calories in calories out...are you sure?
Replies
-
I sometimes wonder about the "science' of weight loss. Seems so simple and yet our bodies are so complicated. I have found that my body lets go of weight more easily if I eat more protein and it is sluggish if my calories are mainly vegetable,salad-type stuff, fruit calories or other carbs, that being said, I also do well eating whole grain pastas...So for me, I think that this is not an exact science as most people here believe. If I had any doubts, I would fool around with the types of food I am eating, not varying the calories per se, but just what type of calories are you consuming.
Please don't flame me. This is my opinion and my experience. I am a successful "loser" having lost 54 pounds and kept it off for almost 6 years with just a few small ups and downs.
congrats to you!!!!0 -
I think one way to look at that is because you have eliminated a source of glucose from your diet.
So your body then uses fat and protein to supply glucose in your system.
So when people ingest those two sources primarily, and stay within their limits......then all the fat is quickly oxidized to support biological functions.....
If you look at people on Paleo I believe, this is what they are doing.
Dropping most of their carbs, and just going fat/protein.
I encourage you to read Lyle McDonald.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
and this one he has some links to other articles he has done, I recommend reading those as well.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html0 -
Cutting carbs reduces glycogen and water storage. While low carb has been proven to burn more fat in short term dieting, any reintroduction to them ups weight significantly. If you can't eat 70 grams of carbs a day for life (meaning you want more than that) then don't embark on this type of eating lifestyle.I've been eating the same calorie amount with little to no change. I lowered my carb intake only by 70...eating the same amount of calories and the scale is moving. All I keep seeing is calories in calories out, I have a feeling it may not be just limited to that. Any thoughts on this?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Ok so its making sense....thank you!
Im just still confused that even when I weigh and measure which im pretty addicted to my scale im losing only when my cards go down and calories are not touched. Hmmmm
You might have an insulin resistance.0 -
a lot of people are not accurate with their logging. if you're not weighing your food, you're probably not accurate. if you are snacking and not logging it, you're definitely not accurate.
I agree. Weighing food is key. Eyeballing it does not work, and many people lie to themselves that they are eating less. IMO, when I need to guess, I always overestimate.0 -
The "instant" drop when you lowered your carbs is water.
But keep in mind that "calories out" isn't necessarily constant.
Your body burns fuel (food, fat, usually some muscle while you're losing weight) for energy. Not just energy for exercise, but energy for everything. For sitting, standing, maintaining your body temperature, thinking, repairing injuries, keeping your heart beating. Everything your body does requires energy. That's why you have to eat.
So if you're feeling good, sitting up, moving around, etc, you'll probably be burning more calories than if you're feeling crummy and sluggish. (Unless you're feeling crummy and sluggish because you're sick, in which case your body is expending more energy than usual trying to fight off infection.)
"Calories in, Calories out" is technically completely true. But I keep seeing it repeated as a mantra with a strange assumption that "calories out" is something totally consistent and predictable that doesn't depend on anything besides your body weight and exercise level, and isn't affected by any of the specifics of what you eat. Some people are more quickly and dramatically affected by exactly what/when they're eating than others, too. The human body is not simple.
I understand the whole it's just water thing, but what about people who go "low carb" and they lose like 100 lbs.. is that 100 lbs of "just water" b/c I've seen people who eat high calories but low carbs and lose tons of weight. Although it's not what I am trying to do, the whole "it's just water thing" confuses the heck out of me!
No, they lost the weight because their "low carb diet" had them eating at a calorie deficit. No one is saying you cannot lose weight on a low carb diet, you can lose weight eating pretty much anything as long as you are eating less calories than you are using. We're just saying the initial weight loss seen on a low carb diet (and the weight you are seeing go down when you restrict carbs but keep the same calories) is water weight.0 -
When you go low carb the initial weight lost is water weight. It's why low carb can be very motivational for people who are focused on the scale. However, over longer periods of time, going low carb offers no metabolic advantage to weight loss. People who go low carb and lose 100lbs + over time do so because they're sticking to a diet that provides a caloric deficit.0
-
low carb diets result in your body burning glycogen to make up the calorie deficit, glycogen is stored along with water, so you see more scale weight loss on a low carb diet, but you're not burning any more actual fat than if you'd been eating the same number of calories but a higher proportion of them coming from carbs
the body burns and stores fat slowly, big gains and losses on the scale in short amounts of time, the weight is not just from fat.
Also, the water weight losses from low carb diets come back when you start eating carbs again, because your body simply stores them as glycogen, along with water. Water weight gains can seriously mess with your head if you don't know what's going on, so it's a good idea to track progress in actual fat loss through other methods, e.g. skinfold caliers, how your clothes fit, circumference measurements etc. These are more reliable indicators of actual fat loss than scale weight alone.
this i love
and bump to read later 0 -
The fuller explanations are appreciated (especially compared to when folks just say No) but I feel like some of the very knowledgeable folks on here aren't addressing the hormonal possibilities that have been raised. The science is good on that. I'll give more studies if anyone would like The review I posted earlier is not bad, though (hint).
It is quite possible that a calorie isn't a calorie, depending on the health of a person's glucose/insulin metabolism. And it does have to do with actual BF%, not just water in that research. The other carb metabolism effects that have been mentioned are interesting for sure, though! So it's harder to tell what is going on in one individual than I might have thought (although I usually go with: too complex; it's hard to be sure
).
For health reasons, let me say though that it is not a bad thing at all to watch foods that spike insulin when feasible. I think that should be a top mantra for any nation seeing increasing rates of diabetes. I don't agree with severe carb restriction, btw, but it looks like it's possibly better to err on that side than the other.
Ironically, all the health news about high fat being bad might have helped lead to more insulin problems. Folks apparently replaced the fat with a lot of high-glycemic carbs! It's so hard to know the perfect diet is all I know for sure 0 -
You can lose weight on any plan, but no, not everyone believes in the "a calorie is a calorie" when it comes to weight loss. It isn't about whether a "calorie is a calorie" in it's uneaten form; indeed the calories in Twinkies are the same as the calories in chicken breast. However what one's body does with those calorie once ingested can make an enormous difference for many people; the 1000 calories of Twinkies vs a 1000 calories of chicken breast will not result in the same level of weight loss for all.
I know. After many, many years of trial and error I know all too well. I've lost on calorie counting/restricting programs. And I did so as a young, active man. They work.
However I also know that I lost more consistently, eating FAR more food, on a HIGH fat, moderate protein, low carb, HIGH calorie diet. And we're not talking the initial water weight that happens in the first few weeks, we're talking months of consistent, steady weight loss eating more food, and tons of healthy FAT. I know because, after awhile, I decided to start weighing and calorie counting while low carbing. I was eating WAY more calories than during my high carb/low fat calorie counting days, was losing more consistently, and at that time doing so while exercising far less.
Calorie counters who swear the body interacts with calories the same, regardless of the source, will say that this isn't possible. They will try and scream that I could eat a 3000 calories of poptarts and it'll have the same weight loss properties as 3000 calories of spinach and salmon. BS. Complete and utter BS. I've got dieting going back to the damn 7th grade to prove this nonsense completely wrong for my body.
But calories do matter. Lower carb/high fat allows me to eat more food, yes, but it doesn't cancel out the science of the calorie completely. I was maintaining my weight loss on a LCHF diet for a year, eating upwards of 3k Kcals, with a very sedentary life there for quite a bit of that year. But that's all that was happening, maintenance. Even when I added in regular exercise I was staying pretty steady. I'd gain when I started adding in too much sugar, too regularly, go back to strict LCHF, lose, and rinse/repeat this cycle.
Ultimately I decided to complete my eating lifestyle but adding IFing. Worked wonders. Allows me to eat in a way that keeps me satisfied, and feeling amazing, while getting the benefits of calorie restriction without counting a single calorie or weighing anything. And it also keeps the weight loss coming even though I've added back in some serious sugar/high carb splurges a few times a month.
Find what works. If you're doing all the "right" things and you're still struggling to lose, despite what anybody here will tell you, find whatever works for you that keeps you looking good, feeling good, and reaching your personal goals.0 -
The fuller explanations are appreciated (especially compared to when folks just say No) but I feel like some of the very knowledgeable folks on here aren't addressing the hormonal possibilities that have been raised. The science is good on that. I'll give more studies if anyone would like The review I posted earlier is not bad, though (hint).
For health reasons, let me say though that it is not a bad thing at all to watch foods that spike insulin when feasible. I think that should be a top mantra for any nation seeing increasing rates of diabetes. I don't agree with severe carb restriction, btw, but it looks like it's possibly better to err on that side than the other.
Ironically, all the health news about high fat being bad might have helped lead to more insulin problems. Folks apparently replaced the fat with a lot of high-glycemic carbs! It's so hard to know the perfect diet is all I know for sure
I'm addressing the 3 bolded areas above.
First, there are some who are affected by the hormonal and or insulin sensitivity but there are the exception not the rule. If that is the case, they should get medical testing and diagnosis and take the appropriate steps, including lower carb intake. But for most, it's a non-issue. If your have designed your eating plan in a sensible way, eg. no higher intake than maintenance calories, .8 to 1 gram of protein to lb of lean body mass, .35 to .4 grams fat per lb of body weight and fill in the rest with carbs, you carb intake will be moderate at worst. This should not lead to any hormonal or insulin sensitivity issues as it is the prolonged over-consumption of carbs that cause these kinds of issues in the context of an unbalanced diet. Or it's genetic predisposition in which case, see the advice to seek medical help above.
Secondly, foods that spike insulin are not the issue. Protein is highly insulinogenic, but we're not worried about that are we? High blood sugar is caused by over-consumption of carbs and lack of enough activity to utilize them. To correct, see eating plan guidelines above and get more exercise. There is no hormonal excuse for overeating a poorly balanced diet and not getting enough activity. We need to stop blaming poor insulin for all our ills. It's just doing it's job shuttling nutrients through our body. It's our job to provide the right nutrients in the appropriate amounts.
Third, you are likely correct about the replacing fats for carbs and it's effect but again, there is no excuse for one not educating themselves and making more intelligent choices.0 -
I've been around here for a long time and read a lot of forum posts and threads and as far as I can tell, I never read where anyone made that statement. Ever. I'd check my reading comprehension if I were you.
They will try and scream that I could eat a 3000 calories of poptarts and it'll have the same weight loss properties as 3000 calories of spinach and salmon.0 -
People with insulin issues are the people with insulin-issue weight gain...
That's backwards - people with weight-gain issues end up with insulin issues. You don't fix the weight issue by working on insulin, you fix the insulin issue by fixing the weight problem.0 -
They will try and scream that I could eat a 3000 calories of poptarts and it'll have the same weight loss properties as 3000 calories of spinach and salmon.
No one ever, ever, ever says that. It's nutrients that matter, and it doesn't matter what foods those nutrients come from. 3000 calories of Pop-Tarts will not have enough protein, nor will it have proper quantities of many vitamins or minerals. Of course, spinach and salmon alone won't have proper amounts of many vitamins and minerals either, but that's a different story.0 -
What are "weight loss properties"?0
-
People with insulin issues are the people with insulin-issue weight gain...
That's backwards - people with weight-gain issues end up with insulin issues. You don't fix the weight issue by working on insulin, you fix the insulin issue by fixing the weight problem.
ding, ding! We have a winner!!0 -
People with insulin issues are the people with insulin-issue weight gain...
That's backwards - people with weight-gain issues end up with insulin issues. You don't fix the weight issue by working on insulin, you fix the insulin issue by fixing the weight problem.
ding, ding! We have a winner!!
It probably sounds backwards because you think one or the other is true as if they were mutually exclusive.
OK, instead of giving another source that folks may or may not use for discussion, let me ask a simple question that isn't covered by genetics or being fat to start with. How about in normal-weight PCOS subjects? Where did the insulin sensitivity come from?
Or normal weight diabetics, of course, for that matter, although I can see that a genetic argument works better there, definitely.0 -
People with insulin issues are the people with insulin-issue weight gain...
That's backwards - people with weight-gain issues end up with insulin issues. You don't fix the weight issue by working on insulin, you fix the insulin issue by fixing the weight problem.
What?
Yes, excess weight can create insulin issues, but there are many many people who are BORN with insulin issues. I have had hypoglycemia basically all of my life, but I've only been overweight for last 3 years, and my weight gain was not enough to increase my insulin issues to the point of full-blown diabetes or even the clinical definition of "pre diabetes". Type 1 diabetics have a constant battle with insulin that has exactly jack to do with weight. However, insulin issues fall into the category of "medical issues", and every poster I have seen who says a calorie is a calorie gives the caveat of medical exceptions.0 -
...but there are many many people who are BORN with insulin issues.
Not talking about those folks....every poster I have seen who says a calorie is a calorie gives the caveat of medical exceptions.
Of course. Goes without saying.0 -
All I'm really trying to emphasize is that the caveat of medical exceptions probably includes more folks than know it. The diagnosis of PCOS usually takes longer than it should, etc. More folks are going towards diabetes than know it. That sort of thing. It's not going to hurt to watch the high glycemic carbs, so that's always nice to know. There's not exactly a lot of risk involved if someone wants to try it 0
-
Ok so its making sense....thank you!
Im just still confused that even when I weigh and measure which im pretty addicted to my scale im losing only when my cards go down and calories are not touched. Hmmmm
Do you wear a heart rate monitor when you work out or do you just use MFP's estimate for calories burned? because if you are eating back some of your calories burned then that could maybe be it?0 -
I thought it was pretty accepted science that insulin sensitivity issues can change the metabolism of many (not all) carbs enough to cause weight gain? Is it not, really?
I'm sure there's a spectrum of opinions, Dr Jason Fung has series of videos that walk through this in a logical manner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0
The two camps appear to me to be:-
Hormone controlled: high carbs = high insulin = drives fat into adipose tissue hence need to eat more to supply calorie burn while storing fat.
Calorie controlled: people eat too much relative to their calorie burn (for some reason) and then the excess is stored as fat.
The key difference seems to be that in the first case the people do what their bodies dictate - ie eat because hormones tell them too - and in the second case its greed and sloth with overeating relative to exercise and bodily needs.0 -
All I'm really trying to emphasize is that the caveat of medical exceptions probably includes more folks than know it.
Indeed. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/11/2427.long found that "The prevalence of insulin resistance in obese adolescents was 52.1% (95% CI 44.5–59.8)." and "Weight status was by far the most important determinant of insulin resistance, accounting for 29.1% of the variance in HOMA-IR." - so from that we can see that insulin issues are at least a 50/50 possibility in the young obese.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/12/3320 shows between 25 and 50% of adults with normal glucose metabolism to be insulin resistant.
Using data from the nurses helath study McAuley found that "A total of 75 (42%) people in our sample met the criteria for insulin resistance." http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/3/460.full
So when overweight and obese people ask for help perhaps the advice should cover those with insulin resistance issues, rather than simply providing caveats that dismiss potentially half the recipients.0 -
People with insulin issues are the people with insulin-issue weight gain...
That's backwards - people with weight-gain issues end up with insulin issues. You don't fix the weight issue by working on insulin, you fix the insulin issue by fixing the weight problem.
ding, ding! We have a winner!!
It probably sounds backwards because you think one or the other is true as if they were mutually exclusive.
OK, instead of giving another source that folks may or may not use for discussion, let me ask a simple question that isn't covered by genetics or being fat to start with. How about in normal-weight PCOS subjects? Where did the insulin sensitivity come from?
Or normal weight diabetics, of course, for that matter, although I can see that a genetic argument works better there, definitely.
Did you miss the part where I replied stating "Or genetic predisposition"? These folks are the exception not the rule. There are not many. There are some. Weight and specifically body fat % is the single most determinant factor in cases of insulin resistance in non genetically individuals. You are attempting to major in the minor. That is probably a discussion for another thread.0 -
All I'm really trying to emphasize is that the caveat of medical exceptions probably includes more folks than know it. The diagnosis of PCOS usually takes longer than it should, etc. More folks are going towards diabetes than know it. That sort of thing. It's not going to hurt to watch the high glycemic carbs, so that's always nice to know. There's not exactly a lot of risk involved if someone wants to try it
Well, firstly the whole high/ low glycemic idea is fairly useless for all but diabetics and others with a recognized medical syndrome. The reason being that carbs are generally not consumed in a vacuum over the course of a day in a reasonably well balanced diet. There is usually fats and proteins also being consumed and that changes the glycemic index of the carbs.
Secondly, it is the overconsumption of carbs, along with over-consumption overall that causes non-genetic insulin resistance issues. Essentially, taking in more energy that the body can process. I agree that it makes sense to watch the consumption of carbs.......and fats and protein. Be intelligent. Manage your total calories and your macronutrients. Do that and the likelihood you will not have insulin resistance issues short of a genetic one. That certainly hedges the risk. Overconsumption, in total and of any macronutrient is a bad idea.0 -
All I'm really trying to emphasize is that the caveat of medical exceptions probably includes more folks than know it.
Indeed. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/11/2427.long found that "The prevalence of insulin resistance in obese adolescents was 52.1% (95% CI 44.5–59.8)." and "Weight status was by far the most important determinant of insulin resistance, accounting for 29.1% of the variance in HOMA-IR." - so from that we can see that insulin issues are at least a 50/50 possibility in the young obese.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/12/3320 shows between 25 and 50% of adults with normal glucose metabolism to be insulin resistant.
Using data from the nurses helath study McAuley found that "A total of 75 (42%) people in our sample met the criteria for insulin resistance." http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/3/460.full
So when overweight and obese people ask for help perhaps the advice should cover those with insulin resistance issues, rather than simply providing caveats that dismiss potentially half the recipients.
Excellent research citing. The quotes are so nice; I shouldn't be so lazy myself
It's a good discussion, y'all. I'm not ignoring the other posts and appreciate the discussion. My responses would just be re-covering what has already been discussed or cited, so I think we're good.
Edit: To be clear, maybe I need to overtly point out that PCOS isn't known to be genetic as far as I'm aware. But it is a medical condition (one of the most common gynecological conditions), so it just falls under that caveat. I agree with those who pointed that out.0 -
No, 100 pounds certainly isn't water weight. But a lot of people will get onto a particular diet that causes them to let go of excess water weight, and it gives an "instant gratification" that feels like success from the beginning, which can certainly be helpful. (Side note: Remember that salt makes you retain water, too. So a lot of simply healthy diets will have a similar effect. Fresh foods don't have added salt, and most foods marketed as being healthy/diet friendly have lower sodium content than their "normal" counterparts.)I understand the whole it's just water thing, but what about people who go "low carb" and they lose like 100 lbs.. is that 100 lbs of "just water" b/c I've seen people who eat high calories but low carbs and lose tons of weight. Although it's not what I am trying to do, the whole "it's just water thing" confuses the heck out of me!
When you cut way down on sugars and starches, you end up eating more vegetables, proteins, and fats. All those things tend to be much more physically satisfying and take longer to digest than the carbs would. So usually even if you're not actually counting calories, you still end up eating fewer calories on a low-carb diet than you would have otherwise.
Usually when you start *any* diet you become more aware of what you're eating than you were before, so a lot of people see benefits from a healthy diet simply because of that. If you're overeating and you start considering the nutritional properties of what you're eating when you weren't before, you're probably going to start eating fewer calories. (There are certainly exceptions, particularly if there's a physiological and/or psychological problem.)
The whole "will alone" schtick is rarely the answer. A healthy diet doesn't leave your body starving. Perhaps it is for some people, but we have no way of knowing if it's healthy or not just because they've lost weight. Maintaining the willpower to just eat less if your *body* wants you to eat more tends to be connected to an eating disorder.
And "will" is incredibly hard to pin down and declare what can and can't be simply willed. I can stop the hiccups by concentrating properly on not hiccuping (and have never encountered any other hiccup cure that worked for me) but I certainly wouldn't declare that anybody who didn't have that particularly bizarre ability was simply weak-willed and needed to pull themselves up by the bootstraps or whatever the current line of choice is.0 -
All I'm really trying to emphasize is that the caveat of medical exceptions probably includes more folks than know it. The diagnosis of PCOS usually takes longer than it should, etc. More folks are going towards diabetes than know it. That sort of thing. It's not going to hurt to watch the high glycemic carbs, so that's always nice to know. There's not exactly a lot of risk involved if someone wants to try it
Actually, for most Type 2 diabetics, lowering their carbs doesn't mean eating on a "low carb" diet in the way we think of. My husband has a pretty severe case of T2, and his diet aims for under 150 carbs, which is only about 37 less than his MFP account initially told him not considering the diabetes. It is not nearly as severe as Atkins or South Beach. So, while I agree that there is nothing wrong with limiting certain types of carbs, that is not really the same thing as going on a specifically designed and marketed
low carb diet.0 -
I found that once I lowered my carbs, the weight came off finally. So yea, for some people, it's about a calorie deficit AND adjusting one's macros.0
-
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions