What's your view on calories in vs calories out theory?

nygr8guy

I've always believed that weight loss or weight gain is based upon the simple fact of calories in vs. calories out.
Someone told me that's nonsense and I should listen to this podcast on iTunes:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/smarter-science-slim-vs.-calorie/id541602331
The Podcast with Sam Feltham: Eating 5000 calories & busting Myths is the episode I am referring to.

People on this podcast believe it's what you eat that matters and it doesn't matter how much of it you are eating.
It almost sounds identical to the Atkins way of thinking.
Someone on the podcast did a test and consumed over 5000 calories for a week of non processed foods full of fat including meats, nuts, and then did another test by consuming over 5000 calories for a week consisting of carbs, processed foods 0% fat yogurt, etc.
The fat laden diet he gained a pound but lost over an inch on his waist, and the 5000 calorie carb laden diet he gained 16 pounds and inches around the middle.
His point was it's not how many calories you eat, it's what you eat. I just can't believe this is true. I know when I diet eating less carbs, my weight loss is faster and I lose water more quickly.
My macros for the week were approximately Fat=11.6%, 27.7% Protein, and 60.6% carbs. My carbs are essentially healthy carbs like fruits and vegetables. Am I eating too many carbs? I'm consistently going over my carb goals.
What are your thoughts on this?

cherrybomb526

I think that theory is true, to an extent. If I ate 15 chicken breasts in a day, I would most certainly not feel healthy. However, I eat a high-fat, low-carb diet and find that what I WANT to eat is consistently under my caloric goal. For me, it's not so much that I eat low-carb because that means I can eat more, but that I feel fuller and more energetic longer if I've been loading up on avocado, coconut oil, full-fat yogurt, and steak. But my goal is different--I'm not trying to be "low-carb," I'm trying to eat a minimally processed diet, which means cutting out cereals, bread, and so on. Which leads me to eat more meat, veg, fruit, and simple carbs like quinoa and farrow. I'm eating to support my strength and fitness goals, which means less crap, more FOOD! If it seems like there's no way you could ever give up processed carbs, that means you're addicted The longer I went eating high-fat, high-protein, the less I crave sugars and starches.

I don't think calories in and calories out is nonsense. I think both of these views are compatible, in that eating a high-fat, high-protein, low-carb diet makes it easier to fall within my goal caloric range.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

_jayciemarie_

I believe there are several ways to lose weight. Liquid diets to atkins and even starving yourself. I believe calories in vs calories out is the healthiest; however, you can't eat 1200 calories in candy canes. Our bodies need nutrition. Just like you wouldn't eat 1200 calories of candy canes, I don't feel it is right to eat 1200 calories of protein. We need a healthy mix.

Ainar

Well first of all I refuse to believe a single random person who supposedly did a test on himself. Without controlled environment and professional people who check him, without specific recorded data. I bet he did not recorded how much of all of that was water weight, fat, how much was daily calories burned from exercise, how high was his metabolism, did he took any specific medications, etc. If we even assume he simply does not talk pure nonsense and even did the test in first place. This is not how studies are made. All the legit research I trust shows that it is indeed all about calories in vs calories out. There have been made some researches to prove otherwise but non of them succeeded to do so. So I don't think it's even right to call it "calories in vs calories out theory" cos it is not just a "theory", we have a scientific proof of that.

That beings said, of course things like hormones and how much energy is necessary to digest some type of foods is a factor. And person with health some problems or hormonal differences might not lose weight whatever he does, or might lose more. But in that case it isn't only about calories in vs calories out, is it? It's completely different discussion...

livingleanlivingclean

I've always believed that weight loss or weight gain is based upon the simple fact of calories in vs. calories out.
Someone told me that's nonsense and I should listen to this podcast on iTunes:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/smarter-science-slim-vs.-calorie/id541602331
The Podcast with Sam Feltham: Eating 5000 calories & busting Myths is the episode I am referring to.

People on this podcast believe it's what you eat that matters and it doesn't matter how much of it you are eating.
It almost sounds identical to the Atkins way of thinking.
Someone on the podcast did a test and consumed over 5000 calories for a week of non processed foods full of fat including meats, nuts, and then did another test by consuming over 5000 calories for a week consisting of carbs, processed foods 0% fat yogurt, etc.
The fat laden diet he gained a pound but lost over an inch on his waist, and the 5000 calorie carb laden diet he gained 16 pounds and inches around the middle.
His point was it's not how many calories you eat, it's what you eat. I just can't believe this is true. I know when I diet eating less carbs, my weight loss is faster and I lose water more quickly.
My macros for the week were approximately Fat=11.6%, 27.7% Protein, and 60.6% carbs. My carbs are essentially healthy carbs like fruits and vegetables. Am I eating too many carbs? I'm consistently going over my carb goals.
What are your thoughts on this?

Carbs make you retain water, which would explain why when you lower your consumption you lose water weight.

Your fat intake is unhealthy IMO. Your body needs fat to function - fat is not the enemy!! Swap all of your no/low fat options for regular options, or better yet, buy food without labels and packaging. Incorporate plenty of healthy fats in to your diet every day !

WalkingAlong

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

MeanderingMammal

I've always believed that weight loss or weight gain is based upon the simple fact of calories in vs. calories out.

There is an overwhelming weight of evidence that the law of conservation of energy applies. nobody has found an exception.

Someone told me that's nonsense

They're wrong

michellekicks

It's calories in vs. calories out for weight loss.

But when trying to maximize fat loss while minimizing lean tissue losses, the quality of the calories comes into play.

ninerbuff

I'd like to see the results if done on twins. Same genetics, which is why they are used as comparable test subjects.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Unknown

This content has been removed.

neandermagnon

the laws of thermodynamics are not "a theory" that's why they're called the laws of thermodynamics, not the theory of thermodynamics.

but there is confusion on what exactly "calories in v calories out" means, so I'll clarify:

Some people think that when you say "calories in v calories out" works for everyone, without exception, that it means that you can put anyone's numbers in a calorie calculator, subtract a percentage and they'll lose weight on that number. That is *not* what it means. The calorie calculators will not work for everyone........................ but that does not mean that calories in v calories out isn't true for them.....

.....calories out = the total number of calories your body uses (burns), including everything you do and everything your body does to keep itself alive. Calories in = calories from food that your body uses (or from a drip feed, if that's the case). If these two numbers are equal, you will stay the same weigh (NOT including water weight fluctuations). If more is going out than in, then you'll lose weight. If more is going in than out, you'll gain weight (yes both of those don't include water weight fluctuations either). The weight gained or lost in each case could be fat or muscle, that depends on *how* you lose/gain the weight.

So what about people for whom the calorie calculators don't work? Well the above is still true, but they may have a slow metabolism (which could be due to medical issues) which means that the *calories out* side of the equation is lower than it should be, i.e. the body isn't using as many calories as it should be, and it's much harder to eat little enough to be eating less than you burn off. In this case, it's *not* a good idea to simply eat less and less, you need to fix the metabolic issue, i.e. get the body back to burning the right amount of calories for you. In some cases continuing to eat less and less results in the metabolism slowing even more. So in those people it may be the case that "just eat less than you burn" isn't the best advice, but it does not mean that calories in v calories out isn't true for them. It means that the way to make a deficit is to increase the calories out part of the equation, not to eat less (in some cases that may mean medical intervention, e.g. treatment for hypothyroid).

There are other situations where calories in v calories out may appear not to apply, e.g. if someone has a problem that their gut is not absorbing the food. They could be eating 3000 calories a day, burning just 1800 a day, and still losing weight, but the reason for that is that the calories are not actually going in, the body is not absorbing or using them. In situations like these (which are rare but do happen) the person is just pooping out a lot of the calories they eat, instead of absorbing and using them. If they're losing weight given the numbers I said, they may only be absorbing half of what they eat, i.e. 1500 calories a day, which is less than what they're burning (1800 cals/day) and so they lose weight. BTW if this is the situation you need to see a doctor ASAP as this is a serious medical issue, I just used it as an example of when calories in v calories out may appear to not be true.

So anyway, yes calories in v calories out is a) not just a theory and b) really does work for everyone, but there are various factors that mean that actual weight loss (or weight gain) advice is not so straight forward for everyone as simply putting your numbers in a calculator and eating a percentage less than the number it spits out. Even without medical issues, those calculators are based on averages, so you have to just use them as a starting point and adjust your calorie goal based on real world results. (but if your real world results suggest the calculator is waaaay off, that might be indicative of a medical problem)

johnthomasmoore

Gary Taubes has written extensively on the question and argues against calories in vs calories out. Might want to check out: http://garytaubes.com/

Will_Thrust_For_Candy

It's calories in vs. calories out for weight loss.

But when trying to maximize fat loss while minimizing lean tissue losses, the quality of the calories comes into play.

QFT

neandermagnon

Carbs make you retain water, which would explain why when you lower your consumption you lose water weight.

this is another really important point to address. when discussing calories in v calories out, weight gain from water isn't included, because it's not a change in the mass of the actual tissue (i.e. cells etc) that you have, it's a change in the amount of water present in those tissues, and it also fluctuates quite wildly on a daily basis

the liver can store glycogen (a carb) for a short term energy store. If your glycogen levels are low then carbs that you eat are converted to glycogen. This is stored in the liver along with water, and also in the muscles (also with water). So more glycogen = more water = you get heavier.... but your actual body didn't grow bigger. You don't have more fat or muscle cells or other cells from it. Just some of your cells are storing more water.

If you eat low calorie diets, or low carb diets, your body turns to glycogen to make up the shortfall in calories and/or carbs. This releases water from your cells, so you get lighter. You can lose several pounds of water weight doing this. If you stick with the low carb/very low calorie plan for a while, you wont' store any more glycogen, you'll go on using it until it's all used up. At that point you'll be a few lbs lighter, but you may have issues with low energy levels, difficulty concentrating, crappy workouts (they may feel good to you because you're so tired out by the end, but the amount of actual running/lifting etc you can do will be sub-par and your ability to progress will also be affected), because your body no longer has that short term energy storage.

When you start eating carbs again, your body will start storing glycogen again, and you'll gain weight because your body will be storing water along with that glycogen. Again, you won't be growing any new cells and your fat cells won't be storing more fat. You're just storing more water and you will probably find your energy levels come back to where they should be. You will only grow new muscles cells or start storing more fat in your fat cells when you're eating more than you burn off. Increased glycogen storage can happen even when you're still eating at a deficit when the deficit is smaller than it was before, or you went from low carb to balanced macros. A lot of people freak out at this weight gain and think they're getting fat again, or they're eating at a surplus.... they're not. It's just water/glycogen weight gains, and when your glycogen stores are full, these gains stop and you'll continue losing fat if you're still in a deficit.

So again, while the water weight gains and losses from carb restriction and going back to eating a normal amount of carbs again seem to muddy the waters when it comes to calories in v calories out, the weight gain is from water, not from your body growing in any way (e.g. growing new muscle tissue, or storing more fat in your fat cells, or growing new fat cells - these will not happen unless you're eating more than you burn off)

neandermagnon

Gary Taubes has written extensively on the question and argues against calories in vs calories out. Might want to check out: http://garytaubes.com/

gary taubes is famous for his pseudoscience. try human physiology 101 instead. taught by university professors who have a vested interest in their students learning correct information so they can pass exams on the subject.

TwoPointZero

As far as I can tell, these types of discussions always run into problems in the lay community (i.e., not scientists), frequently due to lack of precision . . . Additionally, the answer is not very straightforward. Here is my understanding, stated as clearly as I can do so:

* With respect to _losing weight only_, the OP is right, all that matters is energy balance, which can be fundamentally stated as

energy storage = energy in - energy out.

That is, if (in - out) is a positive number, your "storage" (weight) will increase, and if (in - out) is negative, your weight will decrease. In this sense, if you want to eat 100% of your calories in chocolate cake a day, you can, and you could still lose weight, if your balance of energy was correct. Note here that "energy out" contains a lot of mechanisms, some of which you don't really have a lot of direct control over, like your metabolism. That being said, it is almost surely the case the the "energy out" term depends (at least in the long run) on what you eat, i.e., if all you ever eat is chocolate cake, that will surely mess with your metabolism . . .

* With respect to _any other outcome_ (e.g., body recomposition, possibility of getting lifestyle diseases like heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers, etc.), the type of calories absolutely matters.


So, what is the answer? I think is is something like the following: in the short run, given that the OP stated "weight loss or weight gain" as the only goal, I think the answer is energy balance is all that matters. However, in the medium to long run, the types of calories also matters, since they start messing with some of the terms in the balance of energy.

ungeneric

People who bring up "the laws of thermodynamics" are not thinking it through enough.

If I eat "3,000 calories" of... stuff... and do "2,000 calories" of... stuff... I'll gain weight, right? THERMODYNAMICS!

...What if I have diarrhea? Some quantity of the food I put into my mouth will come out the other side without full digestion. So I "ate 3,000 calories" and I "burned 2,000 calories", and I didn't gain weight. How did I not violate the laws of thermodynamics? By putting the other 1,000 calories into the toilet. Obviously, people don't normally have diarrhea, but people *do* normally excrete food that is less-than-100% digested.

Okay, that's gross, let's think about something else. Let's say I eat 2,000 calories, and you eat 2,000 calories. We are the same weight, and we do the same activities. At the end of the experiment, we should both be the same weight, right? We started at the same weight, we ate the same calories, we did the same activities. Calories in, calories out! But we don't weigh the same, even after you account for the toilet. What gives?

...Did you check our body temperatures? Hey, you ended up an ounce lighter than I did, and your body temperature is half a degree higher. Where did that heat come from? It came from your calories. Your body maintained a higher temperature than mine, which required it to burn more calories, which left fewer calories to turn into fat. People have natural variations in body temperatures -- not every is 98.6, all the time, every day. THERMODYNAMICS dictates that the heat has to come from somewhere.

And it's not just the differences in our bodies. Not all foods make their calories equally available. If I drank 500 calories of pure sugar-water, my body would absorb that pretty well and I would get pretty close to 500 calories of energy (or fat) out of that. If I swallowed a condom filled with 500 calories of petroleum jelly, I would get pretty close to 0 calories of energy out of that. There's no violation of thermodynamics, here -- as I said before, the missing calories are in the toilet. Some foods are easy for your body to rapidly digest, others may not be fully digested by the time they end up in the toilet.

Thermodynamics doesn't have a thing to do with it.

Acg67

lol Feltham

TwoPointZero

Thermodynamics doesn't have a thing to do with it.

That's absolutely incorrect. One just needs to account for all effects in their energy balance. That is, energy expended by metabolic activty must be added to the "energy out" term, as does energy radiated out via a person's skin, as does energy lost in diarrhea. If one accounts for everything, it will work.

DamePiglet

I like eating what I like and that's working.

I don't think simple weight loss needs to be so overly complicated. I'm not talking about body sculpting, mind you. People who make a career, or even a serious hobby of fitness would probably want/need to be mindful of systematic responses to various foods.

neandermagnon

People who bring up "the laws of thermodynamics" are not thinking it through enough.

If I eat "3,000 calories" of... stuff... and do "2,000 calories" of... stuff... I'll gain weight, right? THERMODYNAMICS!

...What if I have diarrhea? Some quantity of the food I put into my mouth will come out the other side without full digestion. So I "ate 3,000 calories" and I "burned 2,000 calories", and I didn't gain weight. How did I not violate the laws of thermodynamics? By putting the other 1,000 calories into the toilet. Obviously, people don't normally have diarrhea, but people *do* normally excrete food that is less-than-100% digested.

Okay, that's gross, let's think about something else. Let's say I eat 2,000 calories, and you eat 2,000 calories. We are the same weight, and we do the same activities. At the end of the experiment, we should both be the same weight, right? We started at the same weight, we ate the same calories, we did the same activities. Calories in, calories out! But we don't weigh the same, even after you account for the toilet. What gives?

...Did you check our body temperatures? Hey, you ended up an ounce lighter than I did, and your body temperature is half a degree higher. Where did that heat come from? It came from your calories. Your body maintained a higher temperature than mine, which required it to burn more calories, which left fewer calories to turn into fat. People have natural variations in body temperatures -- not every is 98.6, all the time, every day. THERMODYNAMICS dictates that the heat has to come from somewhere.

And it's not just the differences in our bodies. Not all foods make their calories equally available. If I drank 500 calories of pure sugar-water, my body would absorb that pretty well and I would get pretty close to 500 calories of energy (or fat) out of that. If I swallowed a condom filled with 500 calories of petroleum jelly, I would get pretty close to 0 calories of energy out of that. There's no violation of thermodynamics, here -- as I said before, the missing calories are in the toilet. Some foods are easy for your body to rapidly digest, others may not be fully digested by the time they end up in the toilet.

Thermodynamics doesn't have a thing to do with it.

if you;d actually read my post, I discussed several factors that affect calories in v calories out, and clarified that calories in = calories actually used by the body (as opposed to ending up in the toilet as you put it), and calories out can be affected by metabolic factors (e.g. a slower metabolism.... that doesn't mean calories out isn't true, it means the calories out part of the equation is different for some people than others....) body temperature etc... higher body temperature = higher metabolism = more calories out..... calories in v calories out is *still true* more calories are being burned (going out) as heat.... that is all...

the laws of thermodynamics absolutely do matter in biology, as do all the laws of physics. Biological systems do not magically break the laws of physics. Biology works because of chemistry, and chemistry works because of physics.

neandermagnon

Thermodynamics doesn't have a thing to do with it.

That's absolutely incorrect. One just needs to account for all effects in their energy balance. That is, energy expended by metabolic activty must be added to the "energy out" term, as does energy radiated out via a person's skin, as does energy lost in diarrhea. If one accounts for everything, it will work.

^^^^ this

damn you for saying what I was trying to say but much more succinctly :grumble: :drinker: :bigsmile:

ungeneric

If one accounts for everything, it will work.

Sure, and if I exactly model the behavior of every single quantum in a baseball in flight, I can calculate how long it will take that baseball to reach home plate.

Or I could just do a Newtonian equation and get the same answer.

Trying to apply the law of conservation of energy to weight loss is more like the former than the latter. I count calories because I know that as long as I stay within a certain 1,000-calorie band, it is very likely that I am losing weight but not starving myself. I use a very large range because ultimately calorie counting is really imprecise and not very useful without context.

patols1

.

patols1

People who bring up "the laws of thermodynamics" are not thinking it through enough.

If I eat "3,000 calories" of... stuff... and do "2,000 calories" of... stuff... I'll gain weight, right? THERMODYNAMICS!


...Did you check our body temperatures? Hey, you ended up an ounce lighter than I did, and your body temperature is half a degree higher. Where did that heat come from? It came from your calories. Your body maintained a higher temperature than mine, which required it to burn more calories, which left fewer calories to turn into fat. People have natural variations in body temperatures -- not every is 98.6, all the time, every day. THERMODYNAMICS dictates that the heat has to come from somewhere.

.

so you are saying because my body temp is normally 96.7 that my body burns fewer calories than someone whos body temp is 98.6??? just curious. so therefore it will take me longer to lose weight than someone of equal weight and height eating the same deficit?

TwoPointZero

Sure, and if I exactly model the behavior of every single quantum in a baseball in flight, I can calculate how long it will take that baseball to reach home plate.

Or I could just do a Newtonian equation and get the same answer.

That statement is at least arguable, with respect to being a reasonable analogy, if not obviously incorrect . . . But "Thermodynamics doesn't have a thing to do with it" _is_ obviously incorrect. You want to make simplifying assumptions, no problem. But thermodynamics actually has everything to do with it . . .

ungeneric

the laws of thermodynamics absolutely do matter in biology

We're not practicing biology, we *are* biology. Invoking physical laws in the quest for fitness is like telling an engineer he should choose his materials based on their subatomic composition and not on their observed qualities. You bring up "calories used by the body" as if that's even a thing that is within our power to calculate without laboratory equipment. When people talk about "calories in, calories out", they are talking about how much goes in their mouth versus how much they burn each day (due to exercise and BMR). You're turning a practical discussion of weight loss and health into an esoteric discussion of chemistry and physics.

ndj1979

the laws of thermodynamics are not "a theory" that's why they're called the laws of thermodynamics, not the theory of thermodynamics.

but there is confusion on what exactly "calories in v calories out" means, so I'll clarify:

Some people think that when you say "calories in v calories out" works for everyone, without exception, that it means that you can put anyone's numbers in a calorie calculator, subtract a percentage and they'll lose weight on that number. That is *not* what it means. The calorie calculators will not work for everyone........................ but that does not mean that calories in v calories out isn't true for them.....

.....calories out = the total number of calories your body uses (burns), including everything you do and everything your body does to keep itself alive. Calories in = calories from food that your body uses (or from a drip feed, if that's the case). If these two numbers are equal, you will stay the same weigh (NOT including water weight fluctuations). If more is going out than in, then you'll lose weight. If more is going in than out, you'll gain weight (yes both of those don't include water weight fluctuations either). The weight gained or lost in each case could be fat or muscle, that depends on *how* you lose/gain the weight.

So what about people for whom the calorie calculators don't work? Well the above is still true, but they may have a slow metabolism (which could be due to medical issues) which means that the *calories out* side of the equation is lower than it should be, i.e. the body isn't using as many calories as it should be, and it's much harder to eat little enough to be eating less than you burn off. In this case, it's *not* a good idea to simply eat less and less, you need to fix the metabolic issue, i.e. get the body back to burning the right amount of calories for you. In some cases continuing to eat less and less results in the metabolism slowing even more. So in those people it may be the case that "just eat less than you burn" isn't the best advice, but it does not mean that calories in v calories out isn't true for them. It means that the way to make a deficit is to increase the calories out part of the equation, not to eat less (in some cases that may mean medical intervention, e.g. treatment for hypothyroid).

There are other situations where calories in v calories out may appear not to apply, e.g. if someone has a problem that their gut is not absorbing the food. They could be eating 3000 calories a day, burning just 1800 a day, and still losing weight, but the reason for that is that the calories are not actually going in, the body is not absorbing or using them. In situations like these (which are rare but do happen) the person is just pooping out a lot of the calories they eat, instead of absorbing and using them. If they're losing weight given the numbers I said, they may only be absorbing half of what they eat, i.e. 1500 calories a day, which is less than what they're burning (1800 cals/day) and so they lose weight. BTW if this is the situation you need to see a doctor ASAP as this is a serious medical issue, I just used it as an example of when calories in v calories out may appear to not be true.

So anyway, yes calories in v calories out is a) not just a theory and b) really does work for everyone, but there are various factors that mean that actual weight loss (or weight gain) advice is not so straight forward for everyone as simply putting your numbers in a calculator and eating a percentage less than the number it spits out. Even without medical issues, those calculators are based on averages, so you have to just use them as a starting point and adjust your calorie goal based on real world results. (but if your real world results suggest the calculator is waaaay off, that might be indicative of a medical problem)

this times about a million...

TwoPointZero

You bring up "calories used by the body" as if that's even a thing that is within our power to calculate without laboratory equipment. When people talk about "calories in, calories out", they are talking about how much goes in their mouth versus how much they burn each day (due to exercise and BMR). You're turning a practical discussion of weight loss and health into an esoteric discussion of chemistry and physics.

I think that her point (and mine too) is that one needs to understand the theory in order to be able to understand the system, and to be able to make reasonable assumptions, etc, and not necessarily that we should try to proceed from first principles in our everyday lives . . .

ungeneric

That statement is at least arguable, if not obviously incorrect

I am sure you are a very smart and special person, but please do not purport to tell me that classical physics cannot answer the question "how long will it take a baseball to reach home plate". Ballistic scientists put men on the moon and snipers hit targets from kilometers away.

But thermodynamics actually has everything to do with it . . .

You can understand physics while also understanding that you don't have to bring physics into every conversation. If my mother asks me why I love her, I don't start with the electron bonds in oxytocin.