Calories in calories out
Replies
-
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.
You are not omnipotent. Unless you are weighing all their food and then watching them all day as they eat and making sure that they are not eating anything extra (or anything less in the case of the skinny people), then you can't possibly know.
You mentioned the nurse, you honestly want us to believe that you were around her 24/7? She ate enough to maintain her weight, end of story.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES! You do no one, not your family and not yourself, any good by trying to convince the world that they're fat simply because they breath air.
They ate at a surplus, maybe only a slight surplus of 100 calories a day for years, but enough to keep that weight and not lose it. The skinny girls are light because they only ate at maintenance levels.
And in my case that was a LOT because my maintenance levels while skinny had to support 3 hours of jumping on fridays plus 1 hour of cheer each day plus walking to and from school, plus swimming as recreation, plus bike riding and etc. So when people asked if I did aerobics to stay thin while watching me kill a milkshake, famous star with cheese and fries and I said "no" they might have gotten the mistaken impression that I did "nothing" ate "crap" and still stayed thin. When in actuality I had very high activity levels that very few people saw.
Yes maybe people who were never around you didn't know about all your hobbies like cheer? Sorry I know the people I have lived with in the past or were friends with.
You must have been reaaaalllly close to these people and spent an awful lot of time with them to know everything they ate.
I bet they carried you around like
and you shared a bed like
and you showered together and kept a careful log of all the foods she ate and possibly on trips you guys were like
hmm you people act like you have never lived with family lol..These pictures were pretty lame
OOOOOHHHH! Guys, that's it! That's it! This is family, so she feels defensive.
0 -
Problem: Our Bodies Don’t Use “Calories"
You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates.Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work.
Is it hard to understand lol
Erm...how is it (do you surmise) that your body manages to stay at approximately 98.6 degrees F? Or how is that your body has the ability to walk about and post (idiotic) statements on the internet? Calories being burned providing heat and mechanical energy.
Taaaa Daaaa!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.
That is not what 'Doesn't work' means.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.
Uh. This is still calories in/calories out. If you have a "damaged metabolism" and still eat less than your (lower than usual) TDEE, you're still going to lose weight.0 -
Google fu isn't actual research. It's searching for answers you want to hear..........Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages.
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
And there is tons of scientific information on why this doesn't work
Can you post some of it? You can start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed0 -
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.
You are not omnipotent. Unless you are weighing all their food and then watching them all day as they eat and making sure that they are not eating anything extra (or anything less in the case of the skinny people), then you can't possibly know.
You mentioned the nurse, you honestly want us to believe that you were around her 24/7? She ate enough to maintain her weight, end of story.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES! You do no one, not your family and not yourself, any good by trying to convince the world that they're fat simply because they breath air.
They ate at a surplus, maybe only a slight surplus of 100 calories a day for years, but enough to keep that weight and not lose it. The skinny girls are light because they only ate at maintenance levels.
And in my case that was a LOT because my maintenance levels while skinny had to support 3 hours of jumping on fridays plus 1 hour of cheer each day plus walking to and from school, plus swimming as recreation, plus bike riding and etc. So when people asked if I did aerobics to stay thin while watching me kill a milkshake, famous star with cheese and fries and I said "no" they might have gotten the mistaken impression that I did "nothing" ate "crap" and still stayed thin. When in actuality I had very high activity levels that very few people saw.
Yes maybe people who were never around you didn't know about all your hobbies like cheer? Sorry I know the people I have lived with in the past or were friends with.
You must have been reaaaalllly close to these people and spent an awful lot of time with them to know everything they ate.
I bet they carried you around like
and you shared a bed like
and you showered together and kept a careful log of all the foods she ate and possibly on trips you guys were like
y u no put pic of "shower together" :sadface:?0 -
Google fu isn't actual research. It's searching for answers you want to hear..........Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages.
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
And there is tons of scientific information on why this doesn't work
Can you post some of it? You can start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
tons of things have been posted. Google is your friend. Do the work..I know its hard0 -
There sure are a lot of very successful people on here who say "calories in/calories out" does work. I must just be in denial...0
-
Google fu isn't actual research. It's searching for answers you want to hear..........Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages.
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
And there is tons of scientific information on why this doesn't work
Can you post some of it? You can start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
tons of things have been posted. Google is your friend. Do the work..I know its hard
You are the one making the claims, not me. The burden of proof is on you, I fear.0 -
Calorie 101 and why its not 100%
What Is A “Calorie”, Anyway?
The dietary calorie is defined as “the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Kelvin.”
Problem: Our Bodies Don’t Use “Calories"
You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates.Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work.
Why “Calories In, Calories Out” Is A Radical Oversimplification
The fate of a “calorie” of food depends completely on its specific molecular composition, the composition of the foods accompanying it, and how those molecules interact with our current metabolic and nutritional state.
The fact is that different foods can have vastly different effects on our bodies and go through different metabolic pathways before they’re turned into energy
Just focusing on the calorie content of foods and disregarding the metabolic effects they have is a highly flawed way of thinking.
Still not a study. I'm waiting for the non editorial version of information that created your basic understanding of calories in vs calories out.
Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages. Do the work yourself. I provided you with articles and studies, you can continue to be in denial and call it something else. Its all over the internet, studies, as well as easy to understand science as to why it doesn't work 100%. If you cant understand it, its not my job to help you further.
Why would I google that phrase unless I was looking for self selected propaganda?
And don't worry about me. I understand what's going on here. I like to rely on science and you like to rely on anecdotal (and flawed) evidence.
All you need to know in order for you and your family/friends to suddenly become successful weight losers:
1. Accurately and honestly track calorie intake.
2. Accurately and honestly track activity levels.
3. Profit in the form of success.
Do this and you no longer need to vehemently protect your current excuse.0 -
Yes maybe people who were never around you didn't know about all your hobbies like cheer? Sorry I know the people I have lived with in the past or were friends with.
You must have been reaaaalllly close to these people and spent an awful lot of time with them to know everything they ate.
I bet they carried you around like
and you shared a bed like
and you showered together and kept a careful log of all the foods she ate and possibly on trips you guys were like
hmm you people act like you have never lived with family lol..These pictures were pretty lame
OOOOOHHHH! Guys, that's it! That's it! This is family, so she feels defensive.
What? This is that stupid thing you people do where you pretend to be cute and just post random stupid picture because you think its funny? You know what I think is funny? The fact that the chit chat forum looks like eharmony, how pathetic is this site?
To be honest, yes! I do think this is funny. That Spiderman GIF cracked me up. Your denial is laughable, to be honest--can't even be mad when people can't face scientific facts. I've never been on eHarmony so I wouldn't know what the forums look like, sorry.0 -
For the longest time I would have argued this very point. I would have said, "But I don't eat much," and bring up the fact that people who eat more than me weigh less. The truth was I didn't think I ate that much. Because of stress, I didn't eat more than one small meal a day. However, I was a snacker. I even referred to it as 'nibbling.' It wasn't until I really got honest with myself and counted the calories from all of my snacks that I realized I was overweight because of the way I had been eating.
I spent around 10 years struggling with my weight and blaming anything and everything on my problems. When I finally accepted that it was all about the decisions I made for myself, I was able to start getting that problem under control.
Have I seen people that seem like they can eat anything and not gain a pound? Absolutely, but the simple truth is that I have no idea of what they are really eating and doing. Besides, even in they are somehow inexplicably 'lucky,' it doesn't change how things work for me. There are medical conditions that can impact weight loss. I personally have to account for calories I never eat, but the simplistic idea of calories in/calories certainly has proven true for me.0 -
A significant amount of energy from food intake leaves the body as metabolic waste (faces, urine, sweat, breath, etc.) It seems that even today, the majority of people involved in the research, prevention and treatment of obesity are not aware of this fact.
Scientists working on obesity have mistaken the human body with the mechanical engine driven by internal combustion.
Weight loss treatments involving dieting, increased physical activity, diet pills and weight loss -bariatric surgeries were invented when obesity scientists believed that every single calorie in food intake, if not spent, will be converted into fat mass and stored in fat tissue. This belief was in line with the anabolism and catabolism theory.
It is embarrassing as it is unbelievable that for nearly a century long, generations of people involved in the research, treatment and prevention of obesity didn’t know that a significant amount of energy from food intake leaves the body as metabolic waste. In other words, they do not know that the human body excretes calories.0 -
You dont have to accept what I have already seen and know as fact. That is not the point of this topic. This does happen, calories in calories out is not 100% a 300 pound person can easily not eat to much, NOT hide what they are eating and still not lose weight. Just like a girl can be 110 pounds and eat tons of crap and not gain. I have plenty of thin friends who dont work out, eat tons of crap and dont gain. Actually, my step sister drinks like 2200 calories plus of beer a day, sits on her computer playing slots and cards, never leaves her house and weighs 125 pounds at like 5'10. She cant even gain weight if she tried, so yes this does happen everyday all around us.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....
This is what is referred to as a straw man argument (Aunt Sally for those in the UK). If the basis of your argument is a fallacy to start with, how can any debate after be anything less than drivel.
We do not accept the fact that there are super skinny girls that can eat whatever they want unless whatever they want just happens to be always within their caloric limit for maintaining weight. The 300 lb man and overweight nurse are eating more calories than what needs to be eaten to maintain a healthy weight.
They are eating too much. Trying to prove otherwise (medical conditions excluded) is just creating an excuse of eating at a surplus. Those sorts of excuses only help people give up instead of trying to actually solve the problem of being overweight.
The real problem, is how when someone isn't seeing results people on these bored automatically tell them its all THEIR fault, they MUST being doing something wrong. They dont consider they could be doing everything right and that it just doesn't work for some people? Like it has been stated if your metabolism is damaged you might have to eat a lower deficit then suggested through these websites.
You're thinking of it backwards in my opinion. Rather than thinking that there are people who are in an energy deficit and not losing weight, I would think of it that they are not losing weight and therefore they are not in an energy deficit. Change in body mass (excluding fluids) indicates overall state of energy balance.
Additionally, for perspective sake, I use a food scale and I measure and track things to the best of my ability. Even with these habits in play, there's a fair amount of error in estimation of both energy intake and energy output. The fact that you are claiming to know what someone else consumes for energy intake, unless you're weighing and measuring their food (which you aren't), and logging what they eat (which you aren't) then you're really not determining what their intake is.
Additionally, I think there's merit in the idea that people have varying levels of non exercise activity thermogenesis. You're not strapping an HRM to the "friends you observe" or trying to tightly monitor their energy output, so you can't make much of any conclusions about that either.
In short, while your observations about people being generally junk food eaters or generally "lazy" might be valid, they don't say ANYTHING about a thermodynamic model because you're not doing ANYTHING to account for those variables. You are watching and formulating an opinion that the calorie model must not work because of what you are seeing.
Yet to my knowledge, every time we stick someone in a metabolic ward and tightly control the variables, energy deficits cause a decrease in body mass. Because science.
Unless you go to a doctor anyways to get your real levels checked none of these tdee, bmr crap on these sites is even 100% correct
Even if you DO go to a doctor there are still all kinds of sources of error. They are all estimations. But this doesn't invalidate the thermodynamic model. It makes it more complicated and less linear, but it doesn't make it invalid.
Its not invalid it just doesn't work 100% for everyone
I have yet to see a documented example of it not working when variables are tightly controlled. I'm genuinely interested in cases if anyone has them.
Since the variables are not often tightly controlled when it comes to different people it doesn't really matter if it works on the specific controlled group.
It would matter if you could find examples in a tightly controlled setting where it doesn't work because it would validate your claims.
Well a controlled setting with healthy people isn't reality. You can find anything on the internet saying anything is good. Articles are constantly contradicting each other, so where are your studies?
Hold it, I thought you already decided that anecdotal evidence in circumstances where there's no attempt at actual measurement of calories consumed and calories expended trump "tightly controlled studies" because (if I'm understanding your "reasoning") real people don't live in tightly controlled studies, so why would you care about studies anyway?0 -
For the longest time I would have argued this very point. I would have said, "But I don't eat much," and bring up the fact that people who eat more than me weigh less. The truth was I didn't think I ate that much. Because of stress, I didn't eat more than one small meal a day. However, I was a snacker. I even referred to it as 'nibbling.' It wasn't until I really got honest with myself and counted the calories from all of my snacks that I realized I was overweight because of the way I had been eating.
I spent around 10 years struggling with my weight and blaming anything and everything on my problems. When I finally accepted that it was all about the decisions I made for myself, I was able to start getting that problem under control.
Have I seen people that seem like they can eat anything and not gain a pound? Absolutely, but the simple truth is that I have no idea of what they are really eating and doing. Besides, even in they are somehow inexplicably 'lucky,' it doesn't change how things work for me. There are medical conditions that can impact weight loss. I personally have to account for calories I never eat, but the simplistic idea of calories in/calories certainly has proven true for me.
I am losing weight. This isn't reflecting my own weight loss story.0 -
I'm peacing out of this thread, guys.
Rawfoodsho, you cannot prove anything because you're trying to substantiate a claim that isn't true.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.
Do you not realize that you are agreeing with calories in/out in 1 sentence then disagreeing with it in the next sentence, after posting that calories don't exist?0 -
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.
You are not omnipotent. Unless you are weighing all their food and then watching them all day as they eat and making sure that they are not eating anything extra (or anything less in the case of the skinny people), then you can't possibly know.
You mentioned the nurse, you honestly want us to believe that you were around her 24/7? She ate enough to maintain her weight, end of story.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES! You do no one, not your family and not yourself, any good by trying to convince the world that they're fat simply because they breath air.
They ate at a surplus, maybe only a slight surplus of 100 calories a day for years, but enough to keep that weight and not lose it. The skinny girls are light because they only ate at maintenance levels.
And in my case that was a LOT because my maintenance levels while skinny had to support 3 hours of jumping on fridays plus 1 hour of cheer each day plus walking to and from school, plus swimming as recreation, plus bike riding and etc. So when people asked if I did aerobics to stay thin while watching me kill a milkshake, famous star with cheese and fries and I said "no" they might have gotten the mistaken impression that I did "nothing" ate "crap" and still stayed thin. When in actuality I had very high activity levels that very few people saw.
Yes maybe people who were never around you didn't know about all your hobbies like cheer? Sorry I know the people I have lived with in the past or were friends with.
You must have been reaaaalllly close to these people and spent an awful lot of time with them to know everything they ate.
I bet they carried you around like
and you shared a bed like
and you showered together and kept a careful log of all the foods she ate and possibly on trips you guys were like
hmm you people act like you have never lived with family lol..These pictures were pretty lame
OOOOOHHHH! Guys, that's it! That's it! This is family, so she feels defensive.
http://i.minus.com/ibdPhjvOBSHo7f.gif
What? This is that stupid thing you people do where you pretend to be cute and just post random stupid picture because you think its funny? You know what I think is funny? The fact that the chit chat forum looks like eharmony, how pathetic is this site?
So to recap you are angry with...
calories in calories out
thermodynamics
skinny beer guzzling relatives who weigh very little
this website
is that all? Did I miss one?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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions