Is calories in, calories out truly accurate?
MaiLinna
Posts: 580 Member
I was just reading a tumblr blog where someone regularly eats 2700 calorie days, and constantly stresses how bad under eating is. Here was her example day:
"Breakfast - one orange, one coconut, two bananas, two handfuls of grapes, two handfuls of strawberries.
Snack - one liter smoothie composed of bananas, blueberries, and strawberries
Lunch - Whole grain toast with peanut butter (i couldn’t resist, I needed some bread today!). Carrots, peppers, and cucumbers with hummus.
Snack- a watermelon. like a FULL watermelon. Two sliced apples.
And I still haven’t eaten dinner yet. I feel perfectly satiated and I’ve basically been eating ALL day. Plus three cups of tea and approximately three liters of water. (And I have my fourth cup of tea right before bed - chamomile!) "
She exercises when she can but she's in school and spends most of her time studying. She eats real food, however, and not "meal replacement bars" or "low calorie drinks with added fiber" or that damn Shakeology. She's still a little underweight and having trouble gaining enough to build the muscles she wants, but 2700? Come on.
I'm starting to think it's more about eating real, whole foods until you're full and less about counting calories and hopping on a scale every week.
"Breakfast - one orange, one coconut, two bananas, two handfuls of grapes, two handfuls of strawberries.
Snack - one liter smoothie composed of bananas, blueberries, and strawberries
Lunch - Whole grain toast with peanut butter (i couldn’t resist, I needed some bread today!). Carrots, peppers, and cucumbers with hummus.
Snack- a watermelon. like a FULL watermelon. Two sliced apples.
And I still haven’t eaten dinner yet. I feel perfectly satiated and I’ve basically been eating ALL day. Plus three cups of tea and approximately three liters of water. (And I have my fourth cup of tea right before bed - chamomile!) "
She exercises when she can but she's in school and spends most of her time studying. She eats real food, however, and not "meal replacement bars" or "low calorie drinks with added fiber" or that damn Shakeology. She's still a little underweight and having trouble gaining enough to build the muscles she wants, but 2700? Come on.
I'm starting to think it's more about eating real, whole foods until you're full and less about counting calories and hopping on a scale every week.
0
Replies
-
This person could be underestimating her calorie intake or perhaps she is very active and needs to intake 2700 calories/day to maintain or gain.
The biggest issue I see with this diet is a lack of protein. Fruits and veggies are great and I don't advocate low-carb diets, but this diet doesn't seem nutritionally balanced.
That said, eating whole, real foods is a great approach that will leave you more satisfied and provide more nutrients than consuming a diet of processed foods. Even if you don't want to count calories, I suggest you pay attention to macros to build a balanced diet - at least until you build a consistent food plan.0 -
Judging from the example you gave, that is NOWHERE near 2700 calories. At all.
Most likely, not logging accurately.0 -
Every individual's TDEE (total daily energy expenditure/ maintenance calories) is different depending on a variety of factors (age, height, weight, gender, activity level, etc).
It sounds like if she's eating 2700 calories a day and actively trying to gain weight, she's eating a calorie surplus, which means she's eating more calories than she needs to maintain her current weight. But 2700 calories really isn't all that much depending on what your body's energy needs are. There are people here who maintain or even lose weight around 2700 calories a day.
For gaining, maintaining, or losing weight, calories matter, because calories are units of energy. If you consume less energy than your body needs to maintain itself, you will lose weight. If you consume more energy than your body needs to maintain itself, your body will store that energy and you will gain weight. You can eat all the apples and lettuce you want, but if it's more than your body needs, you will still gain weight.0 -
wowa that's whole lota fruit lol where is the protein? being honest with how many calories you eat and burn makes all the difference. * waits for someone to pick at this comment* pick pick pick lmao0
-
As mentioned the example is nowhere near 2700 calories. With that said in regard to your comment about processed vs clean whole foods. There was a study mentioned in one of the fitness magazines that focused on only exchanging processed foods for clean whole foods. Yes, the clean whole foods group lost more weight. If I can find the complete study I'll post it.
Why the dig on shakeology?0 -
better add some fruity pebbles0
-
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.0 -
All calories are not the same. Watch Sugar the Bitter Truth
http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM by Dr. Robert Lustig. He doesn't mention it but research was done on rats getting the exact same number of calories. The rats getting HFCS all 100% developed Metabolic Syndrome and the non-HFCS only some got Metabolic Syndrome. 0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).0 -
Nope.
There's a biig difference between fat calories, carb calories, and protein calories.
A BIG difference.0 -
Anecdotal stories from one persons blog should not sway you over scientific study and disciplined analysis of thousands of people. Diet and exercise works, calorie counting works.0
-
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.0 -
Nope.
There's a biig difference between fat calories, carb calories, and protein calories.
A BIG difference.
No there isn't.
Each substance contains a specific caloric value per gram.
There difference comes in terms of nutrition, metabolic pathways, efficiency, etc. In weight loss terms, I can lose weight by eating whatever. And I have been, all month. I've alternated between fried eggs and chocolate cake...the weight comes off all the same if the calories are the same.0 -
It is accurate as long as the calories and exercise burn are measured correctly.
Having a blog about undereating is going to encourage a lot of people to eat more than they need to. Unless you're anorexic and really don't eat much, most people are fine or should eat less.0 -
Calories in vs calories out for weight maintenance/loss/gain... As far as nutrition, this is not good in this case. Too many carbs (fructose) for one. Balance in all things... The body needs protein for muscle development.. WHAT we eat IS important when it comes to nutrition.
A whole watermelon does contain quite a few calories so that may be where a lot of her calories come from...0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.0 -
Nope.
There's a biig difference between fat calories, carb calories, and protein calories.
A BIG difference.
No there isn't.
Each substance contains a specific caloric value per gram.
There difference comes in terms of nutrition, metabolic pathways, efficiency, etc. In weight loss terms, I can lose weight by eating whatever. And I have been, all month. I've alternated between fried eggs and chocolate cake...the weight comes off all the same if the calories are the same.
Actually there is, here's why:
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/0 -
Why it's a bit more complicated than just saying a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/digesting-whole-vs-processed-foods0 -
If you don't like that article, here's another...
http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html0 -
Nope.
There's a biig difference between fat calories, carb calories, and protein calories.
A BIG difference.
No there isn't.
Each substance contains a specific caloric value per gram.
There difference comes in terms of nutrition, metabolic pathways, efficiency, etc. In weight loss terms, I can lose weight by eating whatever. And I have been, all month. I've alternated between fried eggs and chocolate cake...the weight comes off all the same if the calories are the same.
Actually there is, here's why:
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
Enjoyed this one! Thanks for the link.0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.
Precisely my point. Our bodily processes are not ruled simply by mathematical equations. There are so many different factors in our physiology to take into account. Even just the fact that it takes much more energy to digest 100 calories of protein than it does 100 calories of sugar is a HUGE factor that we should learn to use to our advantage. I mean, why make things harder than they have to be? I feel losing weight is hard enough as it is!
0 -
Well, I'm a fan of fruit, bread, and peanut butter - I eat a lot of those but I can never go above 1500 with them. There is no way that her total caloric intake would be 2700 - she's probably overestimating it.0
-
Nope.
There's a biig difference between fat calories, carb calories, and protein calories.
A BIG difference.
No there isn't.
Each substance contains a specific caloric value per gram.
There difference comes in terms of nutrition, metabolic pathways, efficiency, etc. In weight loss terms, I can lose weight by eating whatever. And I have been, all month. I've alternated between fried eggs and chocolate cake...the weight comes off all the same if the calories are the same.
Actually there is, here's why:
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
Enjoyed this one! Thanks for the link.
I appreciated yours as well. 0 -
It's a good thing you didn't post this earlier in the day because a lot of people in this thread would have been utterly destroyed by the regulars.
And yes, for weight loss it is as simple as CICO. See the twinkie diet, McD's diet etc.0 -
Nope.
There's a biig difference between fat calories, carb calories, and protein calories.
A BIG difference.
No there isn't.
Each substance contains a specific caloric value per gram.
There difference comes in terms of nutrition, metabolic pathways, efficiency, etc. In weight loss terms, I can lose weight by eating whatever. And I have been, all month. I've alternated between fried eggs and chocolate cake...the weight comes off all the same if the calories are the same.
Actually there is, here's why:
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
Nothing in that conflicts with anything I just said.
In fact, from that link:
If we take in more energy (calories) than we expend, we gain weight. If we expend more energy than we take in, we lose weight. This is an unbreakable law of physics and isn’t even debatable.
^Which is pretty much exactly what I just said.0 -
It is possible that if she's eating that many calories {which judging by her diet, doesn't sound accurate to me} and doesn't exercise, she might have a thyroid condition. Sometimes age has a huge role in weight gain/loss. Does she walk to her school? Ride a bike, etc? She might not be revealing everything about her day to day lifestyle.0
-
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.
Which is a matter of computational inaccuracy...not an upending of the laws of physics. A calorie is a given amount of energy. Obviously different bodies and different processes use different amounts of energy to do different things. I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing against the wishful thinking that calories are somehow a subjective matter of personal interpretation, as opposed to an objective reality of thermodynamics.0 -
It's a good thing you didn't post this earlier in the day because a lot of people in this thread would have been utterly destroyed by the regulars.
And yes, for weight loss it is as simple as CICO. See the twinkie diet, McD's diet etc.
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/digesting-whole-vs-processed-foods
This article addresses the twinkie diet.
It was never said that you couldn't lose weight that way, just that it was not the most efficient way.
The concept of the Thermal Effect of Food is addressed, which is how much energy you expend just digesting the food. It turns out it's a significant amount, and differs greatly between different types of foods.
And I don't care if you are "regular" or a "newbie" to this site. I only care if you are correct.0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.
Precisely my point. Our bodily processes are not ruled simply by mathematical equations. There are so many different factors in our physiology to take into account. Even just the fact that it takes much more energy to digest 100 calories of protein than it does 100 calories of sugar is a HUGE factor that we should learn to use to our advantage. I mean, why make things harder than they have to be? I feel losing weight is hard enough as it is!
Are you trying to use links to what we understand about caloric intake to demonstrate that we don't understand caloric intake? Thermogenic digestion is something we know about, you can't point to that and say calories in and calories out is wrong because of this effect we know about because we know about it and can take it into account. Are you instead saying that calories in calories out doesn't work because there are things that we don't know about? Well that is a cop out, you could say that about everything. Do we know everything about anything? Doesn't mean we can't establish some basic principles that are tried and true and work time and time and time again when put into practice.0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.
Precisely my point. Our bodily processes are not ruled simply by mathematical equations. There are so many different factors in our physiology to take into account. Even just the fact that it takes much more energy to digest 100 calories of protein than it does 100 calories of sugar is a HUGE factor that we should learn to use to our advantage. I mean, why make things harder than they have to be? I feel losing weight is hard enough as it is!
Are you trying to use links to what we understand about caloric intake to demonstrate that we don't understand caloric intake? Thermogenic digestion is something we know about, you can't point to that and say calories in and calories out is wrong because of this effect we know about because we know about it and can take it into account. Are you instead saying that calories in calories out doesn't work because there are things that we don't know about? Well that is a cop out, you could say that about everything. Do we know everything about anything? Doesn't mean we can't establish some basic principles that are tried and true and work time and time and time again when put into practice.
Let me ask you this...when you record your food in MFP, which I am assuming you do, do you take TEF into account?
Do you say ok, I entered 300 calories of protein, which took me 90 calories to digest, so let me subtract that from the 300? No, you don't, and neither does anyone else. That's why it matters.
I'm not saying that decreasing caloric intake doesn't cause you to lose weight, I'm saying that eating the right foods can cause you to lose more weight more quickly..
When did this become a strictly exclusionary argument?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions