Calories in calories out
Replies
-
People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics
Dude - its a friggin LAW of Physics. They bring it up because it cannot be disproved because its A LAW OF PHYSICS
It has already been long disproven
No it hasn't trolla la la la la la0 -
I did it first hand almost my whole life until I developed a thyroid problem. I use to drink a 12 pack a day of soda and went weeks with out drinking water or eating vegetables. Yet I stayed thin until my 20s. How many people dont change their eating habits and then at like 25 get huge and fat? And they are like "but I have always eaten this way" thats because its way more about your body and metabolism then calories. I ate the same at 16 that I did at 22 yet I gained nothing as a teenager I gained NOTHING until I hit a medical issue, once I got on medication it was fixed and the weight came off some. Also I know teens are typically hyper active, thats why I pointed out that I was a lazy teen that sat in their room doing nothing. Because I was NEVER active, always ate junk and STAYED skinny until I was in my 20s
It doesn't matter what you say or want to believe, if you did not gain you were not in a calorie surplus, period. If you say "because its way more about your body and metabolism" the ONLY way that can be true and you not gain weight is if your body/metabolism is burning off/using what you are consuming, in other words CICO.
I wasn't at a surplus sitting in my room at 125 pounds drinking tons of pepsi until 3 am everyday? Eating tons of fast food and pizza pockets? Not to mention all the weed I smoked I was eating something 24/7, I would go to dennys at 2am for cheesesticks and their banana splits. I ate way over my calories for the weight I was. Because as I got older and my eating habits never changed I finally gained weight.
Like its easy to understand
12 sodas= 1800 calories
Lunch=taco bell 700-900 calories
snacks= 1200 calories bag of takis
800 calories chocolate milk
Dinner=500-1000 calories of whatever junk I could find
So again
I was eating way over my calorie limit for years with out gaining, I never changed my diet, I was never active. Its easy to do the math and understand.0 -
I did it first hand almost my whole life until I developed a thyroid problem. I use to drink a 12 pack a day of soda and went weeks with out drinking water or eating vegetables. Yet I stayed thin until my 20s. How many people dont change their eating habits and then at like 25 get huge and fat? And they are like "but I have always eaten this way" thats because its way more about your body and metabolism then calories. I ate the same at 16 that I did at 22 yet I gained nothing as a teenager I gained NOTHING until I hit a medical issue, once I got on medication it was fixed and the weight came off some. Also I know teens are typically hyper active, thats why I pointed out that I was a lazy teen that sat in their room doing nothing. Because I was NEVER active, always ate junk and STAYED skinny until I was in my 20s
It doesn't matter what you say or want to believe, if you did not gain you were not in a calorie surplus, period. If you say "because its way more about your body and metabolism" the ONLY way that can be true and you not gain weight is if your body/metabolism is burning off/using what you are consuming, in other words CICO.
I wasn't at a surplus sitting in my room at 125 pounds drinking tons of pepsi until 3 am everyday? Eating tons of fast food and pizza pockets? Not to mention all the weed I smoked I was eating something 24/7, I would go to dennys at 2am for cheesesticks and their banana splits. I ate way over my calories for the weight I was. Because as I got older and my eating habits never changed I finally gained weight.
Like its easy to understand
12 sodas= 1800 calories
Lunch=taco bell 700-900 calories
snacks= 1200 calories bag of takis
800 calories chocolate milk
Dinner=500-1000 calories of whatever junk I could find
So again
I was eating way over my calorie limit for years with out gaining, I never changed my diet, I was never active. Its easy to do the math and understand.
You are either miscalculating your in/out or making stuff up... period... because science... laws of physics and all.0 -
The 300 pound nurse is a closet eater. And the skinny 28-year-old does a lot more exercise than you think she does.0
-
This is still going on?
Seriously, OP. BEST. TROLL. EVER.0 -
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/secret-eaters
Unless you are with them 24/7 you don't how much they eat.
this^^^ I have been know to tell the same tale! Unfortunately, it has only hurt me!
Yup, me too.0 -
Some poor souls are salicylate sensitive and doing all the "right things" does not, will not, can not, work for them. The medical profession do not recognise its possible association with manhy health issues this can contribute to. Anything from joint pain, ME, fibromialgia, breathing related problem, urinary tract infections, blood pressure, thyroid, diabetes, gynecological problems. It seems there is noting it is not capable of making worse. I was at a very low ebb when I discovered my problem and I am on my way to being the person I should always have been.
Contact me if you would like to know more
Well clearly, some people try the calorie in calorie out thing for months or even years before going to the doctor and figuring out that they are not losing weight because of a health condition. Even though people will just constantly tell them they are doing something wrong.0 -
How do you know what they eat at all times? Do you live with them? The 300 pound nurse may eat healthfully at work, but when she goes home she may not. Also just because she eats salads doesn't mean they're healthy. She could be putting on way too much salad dressing, croutons, or other high caloric salad toppings. Plus you don't know if the skinnier lady does a lot of exercise to compensate her fast food or eats healthier the rest of the times.0
-
How does this work when we have all known a 300 pound person who eats healthy and works an active job but still cant lose ? Like for example I have a friend who is an overweight nurse, she does zumba, eats salads and has a very active job (always on her feet) yet she is still large and has been since a child. Yet I have another friend whos a stay at home mom, 28 years old, eats nothing but fast food and is like 110 soaking wet. So if we accept the fact that there are super skinny girls who cant eat whatever they want and not gain a pound why cant the reverse be true? Why cant someone eat healthy, have a deficit and NOT lose? If a skinny girl can eat 4000 calories a day of fast food with out the calories in calories out applying why does it always 100% apply to overweight people? The bigger people I know that are 300 pounds dont eat ANYWHERE near 3000 plus calories a day like the internet says it takes for them to maintain that weight....
I am NOT maligning your friend, but I've never met a single 300lb non-athlete who accurately logged their calories in. (I do know some young men who football players and friends with my kids who are 300lbs on purpose and they know what they are eating to get/stay there) And I don't know a single SAHM who has a sedentary lifestyle. Chasing kids, cleaning house, fixing lunch, putting toys and laundry away and chasing kids some more burns the calories whether you are logging them or not.
If you have a deficit AND you are not losing anything over time, then you have a medical problem of some kind. (And one of the 300lb people I know is my punk kid sister; she ate healthy but she ate 3000 calories easily without even knowing she was doing it. She's on MFP now and paying attention. I haven't asked her weight recently; I just care that she's trying to get healthy.)
I was 22 years old, 383lbs, exercising and logging my food every day, but I have severe hypothyroidism. It DOES happen, maybe just not as often as we think it does. On the plus side, I have 8 years of weight/calorie/exercise logs that are really cool to look at/inspirational/helpful!0 -
I wasn't at a surplus sitting in my room at 125 pounds drinking tons of pepsi until 3 am everyday? Eating tons of fast food and pizza pockets? Not to mention all the weed I smoked I was eating something 24/7, I would go to dennys at 2am for cheesesticks and their banana splits. I ate way over my calories for the weight I was. Because as I got older and my eating habits never changed I finally gained weight.
Like its easy to understand
12 sodas= 1800 calories
Lunch=taco bell 700-900 calories
snacks= 1200 calories bag of takis
800 calories chocolate milk
Dinner=500-1000 calories of whatever junk I could find
So again
I was eating way over my calorie limit for years with out gaining, I never changed my diet, I was never active. Its easy to do the math and understand.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
Let's assume, just for the sake of the discussion, that those numbers are indeed correct, and you indeed consume roughly 5500 calories as stated above.
Your TDEE is likely somewhere around 2000...Where did those extra 2500 calories go?
It's a simple question, really.
Also, 800 calories of chocolate milk? you realize that at approximately 150 calories per cup, that's like 5.3 cup,s right?
You really drank 40 ounces of chocolate milk a day?
I had to google 'Takis', as I've never heard of them. From what I gather, they're basically cheetos, but it seems they only come in 9.8 oz single serving bags. The most common nutritional info I could find says they're 140 cals/bag.
So you ate 8-9 bags of these everyday?
I think we found one of your problems. You can't estimate calories for squat.0 -
People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics
Dude - its a friggin LAW of Physics. They bring it up because it cannot be disproved because its A LAW OF PHYSICS
Not to feed the troll but this is actually incorrect.
The laws of thermodynamics only state that there is a total conservation of energy in a system. How that energy is transfered and used and whether you store the calories from the food you eat or use them or poop them is where the biological variability enters.
As a system the calories in from fat and tissue storage ingested food do equal the calories out to storage, energy used, heat generated, food transformed, heat, biochemical processes, movement and energy left in poop.
In this sense it is, calories in and calories out as a strict conservation of total energy. However, in no way does this mean that the substrate distribution of that conservation of energy is structured in the same way to assure that the amount of calories consumed is constant across individuals versus weight gain or loss. Nor does it suggest that we have the same "efficiencies" in energy acquisition or utilization. The TDEE equations are first order statistical models of large populations which take into account a set of variables - one equation considers sex and age another just LBM. Even for the most accurate of these, they are at best estimated fits.
Nonetheless, for any individual, while it is calories in and calories out, some nuance with respect to mental elements, hunger, thyroid function, etc. etc. etc. impact long term adherence. It's not just physics but biochemistry at work.
Any individual can lose weight by lowering the "calorie in" part of the equation, with a disfunctional thyroid just makes it much harder as the "calories out" part is set lower - the body just burns less and cutting at rates that are effective can be very difficult in terms of hunger signals or minimal nutritional aspects.
Also, what you ate prior, the volume versus time, and a variety of other factors do influence energy absorption from food. However, this variance is smaller than the effect of activity so it is only really of concern at the extreme ends of the metabolic activity such as athletes in training or people suffering from PCOS, or other issues like thyroid obesity. It's a forest versus tree thing. While we should focus on the forest - it doesn't mean that the leaves of the trees aren't there.
Move more
Eat less
...are basic elements that do give results, all others things equal. And if you have thyroid issues, take your meds, this affects thermogenesis significantly.0 -
People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics
Dude - its a friggin LAW of Physics. They bring it up because it cannot be disproved because its A LAW OF PHYSICS
Not to feed the troll but this is actually incorrect.
The laws of thermodynamics only state that there is a total conservation of energy in a system. How that energy is transfered and used and whether you store the calories from the food you eat or use them or poop them is where the biological variability enters.
As a system the calories in from fat and tissue storage ingested food do equal the calories out to storage, energy used, heat generated, food transformed, heat, biochemical processes, movement and energy left in poop.
In this sense it is, calories in and calories out as a strict conservation of total energy. However, in no way does this mean that the substrate distribution of that conservation of energy is structured in the same way to assure that the amount of calories consumed is constant across individuals versus weight gain or loss. Nor does it suggest that we have the same "efficiencies" in energy acquisition or utilization. The TDEE equations are first order statistical models of large populations which take into account a set of variables - one equation considers sex and age another just LBM. Even for the most accurate of these, they are at best estimated fits.
Nonetheless, for any individual, while it is calories in and calories out, some nuance with respect to mental elements, hunger, thyroid function, etc. etc. etc. impact long term adherence. It's not just physics but biochemistry at work.
Any individual can lose weight by lowering the "calorie in" part of the equation, with a disfunctional thyroid just makes it much harder as the "calories out" part is set lower - the body just burns less and cutting at rates that are effective can be very difficult in terms of hunger signals or minimal nutritional aspects.
Also, what you ate prior, the volume versus time, and a variety of other factors do influence energy absorption from food. However, this variance is smaller than the effect of activity so it is only really of concern at the extreme ends of the metabolic activity such as athletes in training or people suffering from PCOS, or other issues like thyroid obesity. It's a forest versus tree thing. While we should focus on the forest - it doesn't mean that the leaves of the trees aren't there.
Move more
Eat less
...are basic elements that do give results, all others things equal. And if you have thyroid issues, take your meds, this affects thermogenesis significantly.
And while what you just said is the exact opposite of what the OP has been saying I am expecting them to interpret this as proving what they have been saying, in 5, 4, 3, 2,......0 -
Exactly. I was going to post something similar...People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics
Dude - its a friggin LAW of Physics. They bring it up because it cannot be disproved because its A LAW OF PHYSICS
Not to feed the troll but this is actually incorrect.
The laws of thermodynamics only state that there is a total conservation of energy in a system. How that energy is transfered and used and whether you store the calories from the food you eat or use them or poop them is where the biological variability enters.
...
If we were talking about conservation of energy, be aware that one gram of matter (any matter whether it is sugar, protein, water, or lead) when converted to energy contains 2,390,057,361 calories.
Someone who lives 75 years and burns 2500 calories a day would burn 68,437,500 calories in their entire lifetime. It would take such a person 34 lifetimes to convert one gram of mass into energy. Clearly we are not talking about mass-energy equivalence, which is what thermodynamics (conservation of mass/energy in a closed system) is about.
Nowhere in the laws of thermodynamics does it state that carb/fat/protein molecules cannot leave the body without first being utilized for their energy content.
Also, if thermodynamics applied, people with certain hormonal conditions would be violating it.
What calories in/out is really talking about is mass. The energy we get from carb/protein/fat molecules is not released by converting them to energy, it is released by breaking them into smaller molecules like water and carbon dioxide. The amount of mass is conserved in these reactions. That is, the resulting H2O and CO2 weigh as much as the sugar/fat they were converted from.
The weight we lose is by getting rid of the waste products which then no longer contribute to our body's mass because we sweat/pee/exhale them away.
It's not actually "calories in, calories out" that determines our weight, it's "molecules in, molecules out."0 -
And while what you just said is the exact opposite of what the OP has been saying I am expecting them to interpret this as proving what they have been saying, in 5, 4, 3, 2,......
I hope so.
0 -
And while what you just said is the exact opposite of what the OP has been saying I am expecting them to interpret this as proving what they have been saying, in 5, 4, 3, 2,......
I hope so.
Yes biological variability enters = not 100%0 -
I wasn't at a surplus sitting in my room at 125 pounds drinking tons of pepsi until 3 am everyday? Eating tons of fast food and pizza pockets? Not to mention all the weed I smoked I was eating something 24/7, I would go to dennys at 2am for cheesesticks and their banana splits. I ate way over my calories for the weight I was. Because as I got older and my eating habits never changed I finally gained weight.
Like its easy to understand
12 sodas= 1800 calories
Lunch=taco bell 700-900 calories
snacks= 1200 calories bag of takis
800 calories chocolate milk
Dinner=500-1000 calories of whatever junk I could find
So again
I was eating way over my calorie limit for years with out gaining, I never changed my diet, I was never active. Its easy to do the math and understand.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
Let's assume, just for the sake of the discussion, that those numbers are indeed correct, and you indeed consume roughly 5500 calories as stated above.
Your TDEE is likely somewhere around 2000...Where did those extra 2500 calories go?
It's a simple question, really.
Also, 800 calories of chocolate milk? you realize that at approximately 150 calories per cup, that's like 5.3 cup,s right?
You really drank 40 ounces of chocolate milk a day?
I had to google 'Takis', as I've never heard of them. From what I gather, they're basically cheetos, but it seems they only come in 9.8 oz single serving bags. The most common nutritional info I could find says they're 140 cals/bag.
So you ate 8-9 bags of these everyday?
I think we found one of your problems. You can't estimate calories for squat.
Do you people really not know how much a stoner can eat? You tell me where the extra engry went because I STAYED 125 pounds until my 20s when I developed a thyroid problem, my eating habits NEVER changed from the time I was like 10 years old. Also I get huge bags of takis, they come in normal sizes like Doritos. Could I drink 5 glasses of chocolate milk in a daY? UH easily. lol0 -
People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics
Dude - its a friggin LAW of Physics. They bring it up because it cannot be disproved because its A LAW OF PHYSICS
Not to feed the troll but this is actually incorrect.
The laws of thermodynamics only state that there is a total conservation of energy in a system. How that energy is transfered and used and whether you store the calories from the food you eat or use them or poop them is where the biological variability enters.
As a system the calories in from fat and tissue storage ingested food do equal the calories out to storage, energy used, heat generated, food transformed, heat, biochemical processes, movement and energy left in poop.
In this sense it is, calories in and calories out as a strict conservation of total energy. However, in no way does this mean that the substrate distribution of that conservation of energy is structured in the same way to assure that the amount of calories consumed is constant across individuals versus weight gain or loss. Nor does it suggest that we have the same "efficiencies" in energy acquisition or utilization. The TDEE equations are first order statistical models of large populations which take into account a set of variables - one equation considers sex and age another just LBM. Even for the most accurate of these, they are at best estimated fits.
Nonetheless, for any individual, while it is calories in and calories out, some nuance with respect to mental elements, hunger, thyroid function, etc. etc. etc. impact long term adherence. It's not just physics but biochemistry at work.
Any individual can lose weight by lowering the "calorie in" part of the equation, with a disfunctional thyroid just makes it much harder as the "calories out" part is set lower - the body just burns less and cutting at rates that are effective can be very difficult in terms of hunger signals or minimal nutritional aspects.
Also, what you ate prior, the volume versus time, and a variety of other factors do influence energy absorption from food. However, this variance is smaller than the effect of activity so it is only really of concern at the extreme ends of the metabolic activity such as athletes in training or people suffering from PCOS, or other issues like thyroid obesity. It's a forest versus tree thing. While we should focus on the forest - it doesn't mean that the leaves of the trees aren't there.
Move more
Eat less
...are basic elements that do give results, all others things equal. And if you have thyroid issues, take your meds, this affects thermogenesis significantly.
You know you're my hero, right?
Just saying... got a bit of a geek based man crush on ya.
0 -
And while what you just said is the exact opposite of what the OP has been saying I am expecting them to interpret this as proving what they have been saying, in 5, 4, 3, 2,......
I hope so.
Yes biological variability enters = not 100%
Variables don't disprove the equation, they only modify it = yes 100%0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions