm to midnight) and haven't been anywhere near as disciplined about exercise as I was before (although I got in 30 miles on the bike over the weekend, and make a point of doing at least an hour on the elliptical at least three times a week, and have gotten in 6.5 miles per day the last three trips).

I'm not disappointed with my progress, and I had mentally prepared myself for a slowdown after I'd lost some weight, as it stands to reason that the last pounds would be much harder to lose than the initial weight would be. I get that, certainly.

But it's hard not to wonder whether my nutritional choices are a factor sometimes. I think that's all I was saying.

Looking at your diary I'd say yes, your nutritional choices are a factor but in the way that it's due to the lack of nutrition that keeps your weight loss going so aggressively. You say you're at 1590 but I'm seeing that you're way under a lot more consistently (especially seeing as you aren't eating your exercise cals back at all either).

ericGold15

hamptontom wrote: »

But it's hard not to wonder whether my nutritional choices are a factor sometimes. I think that's all I was saying.

I understand. A reasonably accurate CICO log should dispel most of the uncertainty, at least if trended over time.

I recommend ignoring the various fads of high this or low that and just concentrate on a varied diet with good nutrition, adequate protein, lots of exercise and a negative calorie deficit. And if in doubt, add a daily multi-vitamin

It sounds like you are doing pretty much the above, and having a fantastic journey. Kudos!

Michael190lbs

I have lost over 100'lbs eating 2000 calories a day its pretty easy if your active.. I have been at Maintenance weight for 5 months after going through this process.. I have to agree its all about the calories but getting Macro's in everyday is a must to keep hair, skin, and muscle you want healthy.. If I drop my Fat below 25 grams I see it in my cuticles, if I don't get enough carbs for three weeks my muscles look flat easy fix carb up for two days and they look full again, Protein is longer term but I try to get 150 grams in everyday..

Jayz395

I'm eating 1600 a day and eat all foods which is working wonders for me. I had pizza last night and stayed inside my calories. Each time I step on the scales my weight is going down so I gotta say a 300 cal of pizza is the same as 300 cal of veg

ericGold15

Michael190lbs wrote: »

I have lost over 100'lbs eating 2000 calories a day its pretty easy if your active.. I have been at Maintenance weight for 5 months after going through this process.. I have to agree its all about the calories but getting Macro's in everyday is a must to keep hair, skin, and muscle you want healthy.. If I drop my Fat below 25 grams I see it in my cuticles, if I don't get enough carbs for three weeks my muscles look flat easy fix carb up for two days and they look full again, Protein is longer term but I try to get 150 grams in everyday..

You are confusing changes in water weight with nutrition.

The incessant nitpicking over fractions of fat,carbs and protein are just fads with no basis in nutrition or physiology. Eat 20% or eat 80% of each -- it does not matter. Heck, the body can even put up with the inane "keto" diets although why one would do so if not an Eskimo in Greenland is beyond me. Do eat 0.7 kg a day of lean body mass protein. Over time a varied diet will assure you of the small fraction of exogenous essential FFA the body requires, and a reasonable (at least) intake of vegetables pretty much covers vitamins. Vegans may wish to supplement some B12.

The one caveat to mostly ignoring 'Macros' has to due with carbs. Complex carbs are preferable to simple sugars. Sugar is fine but I would not recommend it be a major fraction of the daily calories.

starwhisperer6

ericGold15 wrote: »

Michael190lbs wrote: »

I have lost over 100'lbs eating 2000 calories a day its pretty easy if your active.. I have been at Maintenance weight for 5 months after going through this process.. I have to agree its all about the calories but getting Macro's in everyday is a must to keep hair, skin, and muscle you want healthy.. If I drop my Fat below 25 grams I see it in my cuticles, if I don't get enough carbs for three weeks my muscles look flat easy fix carb up for two days and they look full again, Protein is longer term but I try to get 150 grams in everyday..

You are confusing changes in water weight with nutrition.

The incessant nitpicking over fractions of fat,carbs and protein are just fads with no basis in nutrition or physiology. Eat 20% or eat 80% of each -- it does not matter. Heck, the body can even put up with the inane "keto" diets although why one would do so if not an Eskimo in Greenland is beyond me. Do eat 0.7 kg a day of lean body mass protein. Over time a varied diet will assure you of the small fraction of exogenous essential FFA the body requires, and a reasonable (at least) intake of vegetables pretty much covers vitamins. Vegans may wish to supplement some B12.

The one caveat to mostly ignoring 'Macros' has to due with carbs. Complex carbs are preferable to simple sugars. Sugar is fine but I would not recommend it be a major fraction of the daily calories.

and yet your caveat is no less "incessant nitpicking" than someone saying that they feel better about their hair and nails with some added fat in their diet.

jgnatca

@ndj1979 summarized this issue very well I thought, here:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10289439/calorie-prioritization-yes-a-calorie-is-a-calorie/p1

For weight loss, one must be at a calorie deficit, regardless of what foods you are eating.

I've loosened up the categories of foods I'll allow myself now (all foods are fair game) but I am much more mindful of portions. I also remind myself if I go for the salt bomb, I'll show a temporary water weight gain the next day. No matter. The fat reserves are still shrinking and they'll show up eventually.

Fries hit the system sooner, but in the end, we extract all we can from the broccoli too.

For health and strength, the makeup of your diet is more important.

jgnatca

Here's an example of deceptive advertising. Which is "healthier"? Which is "better for the diet"?



If the dieter put one tablespoon of almond butter on her toast, the calorie profile of both breakfasts is the same. But I can't imagine a 180 calorie breakfast would tide anyone over.

They are both "healthy" options. Both can contribute to weight loss in context of everything else eaten that day.

senecarr

rileyes wrote: »

My understanding is that broccoli uses more energy to digest than fries.

The calories of digestion are mostly accounted for in dietary labels in the US (other countries vary slightly in how they treat fiber and calories). There is a slight difference in thermic effects of food based on macros and other things, but rarely is it significant.

juggernaut1974

And now I want french fries... and broccoli....