Calories in calories out
Replies
-
I predict a the evils of sugar diatribe coming next... perhaps with a youtube link.No one said all of science in the whole world doesn't work. Hive mind sheep do think alike. As it was said. You people are lemmings. You all believe everything you nurtionalists and the mainstream health departments have told you. Thats why you believe this garbage. Its not science, its in place to sell diet food and products. But you can keep being naive to it
So, we're at the big conspiracy stage, now are we? So, this begs the question; what diet food is being advanced by calories in vs calories out, again? Which products? Seriously, who stands to gain from "no specific foods make you fat. No specific exercise product will make you not fat. Products which say they will help you lose weight without diet or excersice is a pile of crap"?
Hey! These are facts, guys!
- 100% of people die
- 100% of people eat sugar
- We can safely conclude that sugar is 10000% deadly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Are you sure that's right? I think the percentages are additive, not multiplicative. Sugar is only 1000% deadly. (Or is it exponential.....?)
0 -
I'm not going to get into the scientific part of this discussion, but I will say these "variables" to why one person is skinny and another is not...is not always obvious to the naked eye.
At my heaviest, I was 240 and never was one to binge or eat tons of food. I was eating tons of carbs back then, and have since found out I am extremely sensitive to carbs(pre diabetic). It's taken me a year+ and still haven't broken the 200 mark. I'm sedentary (desk job) and back problems have kept me from jumping on the exercise wagon. I eat at a deficit more often than not, but fat doesn't fall off of me easily.
My son (yes he's 15, but) has to eat like 4,000 cals/day to maintain his weight. Otherwise he looks malnourished! Obviously got his dad's skinny gene (also eats whatever and stays lean). I've actually tracked his intake on a weekend, and watched him lose weight eating 4,000+ calories.
One thing I've noticed about our differences though, is my son and ex both are type-A hyper active and always seem uptight. My son cannot sit still...even when he's sitting, he's twitching, squirming, kicking a foot, jumping up and pacing around, etc.
Me? I am more zen-type personality, and don't budge a muscle sometimes when I sit down to relax. I think some people just naturally burn more calories being themselves, because of those minuscule variables and movements. The science is there, but you don't see it because you don't realize how many times skinny girl twitches those muscles and burns a few extra cals that the fat friend didn't. Maybe fat friend is insulin resistant and doesn't know it. I can maintain weight at 1400 cals/day if my carbs get too high... or I can lose weight on same cals when I reduce carbs/sugar.
I still think the cals in/out work...but I think it's more complicated than just how much you see them eat or how often you think they are active.0 -
I predict a the evils of sugar diatribe coming next... perhaps with a youtube link.No one said all of science in the whole world doesn't work. Hive mind sheep do think alike. As it was said. You people are lemmings. You all believe everything you nurtionalists and the mainstream health departments have told you. Thats why you believe this garbage. Its not science, its in place to sell diet food and products. But you can keep being naive to it
So, we're at the big conspiracy stage, now are we? So, this begs the question; what diet food is being advanced by calories in vs calories out, again? Which products? Seriously, who stands to gain from "no specific foods make you fat. No specific exercise product will make you not fat. Products which say they will help you lose weight without diet or excersice is a pile of crap"?
Hey! These are facts, guys!
- 100% of people die
- 100% of people eat sugar
- We can safely conclude that sugar is 10000% deadly.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Are you sure that's right? I think the percentages are additive, not multiplicative. Sugar is only 1000% deadly. (Or is it exponential.....?)
No, they are multiplicative! Google "multiplicative"!0 -
I haven't read all the replies here (just the first page), but I would hazard a guess that she is not logging accurately (if at all).
So in my own example, I am slightly overweight and have been steadily gaining over the past few years. I just now, today, had a rather large discovery as to why after logging for a few weeks now. I bring salads and very healthy lunches to work. I appear to be the picture of health with my running and fitness levels.
But if you look at my log (sorry, not literally, diary's closed), you will see that when I think I am eating light and being restrained, most days I'm easily packing 2500+ calories, which is too much for me to lose. And that's on the days when I don't let myself have a "free for all" (which has happened WAY too frequently).
So if I hadn't been logging as accurately as I can, I might stomp my foot with frustration and say, "Wah, why am I not losing weight? I'm eating salads and running a lot!" (And as for the secret eating, what my coworkers who see me eating salads and healthy food at work do not know is that I love my red wine and I love Asian take away food, and my weekends can be a disaster sometimes). So all that being said, my guess is that the 300 pound active person is still somehow eating way more than she thinks she is.0 -
Yep, I'm betting if you strapped a heartrate monitor on your son, that he is burning all those calories. I have a Bodymedia and so does a young male friend of mine. He eats 4,000 calories a day and maintains a very lean physique, never gains an ounce. Never goes to the gym or does any formal exercise either. But he never sits still and is burning a crap ton of activity just in everyday life. To an outsider who does not know him, he would be one of those skinny people who are defying all the rules, but really, he's not.I'm not going to get into the scientific part of this discussion, but I will say these "variables" to why one person is skinny and another is not...is not always obvious to the naked eye.
At my heaviest, I was 240 and never was one to binge or eat tons of food. I was eating tons of carbs back then, and have since found out I am extremely sensitive to carbs(pre diabetic). It's taken me a year+ and still haven't broken the 200 mark. I'm sedentary (desk job) and back problems have kept me from jumping on the exercise wagon. I eat at a deficit more often than not, but fat doesn't fall off of me easily.
My son (yes he's 15, but) has to eat like 4,000 cals/day to maintain his weight. Otherwise he looks malnourished! Obviously got his dad's skinny gene (also eats whatever and stays lean). I've actually tracked his intake on a weekend, and watched him lose weight eating 4,000+ calories.
One thing I've noticed about our differences though, is my son and ex both are type-A hyper active and always seem uptight. My son cannot sit still...even when he's sitting, he's twitching, squirming, kicking a foot, jumping up and pacing around, etc.
Me? I am more zen-type personality, and don't budge a muscle sometimes when I sit down to relax. I think some people just naturally burn more calories being themselves, because of those minuscule variables and movements. The science is there, but you don't see it because you don't realize how many times skinny girl twitches those muscles and burns a few extra cals that the fat friend didn't. Maybe fat friend is insulin resistant and doesn't know it. I can maintain weight at 1400 cals/day if my carbs get too high... or I can lose weight on same cals when I reduce carbs/sugar.
I still think the cals in/out work...but I think it's more complicated than just how much you see them eat or how often you think they are active.0 -
I think my IQ just dropped about 20 points in the last 30 minutes...0
-
hmm googles "calories in calories out flawed" is in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts stated that clearly explains why this doesn't apply or work 100% of the time.
As it has been pointed out, if you damage your metabolism you may need a different amount of calories, therefore it doesn't work because you could think you need one amount but you could not be losing because of a damaged metabolism. 100% would be if their were ZERO variables, but since there are tons, its not black and white, the body is not a simple machine, people do not burn the same and it doesn't always work this simply.
Google 'aliens abducted me' and be in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts that clearly explain... oh wait. That would be dumb to think a google search proves anything.
Um, are you saying aliens don't abduct people? Because my sister in law was abducted and I used to live with her and I know it happened because we lived together.
My bad, if you lived with her and she claimed to be abducted, I stand corrected. Aliens abduct people, calories exist but don't exist (depending on how it fits with my argument at the time) and unicorns stole my cupcakes because I live with my cupcakes and they didn't haves sprinkles on them this morning but they do now.
Google unicorns and cupcakes and you'll be a believer too!
LOL. Put the calorie in a box. Schrodinger's calorie. Maybe it's there, maybe it's not. MEH!0 -
hmm googles "calories in calories out flawed" is in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts stated that clearly explains why this doesn't apply or work 100% of the time.
As it has been pointed out, if you damage your metabolism you may need a different amount of calories, therefore it doesn't work because you could think you need one amount but you could not be losing because of a damaged metabolism. 100% would be if their were ZERO variables, but since there are tons, its not black and white, the body is not a simple machine, people do not burn the same and it doesn't always work this simply.
Google 'aliens abducted me' and be in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts that clearly explain... oh wait. That would be dumb to think a google search proves anything.
Um, are you saying aliens don't abduct people? Because my sister in law was abducted and I used to live with her and I know it happened because we lived together.
My bad, if you lived with her and she claimed to be abducted, I stand corrected. Aliens abduct people, calories exist but don't exist (depending on how it fits with my argument at the time) and unicorns stole my cupcakes because I live with my cupcakes and they didn't haves sprinkles on them this morning but they do now.
Google unicorns and cupcakes and you'll be a believer too!
LOL. Put the calorie in a box. Schrodinger's calorie. Maybe it's there, maybe it's not. MEH!
You win the internet today
of course you also fail as science is not allowed in this thread :happy:0 -
I predict a the evils of sugar diatribe coming next... perhaps with a youtube link.No one said all of science in the whole world doesn't work. Hive mind sheep do think alike. As it was said. You people are lemmings. You all believe everything you nurtionalists and the mainstream health departments have told you. Thats why you believe this garbage. Its not science, its in place to sell diet food and products. But you can keep being naive to it
So, we're at the big conspiracy stage, now are we? So, this begs the question; what diet food is being advanced by calories in vs calories out, again? Which products? Seriously, who stands to gain from "no specific foods make you fat. No specific exercise product will make you not fat. Products which say they will help you lose weight without diet or excersice is a pile of crap"?
I'll take that bet. 5 dollars says it goes back to a general "whole foods" rant.0 -
Science makes me angry. It has too many calories that aren't calories. I need a cuddle with grumpy cat.
:happy:0 -
hmm googles "calories in calories out flawed" is in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts stated that clearly explains why this doesn't apply or work 100% of the time.
As it has been pointed out, if you damage your metabolism you may need a different amount of calories, therefore it doesn't work because you could think you need one amount but you could not be losing because of a damaged metabolism. 100% would be if their were ZERO variables, but since there are tons, its not black and white, the body is not a simple machine, people do not burn the same and it doesn't always work this simply.
Google 'aliens abducted me' and be in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts that clearly explain... oh wait. That would be dumb to think a google search proves anything.
Um, are you saying aliens don't abduct people? Because my sister in law was abducted and I used to live with her and I know it happened because we lived together.
My bad, if you lived with her and she claimed to be abducted, I stand corrected. Aliens abduct people, calories exist but don't exist (depending on how it fits with my argument at the time) and unicorns stole my cupcakes because I live with my cupcakes and they didn't haves sprinkles on them this morning but they do now.
Google unicorns and cupcakes and you'll be a believer too!
LOL. Put the calorie in a box. Schrodinger's calorie. Maybe it's there, maybe it's not. MEH!
You win the internet today
of course you also fail as science is not allowed in this thread :happy:
I think The Rock would support Rock Solid Science. If The Rock wants tp bring science into it... are you really gonna try to stop him?0 -
Hmm... yeah, could be.I predict a the evils of sugar diatribe coming next... perhaps with a youtube link.
I'll take that bet. 5 dollars says it goes back to a general "whole foods" rant.
0 -
Well since I have seen it over and over again first hand I will accept it.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....
A good place to start would be in not accepting that "fact".
If you take in more calories than you burn, then you store it.
If you burn more calories than you take in, then you burn what you had previously stored.
So you know for a fact exactly how many calories 300lb girl was consuming vs burning? and exactly how many calories skinny girl was burning vs consuming? Really?
Yes these are people I know very well.
are these "salads" covered in mayo and cheese? lol
...but logged as "Lite Dressing - 1 Tsp" and "Shredded cheese - 1/4 serving".0 -
You know what, screw it. OP, you are totally right. Calories in vs calorie out totally isn't right. Your weight is actually determined by Renenet, the ancient Egyptian god of harvest and nourishment. She writes down (in hieroglyphics, with bad handwriting, in cypher) what you will weigh every single day. Whatever you eat has precisely jack squat to do with what you weight. Trying to screw with Renenet's decrees will always fail. Always.
Now that we've made OP feel better about whatever they were on about, let's turn our attention to any lurkers or googlers who may have stumbled upon this thread. Now, silent folks, you may have noticed that pretty much everyone disagrees with the OPs disbelief in calories in vs calories out. Contrary to what some more displeased members of the site would lead you to believe, this isn't because MFP is some cruel hive mind hell bent on making people feel stupid for the lulz. It is because calorie in vs calorie out is the most fundamental point to weight lose, weight maintenance, and weight gain.
Now, you may be wondering about things like hormonal resistances and metabolic rates and whatever it is you kooky kids have come up with with all your sciencings that might affect your weight loss rate. Surely those count, right? Of course they do, dear shy ones, of course they do. However, what they are is a modifier on our core cal in vs cal out equation. Please take note that c in vs c out is always listed as a comparison of variables, not of absolute figures. This is to account for the many, many differences between different people. So when someone tells you it's all about how much you vs how much you burn, they aren't dismissing any metabolic concerns you may have. They are pointing out that those concerns don't change hwat you have to do to lose, gain, or maintain weight; eta less/ as much/ more than what you use up by existing and doing whatever it is you do. You just may have been hit with a condition or (sadly for you) a set of conditions that results in you needing to eat even less than someone else to lose weight, even of your the same height, weight, gender, age, and activity level.
To determine if this is required of you, if life decided to be a bit mean to you on this, track what you eat. No eyeballing, now. No "forgetting" to write it down, we both know you didn't forget, now did you? Of course not. Keep accurate track of all of that. Now, and this is a bit trickier, but make your best effort, track your activity level. Do this for about a month. Now compare the two. What do the numbers predict will happen? What actually happened? If the numbers said you'd lose more than you did by a significant amount, eat less, or up your activity level. Repeat until the numbers are within about 2% or so of each other. If you had to do this a lot, see a doctor, because you really shouldn't need to do that so much, and that could indicate a medical problem.
Clearly. I personally eat a deficit, that is how I lose weight, DUH. But what I was saying was this doesn't work for everyone, possibly because of health problems they dont even know they had.
It does work for everyone, because "calories in/calories out" (meaning calories taken in are either burned, expelled, or stored) is not just science, it's a truism, unless you think there are people whose bodies don't run on energy. Obviously there are variations in how different bodies burn, expel, and store energy at different times. It's a real pain that every year as a I get older I'm like to burn marginally fewer at-rest calories. If I get the flu or diarrhea, I may expel food without extracting the full caloric value. And of course online calculator, which rely on user-supplied data and only offer four or five specific points for activity level factors when common sense indicates that it's an analog scale and the vast majority of people will fall between predetermined points, are not going to be closer than the general ballpark, if that, in determining your TDEE or TDEE before exercise, as MFP does. It's a starting point. Measure, track, and over time you can maybe do the math yourself based on calories consumed and weight gained or lost to figure out your maintenance level, but even that is only going to be an estimate, because pretty much all of your exercise burns are estimates and unless you only eat food you've prepared yourself from whole foods, some of your calories consumed will be estimated. The fact that we have to rely on less-than-perfect data doesn't make the underlying equation that we're plugging the data into wrong.
Your body doesn't manufacture calories out of nowhere, nor does it whisk it them into nonexistence.
Obviously there are variations in how different bodies burn, expel, and store energy at different times.
^^ Meaning it is not 100% accurate.0 -
Yep, that's how straw man arguments work. Don't be mad because I actually help people with correct information. Hatin' on me just shows your maturity level.
Nah. I flex in the mirror and look at all the success my clients have and have much gratitude to science for getting it. Science helped me to help them. How are you helping your friends? That working out okay?
And you are still in denial about the fact that you are not right.
Gravity is a theory. Just sayin'.Yes aliens, vampires, big foot, I believe everything I read on the internet. I even believe all the scientific THEORIES, i hear that are not proven as fact. Just as crazy....
You're unconvinced. We get it. You're wrong, but we get it.
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
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
Ahh I get it. You come on a calorie counter website to reiterate that same brainwashed advices you learned at institution? Ahh college learned personal trainer. hahahahah. You are spoon fed false information to reiterate back to people. Your education is a joke.
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
Spoon fed, inaccurate information? Oh ok0 -
Obviously there are variations in how different bodies burn, expel, and store energy at different times.
^^ Meaning it is not 100% accurate.
Except (and accept) that it is absolutely, irrefutably, 100% accurate that... if in deficit the body burns what is stored and... if in surplus it stores what isn't burned.
Overall your statements appeared to most, if not everyone, to be arguing against these basic facts.0 -
Basic facts that do not apply to every body typeObviously there are variations in how different bodies burn, expel, and store energy at different times.
^^ Meaning it is not 100% accurate.
Except (and accept) that it is absolutely, irrefutably, 100% accurate that... if in deficit the body burns what is stored and... if in surplus it stores what isn't burned.
Overall your statements appeared to most, if not everyone, to be arguing against these basic facts.0 -
Basic facts that do not apply to every body typeObviously there are variations in how different bodies burn, expel, and store energy at different times.
^^ Meaning it is not 100% accurate.
Except (and accept) that it is absolutely, irrefutably, 100% accurate that... if in deficit the body burns what is stored and... if in surplus it stores what isn't burned.
Overall your statements appeared to most, if not everyone, to be arguing against these basic facts.
Can you name one "body type" that does not burn fat stores when in a caloric deficit?
Can you name one "body type" that does not store fat or build muscle when in a caloric surplus?0 -
Then I doubt we have anything more to say to you.
Enjoy your "facts" :noway:
We need a "Like" button on MFP!0 -
Just want to say.. Sorry if this has already been suggested too.. Has your friend had her thyroid checked? Sometimes this can be the cause of metabolism being slow or too fast and can cause little or a lot of weight gain.0
-
OP still has not told us the math.
The height of these people, how many calories a day they eat, everything they do all day that is burning calories. In lauding those NEAT things, which it am just learning about. My husband kicks and twitches his legs all day.,the crazy foot shake thing. Even when he sleeps. I read that adds to his calorie burn some.
Do these friends of the OP wear heart rate monitors? Do they weigh every morsel of food on a scale, is the OP in every room, car, bathroom, hallway with them every day recording every calorie that goes in and out?
Where are the numbers?
Just as OP has decided not to believe the math presented by those that say "calories in calories out." I won't be buying what OP says because I am not seeing actually documented math. That is one of the joys and freedoms of human life though, believing what we want, right?
Maybe that was not the point of the original post person anyway.
What was the original point?0 -
What was the original point?
They are right, we are wrong, science doesn't work unless it supports OP's opinions, etc. At least that is what I took away from it.0 -
What was the original point?
They are right, we are wrong, science doesn't work unless it supports OP's opinions, etc. At least that is what I took away from it.
Also, we are all special snowflakes, and weight loss defies all human understanding. Maybe, that was just implied.0 -
What was the original point?
They are right, we are wrong, science doesn't work unless it supports OP's opinions, etc. At least that is what I took away from it.
Also, we are all special snowflakes, and weight loss defies all human understanding. Maybe, that was just implied.
Ah yes. I see it now. They should have just written it like that.0 -
C'mon, guys, don't feed the trolls.
But if you do feed them, DAAAAAAYMN is it ever funny! I wasted a significant portion of my day reading all 10 pages. I couldn't put it down. It's too hilarious!
For me, the highlight was on Page 6. Silenceinspace's TL;DR.
Made me spit coffee on my monitor. Not exaggerating.
But set a good example for your kids. Don't feed the trolls.0 -
C'mon, guys, don't feed the trolls.
But if you do feed them, DAAAAAAYMN is it ever funny! I wasted a significant portion of my day reading all 10 pages. I couldn't put it down. It's too hilarious!
For me, the highlight was on Page 6. Silenceinspace's TL;DR.
Made me spit coffee on my monitor. Not exaggerating.
But set a good example for your kids. Don't feed the trolls.
I think that's only after midnight...0 -
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 nutrition0 -
And the human body does not (cannot) burn calories.What was the original point?
They are right, we are wrong, science doesn't work unless it supports OP's opinions, etc. At least that is what I took away from it.
Also, we are all special snowflakes, and weight loss defies all human understanding. Maybe, that was just implied.0 -
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 nutrition0 -
It could be many things. Thyroid is the first thing that comes to mind for someone who seems to do everything right and still can't lose. also, although the skinny girl may be able to eat what she wants, she's not healthy if she's eating fast food EVERYDAY and eating 4000+ calories.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