If it is simply calories in and out...
Options
Replies
-
* This...
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!0 -
Er... because it is so difficult to estimate exactly how much goes out????0
-
bad calories
What are bad calories? Have they been naughty? Should I-get the whip?0 -
Don't listen to that bad calories stuff, it's bull****. We don't defy the laws of thermodynamics.0
-
You're the one who said the difference is less than 37 calories between the 2 examples. So I have the same question for you, "What are you arguing?"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.
No, Metobolic rate is part of the cals out side if the equation.
Also if you eat more protein vs carb they take more cals to breakdow, again this would be on the cals out side of the equation.
Unfortunately the difference between energy required to metabolize a protein calorie vs a carbohydrate calorie is so infinitesimally small, it makes no significant difference.
Not really... Got in to a discussion with another guy on another topic about this.
My diet is 2,300 calories.
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 998 calories (43%)
Fat 667 calories (29%)
Thermogenic effect
carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 215 calories
fat = 17 calories
TEF = 312.6 calories.
I do want to reduce more bodyfat, I plan to increase my protein intake and reduce my fat intake for satiety purposes. I am thinking of dropping fat intake to 20%.
Diet
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 1196 calories (52%)
Fat 460 calories (20%)
Thermogenic Effect
Carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 257 calories
fat = 11.5 calories
TEF = 349 calories
In both cases, 300 calories is a cardio session for some people. I believe this is a significant difference. 20-30minutes doing cardio would produce the same calorie difference.
Except that the *difference* in your example is <37 calories.
Yet I also said... 300 calories (rounded down of both examples) is a cardio session for some people.
No one is arguing that TEF is meaningless. The argument is that it's a component of the "calories out" for *everyone*. It's important as part of the bigger picture, but not so much in isolation.
So what is it that you're arguing again?0 -
You're the one who said the difference is less than 37 calories between the 2 examples. So I have the same question for you, "What are you arguing?"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.
No, Metobolic rate is part of the cals out side if the equation.
Also if you eat more protein vs carb they take more cals to breakdow, again this would be on the cals out side of the equation.
Unfortunately the difference between energy required to metabolize a protein calorie vs a carbohydrate calorie is so infinitesimally small, it makes no significant difference.
Not really... Got in to a discussion with another guy on another topic about this.
My diet is 2,300 calories.
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 998 calories (43%)
Fat 667 calories (29%)
Thermogenic effect
carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 215 calories
fat = 17 calories
TEF = 312.6 calories.
I do want to reduce more bodyfat, I plan to increase my protein intake and reduce my fat intake for satiety purposes. I am thinking of dropping fat intake to 20%.
Diet
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 1196 calories (52%)
Fat 460 calories (20%)
Thermogenic Effect
Carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 257 calories
fat = 11.5 calories
TEF = 349 calories
In both cases, 300 calories is a cardio session for some people. I believe this is a significant difference. 20-30minutes doing cardio would produce the same calorie difference.
Except that the *difference* in your example is <37 calories.
Yet I also said... 300 calories (rounded down of both examples) is a cardio session for some people.
No one is arguing that TEF is meaningless. The argument is that it's a component of the "calories out" for *everyone*. It's important as part of the bigger picture, but not so much in isolation.
So what is it that you're arguing again?
I'll just assume that every other person in this discussion (besides you) understands how we have arrived at this point in the sidebar conversation.
That way, I don't feel obligated wasting my time trying to explain the failure in your logic.
ETA:
I really am a giver.
Here's a clue to your misunderstanding:Unfortunately the difference between energy required to metabolize a protein calorie vs a carbohydrate calorie is so infinitesimally small, it makes no significant difference.Not really... Got in to a discussion with another guy on another topic about this.
Someone said that TEF of different macros is so small that it doesn't matter. You replied, "not really" indicating that you believed the TEF difference of different macros *was* material. You then gave an example of the TEF of different macro breakdowns indicating 300 as a relevant number. I pointed out that the *difference* between the two...the thing that was being discussed by others up to this point...wasn't 300 but was actually 37. You then apparently got confused.
I hope that helped.0 -
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.
No, Metobolic rate is part of the cals out side if the equation.
Also if you eat more protein vs carb they take more cals to breakdow, again this would be on the cals out side of the equation.
Unfortunately the difference between energy required to metabolize a protein calorie vs a carbohydrate calorie is so infinitesimally small, it makes no significant difference.
Not really... Got in to a discussion with another guy on another topic about this.
My diet is 2,300 calories.
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 998 calories (43%)
Fat 667 calories (29%)
Thermogenic effect
carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 215 calories
fat = 17 calories
TEF = 312.6 calories.
I do want to reduce more bodyfat, I plan to increase my protein intake and reduce my fat intake for satiety purposes. I am thinking of dropping fat intake to 20%.
Diet
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 1196 calories (52%)
Fat 460 calories (20%)
Thermogenic Effect
Carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 257 calories
fat = 11.5 calories
TEF = 349 calories
In both cases, 300 calories is a cardio session for some people. I believe this is a significant difference. 20-30minutes doing cardio would produce the same calorie difference.
Except that the *difference* in your example is <37 calories.
Yet I also said... 300 calories (rounded down of both examples) is a cardio session for some people.
The difference between your two examples is only 37 calories per day. Not 300 as you state.0 -
If it isnt as simple as that then what else is there? Many people have lost weight via cals in vs out method.0
-
Yes. It's the old IN and OUT.*
*no giggity on Christmas day, sinners!
Ever notice how nobody gets laid on thanksgiving. Must be all the coats on the bed....0 -
Biology. Body chemistry. Heredity. The type of calories (fat/carb/etc.). We are not all created equal in the eyes of fat! Some people gain muscle mass when they exercise (which can cause size loss, but weight gain), and some people lose weight. You can go on the CDC website and find out your BMR - basal metabolic rate - to see how many calories you burn in a day just by doing what you normally do. This basically tells you what your tolerance to calories and fat is, and how much your body burns no matter what. If your body burns a lot of calories but you're still overweight, that means you are eating a lot more bad calories than you realize, or that your body is genetically designed to hold on to fat at that metabolic rate.
You're getting the idea, in that our calorie needs differ. But type of calories is only important for body composition, not losing weight. Muscle mass can only be gained in a surplus of calories, but the amount that can be gained (without steroids) is pretty set. BMR has nothing to do with 'tolerance' to calories or fat, it just tells you what your body burns at rest. No calories are bad. If you burn a lot but are still fat, you are eating too much.0 -
You're the one who said the difference is less than 37 calories between the 2 examples. So I have the same question for you, "What are you arguing?"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.
No, Metobolic rate is part of the cals out side if the equation.
Also if you eat more protein vs carb they take more cals to breakdow, again this would be on the cals out side of the equation.
Unfortunately the difference between energy required to metabolize a protein calorie vs a carbohydrate calorie is so infinitesimally small, it makes no significant difference.
Not really... Got in to a discussion with another guy on another topic about this.
My diet is 2,300 calories.
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 998 calories (43%)
Fat 667 calories (29%)
Thermogenic effect
carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 215 calories
fat = 17 calories
TEF = 312.6 calories.
I do want to reduce more bodyfat, I plan to increase my protein intake and reduce my fat intake for satiety purposes. I am thinking of dropping fat intake to 20%.
Diet
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 1196 calories (52%)
Fat 460 calories (20%)
Thermogenic Effect
Carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 257 calories
fat = 11.5 calories
TEF = 349 calories
In both cases, 300 calories is a cardio session for some people. I believe this is a significant difference. 20-30minutes doing cardio would produce the same calorie difference.
Except that the *difference* in your example is <37 calories.
Yet I also said... 300 calories (rounded down of both examples) is a cardio session for some people.
No one is arguing that TEF is meaningless. The argument is that it's a component of the "calories out" for *everyone*. It's important as part of the bigger picture, but not so much in isolation.
So what is it that you're arguing again?
Because it was stated that the difference between the two examples was 300 calories. PP was arguing that upping protein will significantly increase thermogenic burn. 37 calories a day is not significant. Hence our confusion as to why he thinks 37 calories is a significant amount. Unless he is arguing that one eat no protein at all vs either one of those examples is about 300 calories...?
My head hurts trying to figure out his point is.0 -
Still this, eh?0
-
Don't listen to that bad calories stuff, it's bull****. We don't defy the laws of thermodynamics.
i do aint no law gonna keep me down0 -
Don't listen to that bad calories stuff, it's bull****. We don't defy the laws of thermodynamics.
I (and my open system) do what I want...
0 -
If gravity is true then why don't clouds fall?0
-
The important lesson that I have learned from this thread:
Steroids help in making you bigger and stronger but apparently do nothing for intelligence.0 -
The important lesson that I have learned from this thread:
Steroids help in making you bigger and stronger but apparently do nothing for intelligence.
0 -
The important lesson that I have learned from this thread:
Steroids help in making you bigger and stronger but apparently do nothing for intelligence.
0 -
Do two people falling from the top of the same building have exactly the same results?0
-
Just read page 1. Want in.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions