If it is simply calories in and out...

QuietBloom

In for circling the drain.

Achrya

Why do I feel this thread is about to go swirling down the Porcelain Bowl of Pedantry?

Shhh. I'm hoping this goes somewhere.

/popcorn

Matt_Wild

Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:

So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?

Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...

Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?

Yes, it still comes down to calories in/out. It is just how to accurately obtain an accurate caloric requirement that is the issue.

Its not that simple, as in/out then, is it?

For example:

Metabolic rates - Two people, identical height and weight and muscle mass.

Different metabolic rate thro hormone levels. Same calories would result in different weight gains/losses.

If it was simply in/out, you would just need height/weight/age/sex and would be able to say what they need. Indeed, some people are more sensitive to carbs than others, for example and lose fat or gain muscle in a harder/easier manner than others.

QuietBloom

Metabolism for one. Some people plateau because their bodies refuse to lose more- either in starvation mode or some other chemical imbalance. Not everybody burns the same amount of calories; men burn it faster for example. Medication is a big factor. Illness. I kind of wonder if it is simply just calories in and out. I know there was a guy who did a study who ate only junk at under his caloric needs and still lost weight...but I'm not completely convinced. I'm hard pressed to believe someone could eat more than their supposed to in only fruits and veggies and gain weight. I could be wrong though...

Yes, you can over eat and gain weight even on the healthiest of foods. Some fruits are very high in fats and calories, like bananas and avocados.

Men burn more calories because they have (usually) more muscle than women, increasing their basal metabolic rate. Medication can make you feel more hungry, less likely to move around, or retain water. Not change your metabolism.
Starvation mode - sure. But there are not any overweight people I can think that are in danger of starvation mode. The body only starts to REALLY slow things down once most energy resources have been depleted.

Shuuma

We do all lose at the same rate. Some of us just take longer to do it.

PikaKnight

Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:

So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?

Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...

Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?

Yes, it still comes down to calories in/out. It is just how to accurately obtain an accurate caloric requirement that is the issue.

Its not that simple, as in/out then, is it?

For example:

Metabolic rates - Two people, identical height and weight and muscle mass.

Different metabolic rate thro hormone levels. Same calories would result in different weight gains/losses.

If it was simply in/out, you would just need height/weight/age/sex and would be able to say what they need. Indeed, some people are more sensitive to carbs than others, for example and lose fat or gain muscle in a harder/easier manner than others.

But you are asking calories in and out. As I said earlier. Those factors will determine the person's maintenance. Eating below that will cause a drop in weight. What you seem to be arguing or mixing up is the determination of the maintenance calorie amount...not really whether it is simply calories in and out.

LolBroScience

Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:

So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?

Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...

Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?

I think all those things affect the "calories out" component of the equation.

In for repeat.

QuietBloom

Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:

So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?

Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...

Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?

Yes, it still comes down to calories in/out. It is just how to accurately obtain an accurate caloric requirement that is the issue.

Its not that simple, as in/out then, is it?

For example:

Metabolic rates - Two people, identical height and weight and muscle mass.

Different metabolic rate thro hormone levels. Same calories would result in different weight gains/losses.

If it was simply in/out, you would just need height/weight/age/sex and would be able to say what they need. Indeed, some people are more sensitive to carbs than others, for example and lose fat or gain muscle in a harder/easier manner than others.

I find it hard to believe that you would find two people with identical height weight and muscle mass (and of course, same age), that had big differences in their hormone levels. Assuming (of course) that both people got to the the identical weight and muscle mass the same way. Either way, it is STILL calories in, calories out. Perhaps different caloric NEEDS for each individual, but that does nothing to negate calories in, calories out.

Mr_Knight

If it was simply in/out, you would just need height/weight/age/sex...

That's like arguing evolution isn't real because cows don't give birth to goats.

Matt_Wild

But you are asking calories in and out. As I said earlier. Those factors will determine the person's maintenance. Eating below that will cause a drop in weight. What you seem to be arguing or mixing up is the determination of the maintenance calorie amount...not really whether it is simply calories in and out.

Of course dropping below a maintenance level will lose weight.

But its determining this rate. And I see the line "simply calories in/out" that determine weight loss, when it doesn't take into account anything about the person at hand.

These factors effect how many calories are needed.

If it was simply calories in/out at a certain size and weight we would need the same calories.

Its far from as simple as people make out!

PikaKnight

But you are asking calories in and out. As I said earlier. Those factors will determine the person's maintenance. Eating below that will cause a drop in weight. What you seem to be arguing or mixing up is the determination of the maintenance calorie amount...not really whether it is simply calories in and out.

Of course dropping below a maintenance level will lose weight.

But its determining this rate. And I see the line "simply calories in/out" that determine weight loss, when it doesn't take into account anything about the person at hand.

These factors effect how many calories are needed.

If it was simply calories in/out at a certain size and weight we would need the same calories.

Its far from as simple as people make out!

So you are arguing the determination of the amount. How can you argue simply calories in and out when it really is simply calories in and out ONCE you get a handle on your maintenance and therefore on what you should be eating deficit wise?

And is it easy to figure this out? Basically, yes..although it may take time. Setting calorie goals for yourself for 4-8 weeks and recording your intake/weight fluctuations will help you determine these numbers. Or you go the route to getting tested. Either way...all of this does not negate the calories in and out concept. Is it simple? Yes? But why must it be complicated for the concept to still hold true or work?

QuietBloom

But you are asking calories in and out. As I said earlier. Those factors will determine the person's maintenance. Eating below that will cause a drop in weight. What you seem to be arguing or mixing up is the determination of the maintenance calorie amount...not really whether it is simply calories in and out.

Of course dropping below a maintenance level will lose weight.

But its determining this rate. And I see the line "simply calories in/out" that determine weight loss, when it doesn't take into account anything about the person at hand.

These factors effect how many calories are needed.

If it was simply calories in/out at a certain size and weight we would need the same calories.

Its far from as simple as people make out!

Well, this is awkward.

_SABOTEUR_

Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:

So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?

Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...

Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?

Yes, it still comes down to calories in/out. It is just how to accurately obtain an accurate caloric requirement that is the issue.

Its not that simple, as in/out then, is it?

For example:

Metabolic rates - Two people, identical height and weight and muscle mass.

Different metabolic rate thro hormone levels. Same calories would result in different weight gains/losses.

If it was simply in/out, you would just need height/weight/age/sex and would be able to say what they need. Indeed, some people are more sensitive to carbs than others, for example and lose fat or gain muscle in a harder/easier manner than others.

Umm...no.

You're still talking about variables which make them different from each other.

Giving examples of outliers that do not follow the trend is not good science.

QuietBloom

Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:

So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?

Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...

Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?

Yes, it still comes down to calories in/out. It is just how to accurately obtain an accurate caloric requirement that is the issue.

Its not that simple, as in/out then, is it?

For example:

Metabolic rates - Two people, identical height and weight and muscle mass.

Different metabolic rate thro hormone levels. Same calories would result in different weight gains/losses.

If it was simply in/out, you would just need height/weight/age/sex and would be able to say what they need. Indeed, some people are more sensitive to carbs than others, for example and lose fat or gain muscle in a harder/easier manner than others.

Umm...no.

You're still talking about variables which make them different from each other.

Giving examples of outliers that do not follow the trend is not good science.

No, he is just confused. It has nothing to do with outliers or science.

OP, put your thinking cap on please.

Matt24442

jayliospecky

sydneybeachgirl

Why do we not all gain/lose weight at the same rate?

because a calorie is not a calorie...not all calories are created equal. not all human bodies work the same way. there are conditions, illnesses that will slow down your metabolic rate. you can have hormone problems which will make it impossible or very difficult to loose weight. we have different lifestyles. we have different body shapes. we have different level of stress...

does this make sense?

QuietBloom

Why do we not all gain/lose weight at the same rate?

because a calorie is not a calorie...not all calories are created equal. not all human bodies work the same way. there are conditions, illnesses that will slow down your metabolic rate. you can have hormone problems which will make it impossible or very difficult to loose weight. we have different lifestyles. we have different body shapes. we have different level of stress...

does this make sense?

But it is still calories in, calories out. There is nothing magical that happens in anyone, that makes a calorie simply disappear. And a calorie is a unit of measure, so all calories ARE equal. Human bodies all pretty much work the same way. Just not necessarily at the same rate.

wheird

But you are asking calories in and out. As I said earlier. Those factors will determine the person's maintenance. Eating below that will cause a drop in weight. What you seem to be arguing or mixing up is the determination of the maintenance calorie amount...not really whether it is simply calories in and out.

Of course dropping below a maintenance level will lose weight.

But its determining this rate. And I see the line "simply calories in/out" that determine weight loss, when it doesn't take into account anything about the person at hand.

These factors effect how many calories are needed.

If it was simply calories in/out at a certain size and weight we would need the same calories.

Its far from as simple as people make out!

So are you suggesting that it is not about calories in/out and that a person can eat above their TDEE and lose weight, or eat below their TDEE and gain weight? :huh: