Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Replies
-
As far as Ci v CO, I'm a believer.
Quite a few people aren't. I'm in a very long-term relationship with someone who has lots of obesity in his family. I've been working very, *very* hard since Jan. 1st and have thus far lost 50lbs. My significant other is happy for me, but thinks I'm just "lucky" (thanks for minimizing my hard work!!).
He cites his cousin as an example, because she, being obese (much moreso than I was when I started) was 'eating nothing but salads for a month and didn't lose anything,' and then had lap-band surgery and 'that's obviously been the key because she's lost like 60lbs in the last 2 months since she had it! So it didnt matter what she was eating."
... what in the hell does he think lap-band surgery does!? His father has the lap-band as well - it makes you unable to consume large amounts, and therefore - get this - means you CONSUME FEWER CALORIES. Seriously something I've been raging about lately lol.0 -
A couple questions. I used the search function but some of the info may be outdated - not sure.
#1) Do YOU believe in strictly calories in - calories out? As in, you could eat all of your calories in pure table sugar, and although its incredibly unhealthy, you would lose weight if you're in a caloric defecit? If so, is there ever a situation where a caloric deficit would NOT lead to weight loss?
#2) Ever since I introduced weight lifting (bench press, squat, dead lift, shoulders) 3 weeks ago, my weight loss has screeched to a snails pace (1 pound or less per week while being in a 2.5 pound caloric deficit). It is common knowledge that you don't build muscle while in a caloric defect. Am I holding onto water in the muscles for nearly 3 weeks now? As soon as I get my hands on a tape measure large enough I'll start measuring.
#3) If Insulin stores fat, how do we lose weight while eating carbs and sugars (even in a caloric deficit) while insulin levels are elevated?
Alright you fit mother f#*+ers, educate me.
Thanks.
1. Yes, calories in minus calories out equals loss or gain. There is a little more to it than that, but not a lot..
2. Weight stalling at the gym. Try measuring dimensions. THe truth is that the jury is still out on whether you can gain muscle while in calorie deficit. There are lots of arguments for and against the theories on MFP and the wider internet - just do a few searches to see what I mean.
3. Insulin storing fat is a common misconception. Insulin is a hormone that facilitates the transfer of sugar from the food into muscles and other tissues. If the body cannot produce enough insulin, this process is slowed and the cells resort to fat stores in the body (This is Type 1 diabetes and many would regard it as a gross oversimplification, but that's the nuts and bolts). Type 2 diabetes is where the body cannot effectively use the insulin it produces, and the blood sugar levels rise dangerously causing other issues. (Again, many would regard it as an oversimplification). This is why not all diabetics medicate with insulin.
So, insulin is used by the body to regulate the levels of blood sugar and to also store excess glucose as glycogen in the liver. Glycogen is easier to convert back to glucose than fat, hence the body goes to the liver first for high demands for energy
See also http://www.lillydiabetes.com/Pages/index.aspx,
or
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/in-depth/diabetes-treatment/art-20044084
or
http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Insulin.aspx
There are many other sites to look at after a quick search on the internet..0 -
As to calories in/calories out: For weight loss, yes, For nutrition, no.
Do you know flaming is against the terms of service here? You might want to think about that and cut it out since you only have two posts to your name.Alright you fit mother f#*+ers, educate me
For the record, OP, I thought that line was funny as hell :laugh:
Calories in calories out, yes
If you have certain medical conditions, you may find that it doesn't apply the way you expect it to. Either your metabolism slows way down or quickens way up, or some other such random reaction
Four weeks is about the mark I've heard for the muscles to start shedding the water weight they accumulated for repair
In healthy people, the body stores fat in a caloric surplus. I'm not 100% certain what insulin has to do with it0 -
A couple questions. I used the search function but some of the info may be outdated - not sure.
#1) Do YOU believe in strictly calories in - calories out? As in, you could eat all of your calories in pure table sugar, and although its incredibly unhealthy, you would lose weight if you're in a caloric defecit? If so, is there ever a situation where a caloric deficit would NOT lead to weight loss?
#2) Ever since I introduced weight lifting (bench press, squat, dead lift, shoulders) 3 weeks ago, my weight loss has screeched to a snails pace (1 pound or less per week while being in a 2.5 pound caloric deficit). It is common knowledge that you don't build muscle while in a caloric defect. Am I holding onto water in the muscles for nearly 3 weeks now? As soon as I get my hands on a tape measure large enough I'll start measuring.
#3) If Insulin stores fat, how do we lose weight while eating carbs and sugars (even in a caloric deficit) while insulin levels are elevated?
Thanks.
1. Yes. I wouldn't do that because that'd be gross. But I could.
2. Anytime I switch routines I stall in weight loss for about a month. Sucks but true
3. Hell if I know.0 -
#2 is a myth, I lost close to 50 lbs, lost around 4 lbs of water and packed around 12 lbs of muscle. Thats in six months, I am not done yet and have no problem losing fat and building muscle.
So you've lost 62 pounds of fat and gained 12 pounds of muscle simultaneously? Are you on roids?
LOL. No, I am lucky to know some pro coaches who train NFL athletes, not a bro coach. Its not very uncommon for people to gain muscle and lose fat. At least not where I take my advice from, there are plenty of studies which prove that.0 -
A couple questions. I used the search function but some of the info may be outdated - not sure.
#1) Do YOU believe in strictly calories in - calories out? As in, you could eat all of your calories in pure table sugar, and although its incredibly unhealthy, you would lose weight if you're in a caloric defecit? If so, is there ever a situation where a caloric deficit would NOT lead to weight loss?
If you define calories in as calories that are actually absorbed by the digestive system into the blood, then yes.
Maybe there are some medical exceptions, whereby calories in can't be used, e.g. type one diabetes - the lack of insulin means that the sugar can't get into the cells, the sugar ends up in the urine and the person's cells are starving. So yes, medical exceptions may be the case... but you can argue even in this case that the calories are not going into the cells, therefore they're not going in.
The guy who did the twinkie diet is the nearest experiment to what you suggested - it's not far from a diet of just pure sugar... yes if you ate at a deficit and nothing but sugar, you would lose weight. although the weight you lose will be lean body mass as well as fat, as your body will need to catabolise skeletal muscle to get the amino acids you need. Your health would suffer due to the lack of all the other nutrients the body needs and you'd probably die of kwashiorkor or some other protein deficiency disease before too long. (the twinkie diet guy supplemented his diet with protein powder and vitamin/mineral pills) But yes you would lose weight if you're in deficit... if you're eating a surplus of just pure sugar the excess would be stored as fat while the body would still have to catabolise your skeletal muscle to get amino acids, so you would end up extremely unhealthy, with too much fat and too little lean body mass.
I would never recommend a diet where the *only* thing you pay attention to is the calories - but calories in v calories out determines whether you lose weight or not... proper nutrition is for health and body composition. This is important to understand because so many people try hard to eat healthy and exercise, and then don't lose weight... because they're not in a calorie deficit. They wonder what they're doing wrong, and they are healthy and well nourished in all other aspects of health, but they're carrying too much fat that just won't go... it won't go because no matter how healthy their diet and how much they exercise, if they're not in calorie deficit, they won't lose weight.#2) Ever since I introduced weight lifting (bench press, squat, dead lift, shoulders) 3 weeks ago, my weight loss has screeched to a snails pace (1 pound or less per week while being in a 2.5 pound caloric deficit). It is common knowledge that you don't build muscle while in a caloric defect. Am I holding onto water in the muscles for nearly 3 weeks now? As soon as I get my hands on a tape measure large enough I'll start measuring.
Your muscles are storing more glycogen. This is a good thing and it's part of what makes you fitter and stronger. That makes them retain water. Yes, this masks fat loss on the scale and can do so for a while before the weight starts going down again... but if you really are eating at a deficit you will be burning fat.... Just that the weight of the fat being burned is offset by the weight of the water and glycogen your muscles are storing. It's also possible that your bone density is increasing - again this is a very good thing. Denser bones are heavier (your bones stay the same size/volume as before) so this is something else that will offset scale weight. But during all of this, your body is still burning fat as long as you're in deficit. It may not be noticeable, because you may be losing fat from places, e.g. upper back, that people don't measure with a tape measure or observe in the mirror. Which is why it's a good idea to take progress pictures from different angles, not just focus on belly flab. But if you're really in a calorie deficit, you'll be burning fat.
Please, in this situation, you need to ignore the scale and focus on the mirror and the tape measure, and the fact that you're improving your health and fitness too. The scale will catch up if you have a significant amount of fat to lose. If you only have a little fat to lose, then the scale might never catch up but really, if you fit into clothes a dress size or two smaller and look fitter and leaner, then why worry about what the scale says?
ETA: if you're new to weight training and were overfat when you started, then it is possible that you have gained some muscle, aka noob gains. This also would offset scale weight, but this is a one time gain and will not offset scale weight indefinitely. And if you're female, it won't be that much. For a young (especially adolescent) male, it could be quite a bit (although adolescents shouldn't be eating at a deficit without a paediatrician's supervision)#3) If Insulin stores fat, how do we lose weight while eating carbs and sugars (even in a caloric deficit) while insulin levels are elevated?
Biochemistry isn't my forte, but I'll have a go at this one. Insulin does not stop your body from burning fat. If you're in a calorie deficit, initially the shortfall will come from your body's glycogen but it will also start to use fat from your fat stores to make up the shortfall. The myth that you have to deplete all the sugar and glycogen from your body before fat burning starts comes from low carb gurus. It's not true. Your body balances fat and sugar burning, depending on what activity level you're doing at the time.... if you're pottering around at home you're probably running off mostly fat (but the total number of calories burned a minute is low)... if you're sprinting, you're running mostly off sugar, but you're still burning fat and the total number of calories burned a minute is much higher. More intense exercise requires more sugar, because your body can only burn so much fat at any one time. Insulin does not stop fat from being burned, nor does the presence of sugar in your blood. Your body runs off both, and insulin's role is in enabling the cells to use the sugar in the blood, and IIRC it has a role in fat storage, but it also has a role in the uptake of protein. Like I said, biochem is not my forte, but the picture painted of insulin being "bad" and "insulin is why carbs make you fat" is misleading. Carbs don't make you fat and insulin isn't bad. Anyone with type one diabetes can tell you just how important insulin is....
Wow part 2.
Thank you.
I'm in my late 20's ... 5 foot 11 inches ... 369 pounds.
I eat around 600 to 1200 calories a day.
I'm going to re-read your post a few times0 -
#2 is a myth, I lost close to 50 lbs, lost around 4 lbs of water and packed around 12 lbs of muscle. Thats in six months, I am not done yet and have no problem losing fat and building muscle.
I'm also gaining muscle mass (albeit not a huge amount, but enough for it to be noticeable just from appearance and strength) while losing weight at a reasonable pace.
Strength gains do not equal muscle mass gains
Appearance of muscle size increase does not equal muscle mass gains
Oh wait bod pod and Dexa scans must be a lie. I get bod pod every 2 weeks, Dexa and ultra sound every 4-6 weeks. I also do metabolic tests every 8-12 weeks.0 -
If at the end of the day your body has burned more calories than you have consumed, that means that your rate of fat oxidation was greater than your rate of fat storage for the day as a whole.
You could also have reduced your glycogen reserves, if you burned more carbohydrate than you ate / drank.0 -
As to calories in/calories out: For weight loss, yes, For nutrition, no.
Do you know flaming is against the terms of service here? You might want to think about that and cut it out since you only have two posts to your name.Alright you fit mother f#*+ers, educate me
For the record, OP, I thought that line was funny as hell :laugh:
Calories in calories out, yes
If you have certain medical conditions, you may find that it doesn't apply the way you expect it to. Either your metabolism slows way down or quickens way up, or some other such random reaction
Four weeks is about the mark I've heard for the muscles to start shedding the water weight they accumulated for repair
In healthy people, the body stores fat in a caloric surplus. I'm not 100% certain what insulin has to do with it
^This. A much nicer answer than my snarky quote.0 -
As to calories in/calories out: For weight loss, yes, For nutrition, no.
Do you know flaming is against the terms of service here? You might want to think about that and cut it out since you only have two posts to your name.Alright you fit mother f#*+ers, educate me
For the record, OP, I thought that line was funny as hell :laugh:
I thought it was funny too.
Guess it's a little more serious here than other forums I've been on.0 -
As to calories in/calories out: For weight loss, yes, For nutrition, no.
Do you know flaming is against the terms of service here? You might want to think about that and cut it out since you only have two posts to your name.Alright you fit mother f#*+ers, educate me
For the record, OP, I thought that line was funny as hell :laugh:
I thought it was funny too.
Guess it's a little more serious here than other forums I've been on.
Nah. It's a laugh. You'll often come across a whiff of humour, albeit mostly subtle. Sarcasm is high on the agenda for MFP.0 -
#2 is a myth, I lost close to 50 lbs, lost around 4 lbs of water and packed around 12 lbs of muscle. Thats in six months, I am not done yet and have no problem losing fat and building muscle.
I'm also gaining muscle mass (albeit not a huge amount, but enough for it to be noticeable just from appearance and strength) while losing weight at a reasonable pace.
Strength gains do not equal muscle mass gains
Appearance of muscle size increase does not equal muscle mass gains
Oh wait bod pod and Dexa scans must be a lie. I get bod pod every 2 weeks, Dexa and ultra sound every 4-6 weeks. I also do metabolic tests every 8-12 weeks.
I should have put does not necessarily equal muscle mass gains. What I mean is people see strength increases all the time while maintaining muscle mass and while losing muscle mass so that is not a good indicator of muscle mass. Bod pod and Dexa scans however are a good indicator of muscle mass gain or loss.0 -
#2 is a myth, I lost close to 50 lbs, lost around 4 lbs of water and packed around 12 lbs of muscle. Thats in six months, I am not done yet and have no problem losing fat and building muscle.
So you've lost 62 pounds of fat and gained 12 pounds of muscle simultaneously? Are you on roids?
LOL. No, I am lucky to know some pro coaches who train NFL athletes, not a bro coach. Its not very uncommon for people to gain muscle and lose fat. At least not where I take my advice from, there are plenty of studies which prove that.
I'm not disputing that it's possible, just hard to believe, that's a hell of a lot of muscle to put on while losing that much fat, but good for you. Have you been in a steady calorie deficit the entire time or have you done any bulking cycles?0 -
OP, do NOT eat 600-1200 calories. At 369 lbs you can eat so much more deliciousness! Or let me ask, can you realistically keep this up for 1-2 years? Because that's about how long it would take you to get to an "okay" weight or get to final goal. You should aim to eat as much food as you can and still lose weight , not as little. And if you're [heavy?] weight training, you definitely want to fuel those workouts
Read this for over all guidance on weight loss:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants
But also give these a quick read to be sure you're accurately counting those calories:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1296011-calorie-counting-101
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide0 -
OP, do NOT eat 600-1200 calories. At 369 lbs you can eat so much more deliciousness! Or let me ask, can you realistically keep this up for 1-2 years? Because that's about how long it would take you to get to an "okay" weight or get to final goal. You should aim to eat as much food as you can and still lose weight , not as little. And if you're [heavy?] weight training, you definitely want to fuel those workouts
Read this for over all guidance on weight loss:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants
But also give these a quick read to be sure you're accurately counting those calories:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1296011-calorie-counting-101
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide
I don't really know all the science to be honest. But my doc put me on a pill that makes the thought of food sound very unappealing. I've had a banana and some peanut butter today. The less calories I eat the more I burn, I guess.
Yeah I try to do heavy. As heavy as I can. I do 6 to 8 reps whatever it is to failure, and 4 sets of those0 -
#2 is a myth, I lost close to 50 lbs, lost around 4 lbs of water and packed around 12 lbs of muscle. Thats in six months, I am not done yet and have no problem losing fat and building muscle.
So you've lost 62 pounds of fat and gained 12 pounds of muscle simultaneously? Are you on roids?
LOL. No, I am lucky to know some pro coaches who train NFL athletes, not a bro coach. Its not very uncommon for people to gain muscle and lose fat. At least not where I take my advice from, there are plenty of studies which prove that.
I'm not disputing that it's possible, just hard to believe, that's a hell of a lot of muscle to put on while losing that much fat, but good for you. Have you been in a steady calorie deficit the entire time or have you done any bulking cycles?
No Bulking and deficit is different for me based on what Macros i eat. I gain weight/fat easily on a 2000 cal Standard american diet. I watch my carbs had no problem losing weight/fat on a 2000-2500 cal diet. I watch my carbs doesn't mean its zero carbs, I eat lots of vegetables and limited portions of fruits in smoothies. My focus was not so much on losing weight but increasing my metabolism and fat burning. Human body is amazing in adapting and with a proper diet and exercise program you can accomplish a lot.0 -
Wow part 2.
Thank you.
I'm in my late 20's ... 5 foot 11 inches ... 369 pounds.
I eat around 600 to 1200 calories a day.
I'm going to re-read your post a few times
At your weight and age, if you're new to weight training, then you probably will see some noob gains, i.e. gain muscle in a deficit in the short term. But the weight on the scale should start to come down as long as you're in a calorie deficit once these changes (noob gains, increased glycogen storage, increased bone density) have taken place... they will stall scale weight loss initially, but not indefinitely.
You should be able to eat quite a bit more than that and still lose weight. I've known of guys your size eat like 2500 cals/day and still lose 2-3lb a week. Eating more enables you to be more active, and therefore burn a higher total number of calories, and additionally, exercise has many health benefits (including building up your muscles and bones), it's not just for fat loss. Too big a deficit can be counterproductive... though as you have quite a bit to lose your body can handle a bigger deficit without so much risk of problems, so long as you are strength training and your protein intake is adequate. The main issue to look for is that you don't succumb to excessive hunger or rebound overeating. If that happens then you definitely need to eat more. The ideal number of calories is where you are getting enough to eat so you don't feel hungry, deprived and are not succumbing to rebound overeating or binge eating, but you're still losing weight steadily. 2-3lb/week fat loss is optimal when you have a lot to lose... as you get closer to goal you'd need to adjust that so you lose more slowly. There's nothing wrong with taking the fat loss more slowly though if you find it easier to stick to that way. It may take some trial and error to find your optimal calorie intake, whereby you're losing at a good rate and still enjoying eating and life in general. The important thing is being able to stick with it long term.0 -
1) No, but for all intent and purposes, Yes. While it isn't a perfect relationship and substrates may influence loss, the largest single influence is calorie deficit results in weight loss.
2) edema for exercise, glucagon replenishing from weight lifting, tom, changes in exercise that influence digestion rates, etc... can mask fat loss for weeks. Give it time. I personally take about 2-4 weeks after a significant program change to come back to a loss.
3) insulin induces cellular uptake of lipids and glucose and inhibits glucagon release, fat use, gluconeogenesis.... However, your body is using energy constantly so the storage uptake is counter balanced by the energy used. It's like if you said, how does the car run out of gas if the needle went up when we filled the tank. What happens looks like this....
0 -
OP, do NOT eat 600-1200 calories. At 369 lbs you can eat so much more deliciousness! Or let me ask, can you realistically keep this up for 1-2 years? Because that's about how long it would take you to get to an "okay" weight or get to final goal. You should aim to eat as much food as you can and still lose weight , not as little. And if you're [heavy?] weight training, you definitely want to fuel those workouts
Read this for over all guidance on weight loss:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants
But also give these a quick read to be sure you're accurately counting those calories:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1296011-calorie-counting-101
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide
I don't really know all the science to be honest. But my doc put me on a pill that makes the thought of food sound very unappealing. I've had a banana and some peanut butter today. The less calories I eat the more I burn, I guess.
Yeah I try to do heavy. As heavy as I can. I do 6 to 8 reps whatever it is to failure, and 4 sets of those
You may wish to consult with your doctor on the amount of food you're able to eat while on the medication, as well as the exercise you're doing.
Here's another link, about four posts down she compiles calorie dense items to add to your diet and increase your caloric intake. So as far as volume of food you may not be eating much, but hopefully if you use some of the items that might work for you, you wouldn't be eating 600 calories per day either
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1331494-1200-calories-per-day0 -
[
[/quote]
I'd add this link, it's an absolutely great article with 148 citations to scientific studies:
http://evidencemag.com/why-calories-count/
[/quote]
Great read, thanks for posting!0 -
Wow part 2.
Thank you.
I'm in my late 20's ... 5 foot 11 inches ... 369 pounds.
I eat around 600 to 1200 calories a day.
I'm going to re-read your post a few times
At your weight and age, if you're new to weight training, then you probably will see some noob gains, i.e. gain muscle in a deficit in the short term. But the weight on the scale should start to come down as long as you're in a calorie deficit once these changes (noob gains, increased glycogen storage, increased bone density) have taken place... they will stall scale weight loss initially, but not indefinitely.
You should be able to eat quite a bit more than that and still lose weight. I've known of guys your size eat like 2500 cals/day and still lose 2-3lb a week. Eating more enables you to be more active, and therefore burn a higher total number of calories, and additionally, exercise has many health benefits (including building up your muscles and bones), it's not just for fat loss. Too big a deficit can be counterproductive... though as you have quite a bit to lose your body can handle a bigger deficit without so much risk of problems, so long as you are strength training and your protein intake is adequate. The main issue to look for is that you don't succumb to excessive hunger or rebound overeating. If that happens then you definitely need to eat more. The ideal number of calories is where you are getting enough to eat so you don't feel hungry, deprived and are not succumbing to rebound overeating or binge eating, but you're still losing weight steadily. 2-3lb/week fat loss is optimal when you have a lot to lose... as you get closer to goal you'd need to adjust that so you lose more slowly. There's nothing wrong with taking the fat loss more slowly though if you find it easier to stick to that way. It may take some trial and error to find your optimal calorie intake, whereby you're losing at a good rate and still enjoying eating and life in general. The important thing is being able to stick with it long term.
My doc put me on a pill that makes the thought of food sound very unappealing. I've had a banana and some peanut butter today. The less calories I eat the more I burn, I guess.0 -
1) No, but for all intent and purposes, Yes. While it isn't a perfect relationship and substrates may influence loss, the largest single influence is calorie deficit results in weight loss.
2) edema for exercise, glucagon replenishing from weight lifting, tom, changes in exercise that influence digestion rates, etc... can mask fat loss for weeks. Give it time. I personally take about 2-4 weeks after a significant program change to come back to a loss.
3) insulin induces cellular uptake of lipids and glucose and inhibits glucagon release, fat use, gluconeogenesis.... However, your body is using energy constantly so the storage uptake is counter balanced by the energy used. It's like if you said, how does the car run out of gas if the needle went up when we filled the tank. What happens looks like this....
Would it make sense then to not even starchy stuff so I'm never in the green and always in the blue?0 -
1) No, but for all intent and purposes, Yes. While it isn't a perfect relationship and substrates may influence loss, the largest single influence is calorie deficit results in weight loss.
2) edema for exercise, glucagon replenishing from weight lifting, tom, changes in exercise that influence digestion rates, etc... can mask fat loss for weeks. Give it time. I personally take about 2-4 weeks after a significant program change to come back to a loss.
3) insulin induces cellular uptake of lipids and glucose and inhibits glucagon release, fat use, gluconeogenesis.... However, your body is using energy constantly so the storage uptake is counter balanced by the energy used. It's like if you said, how does the car run out of gas if the needle went up when we filled the tank. What happens looks like this....
Would it make sense then to not even starchy stuff so I'm never in the green and always in the blue?
No, that's not how it works. Your body can store, protein, carbohydrates, and dietary fat as body fat. Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat. A calorie deficit is the only thing that causes a net stored fat decrease at the end of the day.0 -
Healthy food makes healthy bodies, but you can certainly lose weight without it.
So many otherwise-rational people have told me they lose more by eating earlier that I haven't discounted the idea.0 -
Healthy food makes healthy bodies, but you can certainly lose weight without it.
So many otherwise-rational people have told me they lose more by eating earlier that I haven't discounted the idea.
You should discount it, because they're wrong. Doesn't matter when you eat, how many meals you eat, how big each meal is, all that matters is total intake at the end of the day.0 -
I took a pill that erased all appetite. Then I got sweaty and felt...not dizzy, but "off"... so I thought, "Oh, heavens! I must eat!" After about four bites, I vomited.My doc put me on a pill that makes the thought of food sound very unappealing. I've had a banana and some peanut butter today. The less calories I eat the more I burn, I guess.
Lack of food wasn't the problem, lol. The pill was. (Duh.)
Probably not your issue! But when that happens - you get a pill and lose your appetite - it's good to call. (You probably are smarter then I am and already did.)0 -
Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat.
Eating more carbohydrate makes you burn more carbohydrate, which for a given level of activity / energy expenditure must mean burning less fat, shirley ?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737902/ "In moderately active adult females, ingestion of a single Low Carb meal resulted in greater lipid oxidation at rest and during exercise as compared to a single Low Fat meal. "0 -
1) No, but for all intent and purposes, Yes. While it isn't a perfect relationship and substrates may influence loss, the largest single influence is calorie deficit results in weight loss.
2) edema for exercise, glucagon replenishing from weight lifting, tom, changes in exercise that influence digestion rates, etc... can mask fat loss for weeks. Give it time. I personally take about 2-4 weeks after a significant program change to come back to a loss.
3) insulin induces cellular uptake of lipids and glucose and inhibits glucagon release, fat use, gluconeogenesis.... However, your body is using energy constantly so the storage uptake is counter balanced by the energy used. It's like if you said, how does the car run out of gas if the needle went up when we filled the tank. What happens looks like this....
Would it make sense then to not even starchy stuff so I'm never in the green and always in the blue?
No, that's not how it works. Your body can store, protein, carbohydrates, and dietary fat as body fat. Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat. A calorie deficit is the only thing that causes a net stored fat decrease at the end of the day.
Not true at all. Your body doesn't know what calorie is but the way it process fat, carbs, protein is very different.0 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html1) No, but for all intent and purposes, Yes. While it isn't a perfect relationship and substrates may influence loss, the largest single influence is calorie deficit results in weight loss.
2) edema for exercise, glucagon replenishing from weight lifting, tom, changes in exercise that influence digestion rates, etc... can mask fat loss for weeks. Give it time. I personally take about 2-4 weeks after a significant program change to come back to a loss.
3) insulin induces cellular uptake of lipids and glucose and inhibits glucagon release, fat use, gluconeogenesis.... However, your body is using energy constantly so the storage uptake is counter balanced by the energy used. It's like if you said, how does the car run out of gas if the needle went up when we filled the tank. What happens looks like this....
Would it make sense then to not even starchy stuff so I'm never in the green and always in the blue?
No, that's not how it works. Your body can store, protein, carbohydrates, and dietary fat as body fat. Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat. A calorie deficit is the only thing that causes a net stored fat decrease at the end of the day.
Not true at all. Your body doesn't know what calorie is but the way it process fat, carbs, protein is very different.
FTA:
1.Carbs are rarely converted to fat and stored as such
2. When you eat more carbs you burn more carbs and less fat; eat less carbs and you burn less carbs and more fat
3. Protein is basically never going to be converted to fat and stored as such
4. When you eat more protein, you burn more protein (and by extension, less carbs and less fat); eat less protein and you burn less protein (and by extension, more carbs and more fat)
5. Ingested dietary fat is primarily stored, eating more of it doesn’t impact on fat oxidation to a significant degree
"Carbs don’t make you fat via direct conversion and storage to fat; but excess carbs can still make you fat by blunting out the normal daily fat oxidation so that all of the fat you’re eating is stored. Which is why a 500 cal surplus of fat and a 500 cal surplus of carbs can both make you fat; they just do it for different reasons through different mechanisms. The 500 calories of excess fat is simply stored; the excess 500 calories of carbs ensure that all the fat you’re eating is stored because carb oxidation goes up and fat oxidation goes down. Got it? If not, re-read this paragraph until it sinks in."0 -
Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat.
Eating more carbohydrate makes you burn more carbohydrate, which for a given level of activity / energy expenditure must mean burning less fat, shirley ?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737902/ "In moderately active adult females, ingestion of a single Low Carb meal resulted in greater lipid oxidation at rest and during exercise as compared to a single Low Fat meal. "
I'm talking about fat loss on the aggregate, not on an instantaneous level, because the aggregate is what's important anyway. When you burn more carbohydrates, your rate of fat oxidation is decreased because you are getting energy from the carbs. There's also really no need for the name calling, my name is not Shirley...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions