Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

maidentl

I thought we establishment it was a troll.

This:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

Gina, please just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. In fact, at this point I'm embarrassed for you.

yopeeps025

she is a lost cause who needs our help but she is too stubborn.

ketoambahh

Absolutely not. 2000 from breads and starches versus 2000 calories from fat/protein will affect your body QUITE differently. One will cause your blood sugar to skyrocket while the other gives you proper energy and nutrients your body naturally needs.

"Everything in moderation" is great if you're trying to maintain weight. However, if you're trying to lose it it's better if the calories come from fats and protein and VERY MINIMALLY from carbs and sugars.

Sarauk2sf

Hey!!!!

Remember me???

I started this thread! Can I just ask another question before we go back to 10 more pages of arguing haha.

So do I just keep going for another month and hope th scale starts to move?

I don't think I can cut my calories back much more.

What was the question again?

j/k


Keep going for a few more weeks - you are most likely retaining water/glycogen from starting to exercise - it can take a fair few weeks to settle down (I have seen up to 2 months for some) and it can mask 'real' weight loss while it is doing do.

Sarauk2sf

Absolutely not. 2000 from breads and starches versus 2000 calories from fat/protein will affect your body QUITE differently. One will cause your blood sugar to skyrocket while the other gives you proper energy and nutrients your body naturally needs.

"Everything in moderation" is great if you're trying to maintain weight. However, if you're trying to lose it it's better if the calories come from fats and protein and VERY MINIMALLY from carbs and sugars.

Minimal fruits and veggies?

It is not better for me for my carbs to be minimal - I like energy for my workouts - which help my body comp.

jofjltncb6

if I eat fruits and veggies 1500 calories = 1500 calories of fast food. I will lose the same amount of weight.

Body composition will look different but exact same weight loss.

To be clear, your mean time and frequency in bathroom will both be substantially higher in one of these scenarios too.

(Or maybe that was just my own n=1 a couple of years ago when my excessive fruit consumption led to all kinds of disgusting tests that I'd rather not think about ever again.)

AnswerzPwease

Hey!!!!

Remember me???

I started this thread! Can I just ask another question before we go back to 10 more pages of arguing haha.

So do I just keep going for another month and hope th scale starts to move?

I don't think I can cut my calories back much more.

Sorry OP, if you stated how many calories you were taking in and your exact workout routine somewhere it got buried and I missed it.

If your concern is when you started lifting the scale stopped moving then I would recommend you ignore the scale and continue doing what you are doing, it is impossible that lifting weights without changing your diet stopped you from losing fat. The fact your scale weight hasn't changed as much as you would like is undoubtedly due to water retention and not a change in your fat loss rate...if anything lifting is going to help with your fat loss and definitely with your overall fitness.

Whether you are eating enough or eating to much is hard to know without your diary being open or a mention of your intake.

Hi

Thank you.

Last few days im around 1000 to 1500 cals a day now.

I workout every other day. Up to 4 sets (8 reps each) of squats, bench press, dead lift, shoulders and arms.

AnswerzPwease

Hey!!!!

Remember me???

I started this thread! Can I just ask another question before we go back to 10 more pages of arguing haha.

So do I just keep going for another month and hope th scale starts to move?

I don't think I can cut my calories back much more.

What was the question again?

j/k


Keep going for a few more weeks - you are most likely retaining water/glycogen from starting to exercise - it can take a fair few weeks to settle down (I have seen up to 2 months for some) and it can mask 'real' weight loss while it is doing do.

How long do you think I should wait until I start seeing a steady loss again?

jofjltncb6

Absolutely not. 2000 from breads and starches versus 2000 calories from fat/protein will affect your body QUITE differently. One will cause your blood sugar to skyrocket while the other gives you proper energy and nutrients your body naturally needs.

"Everything in moderation" is great if you're trying to maintain weight. However, if you're trying to lose it it's better if the calories come from fats and protein and VERY MINIMALLY from carbs and sugars.

Just what this thread needed. Some extremist (aka keto) dietary viewpoints on the "best" way to lose weight.

You know another way to lose weight that is potentially less dangerous and just as effective? Eating at a slight caloric deficit over time.

yopeeps025

if I eat fruits and veggies 1500 calories = 1500 calories of fast food. I will lose the same amount of weight.

Body composition will look different but exact same weight loss.

To be clear, your mean time and frequency in bathroom will both be substantially higher in one of these scenarios too.

(Or maybe that was just my own n=1 a couple of years ago when my excessive fruit consumption led to all kinds of disgusting tests that I'd rather not think about ever again.)

missing the point of CICO. but yeah my friend went on a 3000 calorie fruit diet and lost his erection with a girl.

yopeeps025

OP are your clothes getting looser and looser with no scale change?

Sarauk2sf

Hey!!!!

Remember me???

I started this thread! Can I just ask another question before we go back to 10 more pages of arguing haha.

So do I just keep going for another month and hope th scale starts to move?

I don't think I can cut my calories back much more.

What was the question again?

j/k


Keep going for a few more weeks - you are most likely retaining water/glycogen from starting to exercise - it can take a fair few weeks to settle down (I have seen up to 2 months for some) and it can mask 'real' weight loss while it is doing do.

How long do you think I should wait until I start seeing a steady loss again?

I would give it 2 more weeks and see if you start to drop the weight. If not, I would start looking at your calorie level, activity..and yes....possibly your macros .

59gi

I thought we establishment it was a troll.

This:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

Gina, please just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. In fact, at this point I'm embarrassed for you.

LOLLOLLOL! Worry about yourself!

Sarauk2sf

Hey!!!!

Remember me???

I started this thread! Can I just ask another question before we go back to 10 more pages of arguing haha.

So do I just keep going for another month and hope th scale starts to move?

I don't think I can cut my calories back much more.

Sorry OP, if you stated how many calories you were taking in and your exact workout routine somewhere it got buried and I missed it.

If your concern is when you started lifting the scale stopped moving then I would recommend you ignore the scale and continue doing what you are doing, it is impossible that lifting weights without changing your diet stopped you from losing fat. The fact your scale weight hasn't changed as much as you would like is undoubtedly due to water retention and not a change in your fat loss rate...if anything lifting is going to help with your fat loss and definitely with your overall fitness.

Whether you are eating enough or eating to much is hard to know without your diary being open or a mention of your intake.

Hi

Thank you.

Last few days im around 1000 to 1500 cals a day now.

I workout every other day. Up to 4 sets (8 reps each) of squats, bench press, dead lift, shoulders and arms.

Are you weighing and logging all your food?

jmv7117

One thing I want to say is this though. The calories on a nutrition label represent the amount of calories that are potentially extractable from that food. Meaning if it says 100 calories 100 calories is the most you can ever get with 100% efficiency. There might be someone who gets 90 calories from it of usable energy and someone who gets 50 calories from it of usable energy but no one is going to get 120 calories from it. The idea that you can eat a tiny amount and yet maintain your weight because you somehow have a reduced metabolism or somehow get more calorically out of food than there is in the food I am very very skeptical of.

There is going to be a minimum caloric requirement though based on just physical law. Your body, no matter what your disorder, has to maintain a certain body temperature. That temperature is at odds with the environmental temperature and there is a certain amount of energy that needs to be expended to keep i there. Your heart, no matter what your disorder, will still have to keep beating...maybe it beats slower...maybe faster...but it still beats, that takes a certain amount of energy. Your brain...same thing.

Sure, I can believe hyperthyroid your heart beats faster, your body temp is elevated and so your CO is raised by some percentage (not a huge percentage, just some). Sure, I can believe that hypothyroid your heart beats slower, your body temp maybe a bit cooler and you are more lethargic leading to your CO being lowered by some percentage (not a huge percentage, just some). All this means though is that your CO is not going to be the CO spit out by an online calculator because that is based on a population average for which you are an outlier. That, however, has no bearing on the validity of CICO...it just means that the online calc doesn't give an accurate value for your CO.

Using a thyroid condition or any medical condition as a reason CICO is invalid is like using a watch that runs slow to argue that it is impossible to accurately measure the speed of a car. No, it is still possible...your watch is just slow.

I thought I saw someone mentioning the commercial label could be off by up to 20%? Could be "100 calories" actually "120"?

According to labeling laws, the nutritional label can be up to 20% off meaning if the label say 100 calories, the actual caloric value can range from 80 to 120 calories. I did specifically target highly processed foods when saying you could be eating 20% more in calories because the food manufacturers know they do not have to be precise. All they have to do is fall within that 20%. Chances are good there will be a higher carb or fat content than declared because it makes the product taste better meaning they sell more product. If you eat moderate to large amounts of highly processed foods while cutting calories, this 20% variance can really add up. Another thing to consider, is restaurants that make the nutritional values available for their foods are under the same 20% variance guidelines BUT in reality the variance can be a bit higher because foods can vary slightly from one chain location to another. All it takes is for an employee to put 1.5 tbsp of ketchup on a burger rather than 1 tbsp. That variance can also affect the level of calorie deficit you think you have.

yopeeps025

I thought we establishment it was a troll.

This:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

Gina, please just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. In fact, at this point I'm embarrassed for you.

LOLLOLLOL! Worry about yourself!

All I can say is when my success story is written and it will projected date in October, hopefully you are closer to your goal.

_Terrapin_

I'm still waiting on how you can eat whatever you want in whatever quantity and not gain weight.

It's all about the quality!

Just as well I usually eat the quality ice-creams.

Mint Chocolate Chip?!?

Charlottesometimes23

If they kept the men and women separate in the analysis the variability would be reduced and the chances of finding a significant difference increased.

It is a somehow arbitrary decision that says P<0.05 is "significant" and anything greater is "not significant" - as the value increases the evidence is less convincing but one cannot say "there is no effect" on this basis - http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_12/12_4_2_p_values_and_statistical_significance.htm

If I said there was a 25% chance that the extra 20% weight loss of the reduced carbohydrate arm was pure chance would you go for it ? or does it need to be less than 5% chance :-)

Someone very kindly sent me the full text and the p-value was 0.23, so not even a whiff of significance in this study.

AnswerzPwease

Hey!!!!

Remember me???

I started this thread! Can I just ask another question before we go back to 10 more pages of arguing haha.

So do I just keep going for another month and hope th scale starts to move?

I don't think I can cut my calories back much more.

Sorry OP, if you stated how many calories you were taking in and your exact workout routine somewhere it got buried and I missed it.

If your concern is when you started lifting the scale stopped moving then I would recommend you ignore the scale and continue doing what you are doing, it is impossible that lifting weights without changing your diet stopped you from losing fat. The fact your scale weight hasn't changed as much as you would like is undoubtedly due to water retention and not a change in your fat loss rate...if anything lifting is going to help with your fat loss and definitely with your overall fitness.

Whether you are eating enough or eating to much is hard to know without your diary being open or a mention of your intake.

Hi

Thank you.

Last few days im around 1000 to 1500 cals a day now.

I workout every other day. Up to 4 sets (8 reps each) of squats, bench press, dead lift, shoulders and arms.

Are you weighing and logging all your food?

Just started logging in MFP today. Used another service before.

Yes, weigh almost everything. Learned my lesson after finding out my 2tbsp of PB weighed more than the 32g the package listed.

jofjltncb6

PB is a great scale educator.