Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

albayin

I do believe #1 although I haven't found the right number for myself and I know I am not alone...

AllOutof_Bubblegum

YUP

paperpudding

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...

I think it was just a typo and silly auto correct put 'shirley' instead of 'surely'

Wetcoaster

Layne Norton....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FviIXAvUj_U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6H2edyPLU8

Leighsters

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

― Neil deGrasse Tyson

YESSSS

GreatDepression

No and the science shows that blood sugar (and thus carbs) affects how you lose and gain fat.

sloth3toes

In. Interested.

AnswerzPwease

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.

Should I stop weight lifting for now?

I just checked and have only lost 1 pound in 12 days.

And that's with a 10,000 calorie defecit per week. Heck, even if I was somehow misweighing food and was off by five THOUSAND calories, I should still be at least 2-3 pounds lost in that time.

neandermagnon

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...

I think it was just a typo and silly auto correct put 'shirley' instead of 'surely'

neandermagnon

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.

Should I stop weight lifting for now?

I just checked and have only lost 1 pound in 12 days.

And that's with a 10,000 calorie defecit per week. Heck, even if I was somehow misweighing food and was off by five THOUSAND calories, I should still be at least 2-3 pounds lost in that time.

no, don't stop lifting weights. That is what's going to protect your lean mass.

You mentioned some medication to suppress your appetite - I don't think that's such a good idea. You could be retaining water (medicines can do weird things like that). You can't eat as little as you are and not lose fat. You can't be misweighing by thta much. I wouldn't advise appetite suppressants anyway, due to the fact it's not a sustainable strategy, maybe discuss an alternative approach with your doctor. I'd recommend a balanced diet and plenty of exercise, including strength training of some sort. If you eat more protein, fresh vegetables and low GI carbs that should keep you feeling full on a deficit. As you have a lot to lose your body can handle a bigger deficit... set your calories to lose 2-3lb a week, eat all of that food, lift weights,do whatever other exercise you like. Doctors are faced with a lot of people who just don't have the motivation to do all that, so they prescribe appetite suppressants... but I think most doctors prefer it if patients have the determination to do everything the healthy way.

MeanderingMammal

No and the science shows that blood sugar (and thus carbs) affects how you lose and gain fat.

Yet you're never going to store energy that you haven't consumed.

59gi

Yes, because our body does not utilize every calorie the same.

59gi

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. "

Yes, not all calories are created equal.

kgeyser

Oh goody, it's this argument again, and all the derp that goes with it.

LunaStar2008

I do believe in cals in and out, but our body doesn't respond always like a calculator. Even if you were for 2-3 weeks at a 3500 cal deficit each week, which would by calculation equal to 2-3 lbs weight loss, your scale may have not budged at all. But then out of the sudden you dropp 3-4lbs at once. Some explained the phenomena here and the science behind it and I don't go deeper in detail, because they did explain it better then I ever could.
Weight loss is not a mathematical quation. Different factors in our body, process and functions are part of the weight loss process. Thinking and seeing/hearing from long term results, a calorie deficit will lead sooner or later to a weight reduction.
As others have stated, it is as well important to continue or start an exercise program to protect and improve skeletal muscles and lean muscle mass. It may stall weight loss for some time as well, but will in the long run support the weight loss.

Muscle degenerate after 5 days already. So, if you take a vacation and break from your work out routine longer then 5 days, the degeneration process already started. It may not impact you that much if you just 2-3 days over that time frame, but if you vacate your workouts for a month or longer it definitely has a huge impact on your muscles performance and weight loss success. it also means after a long break in your work out routine, one is more prone to injuries.

littlekitty3

1) No. Not with personal experiences as well as what other people have said I don't believe that hype, it's true to a certain extent. I used to eat way less calories and now I eat twice the amount I used to eat.

2) water retention is used for muscle repair.

3) not all sugar/carbs is the same. The carbs found in what grows out of the ground (fruit and veg) are going to be different from what you find in a package (juice, candy, cereal). The more in a natural state the food is the better the body will digest as well as absorb and use nutrition. If you keep the carbs to mostly raw vegan (fruits and veg) you will stabilize insulin levels. When there is too much fat in the bloodstream you will eventually start having issues with insulin.

tennisdude2004

In to read thread later.

MelodyandBarbells

I do believe in cals in and out, but our body doesn't respond always like a calculator. Even if you were for 2-3 weeks at a 3500 cal deficit each week, which would by calculation equal to 2-3 lbs weight loss, your scale may have not budged at all. But then out of the sudden you dropp 3-4lbs at once. Some explained the phenomena here and the science behind it and I don't go deeper in detail, because they did explain it better then I ever could.
Weight loss is not a mathematical quation.

So because it works over a period of three weeks rather than two days, calories in calories out doesn't work?

SunofaBeach14

Oh goody, it's this argument again, and all the derp that goes with it.

Pretty much. I'm seriously entertained

stevencloser

I'm so in for the usual.