Calories in calories out
Replies
-
has she checked her Thyroids?
I doubt she's got more than one..
that might be her problem
I've been accused of having more than one because of my >3000 average TDEE (and ~2700 even on non-exercise days) despite being "old". I strongly recommend it for effective weight management.
sign me up. If I was to eat 3000 calories a day I would be 300 pounds.0 -
The Thyroids might be a good name for a band0
-
The Thyroids might be a good name for a band
If only I could sing.
Or play instrument.
Or was the least bit musical at all.0 -
The Thyroids might be a good name for a band
The Overactive Thyroids.0 -
The Thyroids might be a good name for a band
The Overactive Thyroids.
lets do this. i used to get all five stars on Rock Band.0 -
http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/blog/2012/12/22/more-support-for-ditching-the-calories-in-calories-out-conce.html
The Study
Researchers looked at a group of individuals on a calorie restricted diet to determine how far off their calorie balance equations would be from the reality of those on a weight loss program. They found that individuals only achieved a weight loss of 2/3 what would have been expected from the equations. That means, if the equations suggested individuals would lose 15 pounds, they only lost 10. Yet, these equations are often spoken about as though they are a law as true as the law of gravity. What happened?
in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%. That’s a pretty significant drop. It’s much higher than would be expected based on having a slightly lower total body weight. In addition, the researchers pointed out that the thermic effect of food was lower. Protein, fat and carbohydrate each burn varying levels of calories in the process of digestion. More than 25% of the calories from protein get burned during breakdown and digestion. The values for carbohydrate and fat are significantly lower at less than 8% and 5% respectively. Reducing the total calorie level, while keeping protein low to moderate, results in a lower thermic effect. An easy way to avoid this drop is making protein a larger portion of the overall calorie intake, but few weight loss programs do this (even though it’s consistently shown to work in research).
When the body is able to tap into its fat stores, it has an almost unlimited supply of fuel. That’s why we talk so much about the idea of “making your body a better fat burner.”
New findings from a longitudinal study from Harvard that followed 120,877 healthy, non-obese, and well-educated adults for 12-20 years confirm is that it’s really not about the calories
^^
Oh look a study done on 120k people over 12 years....derp derp0 -
The Thyroids might be a good name for a band
The Overactive Thyroids.
lets do this. i used to get all five stars on Rock Band.
I am great at lip-synching. We're gonna get rockstar rich!0 -
http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/blog/2012/12/22/more-support-for-ditching-the-calories-in-calories-out-conce.html
The Study
Researchers looked at a group of individuals on a calorie restricted diet to determine how far off their calorie balance equations would be from the reality of those on a weight loss program. They found that individuals only achieved a weight loss of 2/3 what would have been expected from the equations. That means, if the equations suggested individuals would lose 15 pounds, they only lost 10. Yet, these equations are often spoken about as though they are a law as true as the law of gravity. What happened?
in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%. That’s a pretty significant drop. It’s much higher than would be expected based on having a slightly lower total body weight. In addition, the researchers pointed out that the thermic effect of food was lower. Protein, fat and carbohydrate each burn varying levels of calories in the process of digestion. More than 25% of the calories from protein get burned during breakdown and digestion. The values for carbohydrate and fat are significantly lower at less than 8% and 5% respectively. Reducing the total calorie level, while keeping protein low to moderate, results in a lower thermic effect. An easy way to avoid this drop is making protein a larger portion of the overall calorie intake, but few weight loss programs do this (even though it’s consistently shown to work in research).
When the body is able to tap into its fat stores, it has an almost unlimited supply of fuel. That’s why we talk so much about the idea of “making your body a better fat burner.”
New findings from a longitudinal study from Harvard that followed 120,877 healthy, non-obese, and well-educated adults for 12-20 years confirm is that it’s really not about the calories
^^
Oh look a study done on 120k people over 12 years....derp derp
dude, no one cares any more. we're starting a band now.0 -
http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/blog/2012/12/22/more-support-for-ditching-the-calories-in-calories-out-conce.html
The Study
Researchers looked at a group of individuals on a calorie restricted diet to determine how far off their calorie balance equations would be from the reality of those on a weight loss program. They found that individuals only achieved a weight loss of 2/3 what would have been expected from the equations. That means, if the equations suggested individuals would lose 15 pounds, they only lost 10. Yet, these equations are often spoken about as though they are a law as true as the law of gravity. What happened?
in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%. That’s a pretty significant drop. It’s much higher than would be expected based on having a slightly lower total body weight. In addition, the researchers pointed out that the thermic effect of food was lower. Protein, fat and carbohydrate each burn varying levels of calories in the process of digestion. More than 25% of the calories from protein get burned during breakdown and digestion. The values for carbohydrate and fat are significantly lower at less than 8% and 5% respectively. Reducing the total calorie level, while keeping protein low to moderate, results in a lower thermic effect. An easy way to avoid this drop is making protein a larger portion of the overall calorie intake, but few weight loss programs do this (even though it’s consistently shown to work in research).
When the body is able to tap into its fat stores, it has an almost unlimited supply of fuel. That’s why we talk so much about the idea of “making your body a better fat burner.”
New findings from a longitudinal study from Harvard that followed 120,877 healthy, non-obese, and well-educated adults for 12-20 years confirm is that it’s really not about the calories
^^
Oh look a study done on 120k people over 12 years....derp derp
dude, no one cares any more. we're starting a band now.
0 -
In for the math ... and science :flowerforyou:
You're in the wrong place. Nothing going on here but people letting themselves get trolled.
Or bored people.
Yes, bored people trying to avoid getting up for a snack! :laugh: Too bad I'm not one of those people who can eat 4000 calories a day and stay skinny.
You lost 110 pounds I dont think you stayed skinny
um....lolwhat?
I'll try to clarify, let me know if you still don't understand:
I am resisting getting up for a snack, because I am not one of those lucky folks who can eat as much as I want without gaining weight.0 -
Why would anyone eat salads?
y u no like salad?
Hmm. I've been doing it wrong.
Clearly.0 -
http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/blog/2012/12/22/more-support-for-ditching-the-calories-in-calories-out-conce.html
The Study
Researchers looked at a group of individuals on a calorie restricted diet to determine how far off their calorie balance equations would be from the reality of those on a weight loss program. They found that individuals only achieved a weight loss of 2/3 what would have been expected from the equations. That means, if the equations suggested individuals would lose 15 pounds, they only lost 10. Yet, these equations are often spoken about as though they are a law as true as the law of gravity. What happened?
in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%. That’s a pretty significant drop. It’s much higher than would be expected based on having a slightly lower total body weight. In addition, the researchers pointed out that the thermic effect of food was lower. Protein, fat and carbohydrate each burn varying levels of calories in the process of digestion. More than 25% of the calories from protein get burned during breakdown and digestion. The values for carbohydrate and fat are significantly lower at less than 8% and 5% respectively. Reducing the total calorie level, while keeping protein low to moderate, results in a lower thermic effect. An easy way to avoid this drop is making protein a larger portion of the overall calorie intake, but few weight loss programs do this (even though it’s consistently shown to work in research).
When the body is able to tap into its fat stores, it has an almost unlimited supply of fuel. That’s why we talk so much about the idea of “making your body a better fat burner.”
New findings from a longitudinal study from Harvard that followed 120,877 healthy, non-obese, and well-educated adults for 12-20 years confirm is that it’s really not about the calories
^^
Oh look a study done on 120k people over 12 years....derp derp
Absolutely nothing in that in anyway negates CICO, so what is your point?0 -
in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%.
Again - more evidence to back up CICO.0 -
Not only does that study/snippet demonstrate the validity of CICO, it explains the mechanisms involved in it. Directly from the study:"On average, after adjustment for changes in metabolic rate and body composition of weight lost, actual weight loss reached 90% of the predicted values."Although weight loss was 33% lower than predicted at baseline from standard energy equivalents, the majority of this differential was explained by physiological variables. Although lower-than-expected weight loss is often attributed to incomplete adherence to prescribed interventions, the influence of baseline calculation errors and metabolic downregulation should not be discounted.0
-
Worst. Band. Ever.0
-
The Thyroids might be a good name for a band
The Overactive Thyroids.
lets do this. i used to get all five stars on Rock Band.
I am great at lip-synching. We're gonna get rockstar rich!
We'll all stay skinny cuz we just won't eat.
except for the selected few mentioned throughout this thread0 -
Worst. Band. Ever.
Nope. I think he just quoted the worst band ever.The Thyroids might be a good name for a band
The Overactive Thyroids.
lets do this. i used to get all five stars on Rock Band.
I am great at lip-synching. We're gonna get rockstar rich!
We'll all stay skinny cuz we just won't eat.
except for the selected few mentioned throughout this thread0 -
So again. I know someone how I grew up with, also lived with in adulthood. Who has TALKED to me about her bmr and tdee who has TALKED to me about how much she eats, who I CAN SEE does almost nothing all day ( my step sister hates to clean and is the basic lazy house wife who plays apps until about 30 min to her husband comes home then she pretends shes been cleaning all day) lol sound familiar? She drinks at least 2000-2400 calories a day of beer that doesn't include all the crap she eats, she hates cooking and eats pizza 2-3 times a week. So YES, I know for 100% fact, no peanut gallery needed, that someone can be stick thin and eat whatever they want. Because I saw it first hand. Was I with her 24/7? Yes we lived together and neither of us worked, so YES I saw her daily in and out routine....Its not that hard to understand.
I may be missing a point here or something. Sounds like your step sister is an alcoholic. Since we are making unprovable leaps of faith cleverly disquised as observable 'facts', I am going to guess that there is some type of family dysfunction leading to attention seeking behaviours. I can't see any other logical purpose to this post other than that. OP, I hope you get some sleep and that tomorrow is a better day for you :-)0 -
in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%.
Again - more evidence to back up CICO.
Reading comprehension is hard work
Yes, yes it is. But not by the person you quoted.0 -
OP seems awfully familiar...fo shosho0
-
So again. I know someone how I grew up with, also lived with in adulthood. Who has TALKED to me about her bmr and tdee who has TALKED to me about how much she eats, who I CAN SEE does almost nothing all day ( my step sister hates to clean and is the basic lazy house wife who plays apps until about 30 min to her husband comes home then she pretends shes been cleaning all day) lol sound familiar? She drinks at least 2000-2400 calories a day of beer that doesn't include all the crap she eats, she hates cooking and eats pizza 2-3 times a week. So YES, I know for 100% fact, no peanut gallery needed, that someone can be stick thin and eat whatever they want. Because I saw it first hand. Was I with her 24/7? Yes we lived together and neither of us worked, so YES I saw her daily in and out routine....Its not that hard to understand.
I may be missing a point here or something. Sounds like your step sister is an alcoholic. Since we are making unprovable leaps of faith cleverly disquised as observable 'facts', I am going to guess that there is some type of family dysfunction leading to attention seeking behaviours. I can't see any other logical purpose to this post other than that. OP, I hope you get some sleep and that tomorrow is a better day for you :-)
Clearly she is an alcoholic.0 -
First note: Sweet monkey loving Odin, folks, you were actually giving her credit for disproving the laws of physics because people with damaged thyroids have difficulty accessing the energy their bodies stored? It took about half a page for someone to point out that all you did was prove the thing that's been said already, a lot, over and over and over; not everyone has the same metabolism, which means some people will generate smaller deficits than an averaged out equation would predict. Some of those deficits will be ridiculously small because the out part of the equation was really, badly screwed for that person. They still can't create energy from nothing, They can't just make energy disappear. And some of you were handing out credit for figuring out that metabolic issues exist that require different numbers to be plugged into the core equation's variables to make accurate predictions?
MFP, I am so very disappointed in you. Everyone should feel sad.Not only does that study/snippet demonstrate the validity of CICO, it explains the mechanisms involved in it. Directly from the study:"On average, after adjustment for changes in metabolic rate and body composition of weight lost, actual weight loss reached 90% of the predicted values."Although weight loss was 33% lower than predicted at baseline from standard energy equivalents, the majority of this differential was explained by physiological variables. Although lower-than-expected weight loss is often attributed to incomplete adherence to prescribed interventions, the influence of baseline calculation errors and metabolic downregulation should not be discounted.
Except this fellow, he gets to feel happy.
Lastly, OP, troll points. You win them. Tons of them. I'm not even joking right now, I am impressed.0 -
one can easily eat 4000 calories of "HEALTHY" food each day... which, well... they would gain weight! math is math... wether she is eating fast food, or "HEALTHY" food... its all about amount in vs. amount out.0
-
So again. I know someone how I grew up with, also lived with in adulthood. Who has TALKED to me about her bmr and tdee who has TALKED to me about how much she eats, who I CAN SEE does almost nothing all day ( my step sister hates to clean and is the basic lazy house wife who plays apps until about 30 min to her husband comes home then she pretends shes been cleaning all day) lol sound familiar? She drinks at least 2000-2400 calories a day of beer that doesn't include all the crap she eats, she hates cooking and eats pizza 2-3 times a week. So YES, I know for 100% fact, no peanut gallery needed, that someone can be stick thin and eat whatever they want. Because I saw it first hand. Was I with her 24/7? Yes we lived together and neither of us worked, so YES I saw her daily in and out routine....Its not that hard to understand.
I may be missing a point here or something. Sounds like your step sister is an alcoholic. Since we are making unprovable leaps of faith cleverly disquised as observable 'facts', I am going to guess that there is some type of family dysfunction leading to attention seeking behaviours. I can't see any other logical purpose to this post other than that. OP, I hope you get some sleep and that tomorrow is a better day for you :-)
Clearly she is an alcoholic.
So what is your point on this whole thing? You disagree with the masses because the whole CICO is more complicated due to variables that cannot be controlled in all situations. I don't see anyone saying that the number of calories in required is the same for everyone. Therefore, each person is different and due to those differences, calorie requirements will vary. I think your argument is actually closer to what everyone is saying than you realize. Calorie deficit works. The problem is determining how many calories each person requires. This is a problem because everyone metabolizes differently. Historically speaking, science is looking for consistencies in data. It is not always 100%, and years later new information may be found which later refutes the original evidence. That could be the case here, or it may not. I don't intend to argue the semantics with you.
I am more concerned about the choices you have made to come here and belittle a group of people who are trying to make better choices for themselves. Just because you disagree with how people are going about changes, does not make it wrong. It is simply a different choice from what you believe. It's similar to trying to argue which religion is right. Everyone has there own beliefs. You may convert one or two, but realistically you are only being a pain for your own amusement. This is the part that concerns me. What is going on in your own life that makes you feel like you have to lodge this campaign to convert the masses to agreeing with you that CICO is not 100% accurate.
Regardless, I wish you well.0 -
Avoiding the question. You've stated a strawman argument and now I'm calling you on it. Somehow you "know" my actual philosophy, so please enlighten me on what you believe it is and I'll let you know if it's accurate or not.
Which information are you referring to? That calorie deficit isn't needed for weight loss? Or calorie surplus doesn't result in weight gain? Point out what information on this debate that I've stated as fact that's been spoon fed because I've never mentioned anything about diets, supplements or medication for weight loss.Spoon fed, inaccurate information? Oh ok
Your turn.
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 nutrition
Please quote where I said calorie counting ISN'T necessary for weight loss. Saying it doesn't work for everyone, isn't saying that its not necessary for weight loss.
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 -
We've discussed this at length. I've posted SEVERAL TIMES that people with hormonal issues or disease won't respond the same as general public. Where do you NOT see that?
But it's predictable. While it's never linear, one can go by averages to figure out if one is in calorie deficit/surplus or not. Your grasping at straws to form a debate.
Obviously there are variations in how different bodies burn, expel, and store energy at different times.
^^ Meaning it is not 100% accurate.
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 nutrition
There is no debate. Its not black and white. It doesn't always work because its not always 100% accurate. All health issues are not always taken into an account. Now in a PERFECT world where no one has health problems and every single BODY runs the exact same SURE it works 100% of the time, but that isn't reality. Sorry to tell you.
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 -
People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics
People who think they know exactly what their friends eat always make excuses for them instead of puzzling out the obvious fact that they eat more than you think they do.
I mentioned also the fact that I have lived with family, been around them all day and seen what they eat. And yes, people can drink beer, eat crap and stay 110 pounds.
I strongly suggest you try their diet for your 30 lbs to lose.
and to make it faster - double the intake of beer.
Sounds like you know it'll work.
Shoot, even placebo effect can be.... effective.0 -
http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/blog/2012/12/22/more-support-for-ditching-the-calories-in-calories-out-conce.html
The Study
Researchers looked at a group of individuals on a calorie restricted diet to determine how far off their calorie balance equations would be from the reality of those on a weight loss program. They found that individuals only achieved a weight loss of 2/3 what would have been expected from the equations. That means, if the equations suggested individuals would lose 15 pounds, they only lost 10. Yet, these equations are often spoken about as though they are a law as true as the law of gravity. What happened?
in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%. That’s a pretty significant drop. It’s much higher than would be expected based on having a slightly lower total body weight. In addition, the researchers pointed out that the thermic effect of food was lower. Protein, fat and carbohydrate each burn varying levels of calories in the process of digestion. More than 25% of the calories from protein get burned during breakdown and digestion. The values for carbohydrate and fat are significantly lower at less than 8% and 5% respectively. Reducing the total calorie level, while keeping protein low to moderate, results in a lower thermic effect. An easy way to avoid this drop is making protein a larger portion of the overall calorie intake, but few weight loss programs do this (even though it’s consistently shown to work in research).
When the body is able to tap into its fat stores, it has an almost unlimited supply of fuel. That’s why we talk so much about the idea of “making your body a better fat burner.”
New findings from a longitudinal study from Harvard that followed 120,877 healthy, non-obese, and well-educated adults for 12-20 years confirm is that it’s really not about the calories
^^
Oh look a study done on 120k people over 12 years....derp derp
Absolutely nothing in that in anyway negates CICO, so what is your point?
You can continue to be in denial about what is easily found on the internet
OHHHHHHHH.
Your major malfunction is with the formulas for estimated TDEE.
Since you can get your friends/relatives BMR (did you use Katch for more accurate based on bodyfat%), and you know their activity level so well, you know their TDEE.
And you log everything they eat and drink accurately.
And you have come to determine that the TDEE estimate is not correct.
Ohhhh, big surprise, even if all your measuring and logging for them was dead on correct.
The TDEE estimate is a place to start.
Looking at what you actually eat and maintain at is an even better start.
Your issue is with calories in based on food logging you are pretty sure you got down right, doesn't match the calories out that you are pretty sure you know correctly for the individuals.
Wow, what a researcher. There are scores of researchers in many fields that would love to tap your ability to get these stats without actually disturbing that which you are measuring that much.
You should write a book just on that aspect of this discussion. "How to get measurement statistics from any system without actually measuring".
Then you can write a book on the diet examples you are going to follow to lose your 30 lbs. "How to lose weight fast drinking beer and playing video games all day".0 -
Zumba? Get the fat guy to lift some heavy *kitten* weights, and he wiil start losing.0
-
After reading the first two pages and skimming the last two pages, this is what I see:
OP: CICO does not work!
Everyone else: Yes it does!
OP: It doesn't work! Look at my (2-3 examples of people I know in real life)
Everyone else: Perhaps very minor exception, possibly with a medical issue, but look at these studies/evidence
OP: I don't accept your evidence because it doesn't align with my facts!
Lather, rinse, repeat. x 100
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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