If it is simply calories in and out...

Options
1234568

Replies

  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    ...

    Not worth it.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    Options
    :smile:
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
  • sjohnny
    sjohnny Posts: 56,142 Member
    Options
    Umm technically, legally, she cant. So mind your own business!!!

    I see you are in Canada. You may want to familiarize yourself with the Criminal Harassment section of the Criminal Code. I assure you it does not cover posting in the same threads on an open forum.

    You may want to get your law degree before you comment on something you know nothing about

    This may be my favorite thing all day.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    I AM NOT A FONT.
  • Mother_Superior
    Mother_Superior Posts: 1,624 Member
    Options
    NO I DONT THINK IT IS AS SIMPLE AS CALORIES IN AND OUT. GENETICS HAVE A HUGE PART TO PLAY IN A LOT OF PHYSICAL FACTORS AND ANYONE WHO SAYS ANY DIFFERENT IS A FOOL AND A BOLD FACED LIAR!

    JUST BECAUSE YOU YELL THIS/TYPE IN CAPS AND SAY THAT IT ISN'T TRUE DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT!

    Seriously. Is this how you hold a discussion? People that disagree with you are automatically fools and liars?

    lol...I actually didn't mean to type out that whole thing in caps...I realized half way through and there was no turning back.

    backspace-key.jpg
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    Weight loss is simply calories in vs out. End of story.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    Options

    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?
    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 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.

    The original discussion on the other topic was that the TEF of protein is insignificant. The person I was discussing this issue with gave an example of a standard diet. He calculated about 200 calories thermogenic effect with a standard diet and said it's insignificant. I claimed the TEF of protein is not insignificant. Both example listed above are my examples. I consume a bit more protein than most people. I consume 1g per pound of total body weight. Doing this I get a thermogenic effect of roughly 300 calories. I then listed an example if I cut down fat a bit down to 20%(this was my second example). That's where the excess 37 calories came from. Yes 37 calories is pretty insignificant.

    So we're really comparing 200 calories TEF of a generic body building diet, and my higher protein diet which has a TEF of 300 calories. 300 calories is a cardio session for many people.

    The point is, TEF of food are not insignificant.

    Okay but that's not at all what you said, and this seems to be a conversation from another thread. It shouldn't be a shock that no one gathered your meaning, since that's not the argument that was being made here. No one was saying TEF was insignificant (that I saw) just that more protein doesn't make a huge difference. Your examples seem to illustrate that point rather well.
  • MireyGal76
    MireyGal76 Posts: 7,334 Member
    Options
    Calories in:
    - proper measurement of food, including weighing everything that goes into your mouth
    - accounting for beverages other than water
    - candies, gum
    - snacks
    - under estimating of calories consumed (especially when dining out, or eating at potluck dinners)

    Calories out:
    - sedentary vs lightly active vs very active - what does this mean and where do I fit any given day
    - energy burned doing stairs, walking around, dancing, walking from car to building and back
    - fidgeting burns calories
    - sleeping burns calories
    - how my body metabolizes certain foods, impacts of allergies (some foods go straight through)
    - how much did I REALLY burn at boxing? how about chasing my kids around the house? Or shoveling snow?


    If I knew exactly the value of every variable, it IS indeed simply calories in vs out.
    But I guestimate. A lot.

    I need to be sure I am guestimating conservatively. And monitor.
    If I gain weight, I need to adjust one of the sides. I tend to like to adjust on the calories out side, because I sooooo love calories in.
  • Fuzzipeg
    Fuzzipeg Posts: 2,298 Member
    Options
    For those of you who say "weight is simply calories in and out" I have another complicating factor.

    Salicylate found in fruit and veg and aspirin pills. It does not cause everyone problems but for those who it does it is ultimately debilitating. I am on my way from the poorest of health to the better. Weight continues to be an issue for me and will be until I can control my environment.

    Some may mock the people who line their houses with tin foil and move into the country as far away from large populations, to be somewhere where their tinnitus is no longer a problem for them. Until you experience the bad things which can, and do happen because of salicylate sensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivity, or similar, please do not assume you know it all.

    I know I don't know enough, which is why I am reading as much as I can in the hope of improving my health even further.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    Yes 37 calories is pretty insignificant.


    Wha??? 37 Calories per day is less than 4 lbs per YEAR. No, it's not significant at all.

    37*365/3500 = 3.86.
  • pierrena
    Options
    “The food you eat can be either the safest and most powerful form of medicine or the slowest form of poison.”
    ― Ann Wigmore





    The Importance of Fitness and Nutrition in Our Lives http://1topnew.blogspot.com/2013/11/fitness_17.html
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    Options
    Well, that was a fun read.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    For those of you who say "weight is simply calories in and out" I have another complicating factor.

    Salicylate found in fruit and veg and aspirin pills. It does not cause everyone problems but for those who it does it is ultimately debilitating. I am on my way from the poorest of health to the better. Weight continues to be an issue for me and will be until I can control my environment.

    Some may mock the people who line their houses with tin foil and move into the country as far away from large populations, to be somewhere where their tinnitus is no longer a problem for them. Until you experience the bad things which can, and do happen because of salicylate sensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivity, or similar, please do not assume you know it all.

    I know I don't know enough, which is why I am reading as much as I can in the hope of improving my health even further.

    Are you proposing that we change our approach for the 99% because of the 1%?

    Or perhaps every post should carry a disclaimer that if you have a medical condition, please consult with your doctor? I thought this was implied.
  • sloth3toes
    sloth3toes Posts: 2,212 Member
    Options
    For those of you who say "weight is simply calories in and out" I have another complicating factor.

    Salicylate found in fruit and veg and aspirin pills. It does not cause everyone problems but for those who it does it is ultimately debilitating. I am on my way from the poorest of health to the better. Weight continues to be an issue for me and will be until I can control my environment.

    Some may mock the people who line their houses with tin foil and move into the country as far away from large populations, to be somewhere where their tinnitus is no longer a problem for them. Until you experience the bad things which can, and do happen because of salicylate sensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivity, or similar, please do not assume you know it all.

    I know I don't know enough, which is why I am reading as much as I can in the hope of improving my health even further.

    Are you proposing that we change our approach for the 99% because of the 1%?

    Or perhaps every post should carry a disclaimer that if you have a medical condition, please consult with your doctor? I thought this was implied.

    It's at the bottom of every page

    Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    Options


    I think people are taking me too literally rather than seeing the point I'm trying to put across.

    You pretty clearly implied that you think it isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out by not fully understanding that the factors you listed to try to complicate the matter are all part of the "calorie out" half of the equation. I'm not sure what other point you expected people to see.

    Yes, our calorie out rates vary by person, but it is still calorie in vs calorie out for each person.
  • Carnivor0us
    Carnivor0us Posts: 1,752 Member
    Options
    Why do we not all gain/lose weight at the same rate?

    According to this forum, it's because people are just filthy liars.
  • devil_in_a_blue_dress
    devil_in_a_blue_dress Posts: 5,214 Member
    Options
    It's not like people lose weight by consuming more calories than they burn, so I'mma gonna say for all people it is calories in vs calories out.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    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.

    It is still a matter of energy in vs energy out if you're discussing change in body weight.

    The complexity lies in a multitude of factors effecting the "out" side of the equation.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    Why do we not all gain/lose weight at the same rate?

    According to this forum, it's because people are just filthy liars.

    Or the fact that everyone has a different calories out every day.....