Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Replies
-
To JaneiR36:
I am not saying that it doesn't work at all. The weight loss in a period of 2-3 days may be lost water weight, but not actual fat loss. Since you even explained it some other threats, that a deficit of 3500 cals is needed to loose 1lbs of fat.
What I was trying to express is; even we don't see immediate results, it doesn't mean there is no change happen in our bodies, as well as every body reacts to changes different - some faster, some slower.
Yes, with considered food consumption the scale may budge a pound or two, but as I learned on some of this threat it could be even up to 5lbs flucation, but is it really a "weight/fat" loss?
So, I just want to say; see over a period of time, i.e. 2-3 weeks your average weight. During that time frame one should see a downward dentency. Fast results may only be temporary.
That's all....
I gotcha, thanks for the clarification! Basically calories in calories out won't explain everything that happens on the scale every single day. With a little bit of patience, it definitely holds true on a longer term basis0 -
@LunaStar2008 - I seem to remember a study (I think) that theorised that fat cells emptied of fat, were temporarily filled with water. I'll try to find it.
Edit: No study that I can find, but this article at http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/of-whooshes-and-squishy-fat.html may give some explanation.0 -
Whether or not one believes in calories in vs calories out is completely irrelevant. If you jump off a tall building, the universe doesn't care whether or not your believe in gravity. You will splat into the ground no matter what you believe. The same is true about the energy equation and thermodynamics. It's not a theory, it's a scientific law. One's individual belief in the law does not matter.
As far as insulin goes, you will never completely rid yourself of insulin spikes. Protein spikes insulin so even if you go completely low/no carb, you will still have insulin spikes. If it was impossible to lose weight if insulin spikes occur, then it would impossible to lose weight. You can never completely halt insulin spiking from occurring. Insulin spikes do not last forever. The simply fact is that if your burn 3000 calories in a day and only eat 2500 then the extra 500 calories must come from somewhere. Energy does not come out of thin air. This is a very unscientific explanation of a very scientific process. For a great article on why insulin is not the enemy read this: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
The issue seems to be that many scientists don't agree that cals in/cals out is science. They believe it's not a law at all.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.
Agree.0 -
I believe that the fuel you put in your body differs. I ate mostly sugar today, but i only ate 690 calories. So im probably not going to gain weight. If i ate 50 carbs or less i could have eaten 1200 and still lost weight. It depends on the type of food you put in.0
-
I believe that the fuel you put in your body differs. I ate mostly sugar today, but i only ate 690 calories. So im probably not going to gain weight. If i ate 50 carbs or less i could have eaten 1200 and still lost weight. It depends on the type of food you put in.
Wut?
Doesn't sound like particularly the best of ideas there ...0 -
I believe that the fuel you put in your body differs. I ate mostly sugar today, but i only ate 690 calories. So im probably not going to gain weight. If i ate 50 carbs or less i could have eaten 1200 and still lost weight. It depends on the type of food you put in.
Wut?
Doesn't sound like particularly the best of ideas there ...
I use at least 10% ethanol0 -
#1. Yes. I eat ice cream, cake, pizza, and drink a hell of a lot. I've still lost 35lbs because on average i've been under the calories i need.
#2. I dunno. 1lb per week is hardly a snails pace in the long run though. Tape measure will probably show some differences.
#3 .... because we're eating less calories than we need? simple as that.0 -
I believe that the fuel you put in your body differs. I ate mostly sugar today, but i only ate 690 calories. So im probably not going to gain weight. If i ate 50 carbs or less i could have eaten 1200 and still lost weight. It depends on the type of food you put in.
So, you're saying that you only ate 690 calories today? You could have eaten 690 calories of lard and 'probably' not gain weight or 690 calories of anything because... 690 calories will never make you gain weight unless you're 2 feet tall. It doesn't depend on the type of food, it depends on how many calories your body burns vs how many calories you ingest. Ingest fewer than you burn, you lose weight. Ingest more than you burn, you gain weight.0 -
You mean like whether I believe that the Earth is flat, the Moon landing was faked, and how the CIA and KBG collectively arranged for JFK's assassination? Totes0
-
I wasn't aware you couldn't gain muscle while on a calorie deficit... so much for common knowledge lol #IKnowNothing0
-
Curious what everyone thinks of this article from Harvard.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/0 -
In theory, is it as simple as Cal In vs Cal Out? Yep. The problem is calculating Cal In. And Cal Out. The simple models we're using today are pretty inaccurate, it seems to me.
First on the Cal In. How much energy does it take to process the food we eat? The metabolic pathway that processes 100 calories of sugar has a different cost than the one that processes 100 calories of protein. I've been told it takes more energy to process protein, so you end up netting fewer calories. So your 100 calories of protein is really 70 calories, maybe, after your body is done processing the energy.
Then the Cal Out - our bodies are very adaptive. Maybe if you had a BMR test done every day or something you'd know for sure, but in general I think the gross estimates we use (estimates for BMR, estimates for burn during exercise, etc) are just SWAGs at best. I think our understanding of how the body extracts, stores, and processes energy is pretty limited at this point, and technology hasn't gotten to the point where we can really "do the math" exactly for a person trying to lose weight.
So yes, I believe in the laws of thermodynamics. But I also believe that our bodies are way more complex than a car. So figuring out how much energy is going in and coming out of this complex machine is the real challenge.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."
In a surplus, excess carbs can be stored as fat if not required as immediate energy and glycogen stores in the muscles and liver are full (limited storage - strange that for a primary fuel).0 -
The issue seems to be that many scientists don't agree that cals in/cals out is science. They believe it's not a law at all.
Do you mean real scientists or Professors of woo?0 -
In theory, is it as simple as Cal In vs Cal Out? Yep. The problem is calculating Cal In. And Cal Out. The simple models we're using today are pretty inaccurate, it seems to me.
First on the Cal In. How much energy does it take to process the food we eat? The metabolic pathway that processes 100 calories of sugar has a different cost than the one that processes 100 calories of protein. I've been told it takes more energy to process protein, so you end up netting fewer calories. So your 100 calories of protein is really 70 calories, maybe, after your body is done processing the energy.
Then the Cal Out - our bodies are very adaptive. Maybe if you had a BMR test done every day or something you'd know for sure, but in general I think the gross estimates we use (estimates for BMR, estimates for burn during exercise, etc) are just SWAGs at best. I think our understanding of how the body extracts, stores, and processes energy is pretty limited at this point, and technology hasn't gotten to the point where we can really "do the math" exactly for a person trying to lose weight.
So yes, I believe in the laws of thermodynamics. But I also believe that our bodies are way more complex than a car. So figuring out how much energy is going in and coming out of this complex machine is the real challenge.
And while all of those are legitimate points, you can still simplify the equation to CICO when dieting down and be successful doing it. I believe that is what gets lost in all of these discussions. No one is saying that different macros have different affects on body composition, or even to a much lesser degree, weight loss (given the TEoF), and of course on health. The point is that by simply measuring your intake and output, measuring where you can, and sticking with it you will lose weight because CICO will hold. The rest, while they make interesting reading, are easily lost in the noise of inaccurate measuring and estimation of exercise calories.0 -
If you agree or not makes no difference. It's science. (discussion now finished)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."
In a surplus, excess carbs can be stored as fat if not required as immediate energy and glycogen stores in the muscles and liver are full (limited storage - strange that for a primary fuel).
Is this true?
I could be at a 1000 calorie deficit but if I'm at a carb/glycogen is full I can still gain fat?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."
In a surplus, excess carbs can be stored as fat if not required as immediate energy and glycogen stores in the muscles and liver are full (limited storage - strange that for a primary fuel).
Is this true?
I could be at a 1000 calorie deficit but if I'm at a carb/glycogen is full I can still gain fat?
No, if you are in a deficit you will lose weight.0 -
For #2, muscle is denser than fat, so it weighs more. You may be losing fat at the same rate if you're sticking to your diet, but if you're building muscle you will weigh more than expected than if you were only losing fat. Don't worry about that!
0 -
.
#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?
Yes i do. It's science! (hahaha). Seriously though, the fat in your body is primarily a storage of excessive calories. Calories is simply a unit of energy. Your body is constantly using energy to do normal daily activities (including digesting food, pumping blood through your body, heck, even thinking burns calories). When you eat fewer calories than you need to burn in a day, your body will start to remove fat from your body so you can use the calories from there. That being said, your muscles also contain calories and protein is easier to break down than fat, so your body will also resort to breaking down your muscles for energy if it needs to.
If you eat more than you need to burn, all the excess calories will be turned into fat and stored in your body.
The only thing that would change this is a medical condition. I knew a kid in highschool that could literally eat a horse and he wouldn't put on a pound.#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.
Water weight. Just keep at it and you'll be fine. Btw, how much do you have to lose? If it's less than 100lbs, eat more. In fact, eat more anyway. Aim for 1 lb/week.#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?
Most people seem really confused about insulin and how it works in the body. Yes, when you eat carbs, your insulin levels do increase, but this is a naturally occuring good thing for you. Yes, it does increase the rate calories are turned into fat, but at the same time, it also increases the rate your glycogen stores are refilled (if you just finished working out) and it also increases the rate at this protein is delievered to your muscles, so they can be repaired faster (say, when you just finished weight lifting).
The only time insulin is going to have a negative effect to your weight loss is if you eat an excessive amount of food. In other words: more calories in than calories out. Unless you have diabetes or some other medical problem that effects your insulin, you're fine and it's not going to stop you from losing weight.
Heck, more than half the community on here has lost weight while eating high levels of carbohydrates.0 -
For #2, muscle is denser than fat, so it weighs more. You may be losing fat at the same rate if you're sticking to your diet, but if you're building muscle you will weigh more than expected than if you were only losing fat. Don't worry about that!
False. You cannot build muscle while on a deficit, and you certainly cannot build muscle faster than you can burn fat, regardless fo your calorie intake.0 -
For #2, muscle is denser than fat, so it weighs more. You may be losing fat at the same rate if you're sticking to your diet, but if you're building muscle you will weigh more than expected than if you were only losing fat. Don't worry about that!
False. You cannot build muscle while on a deficit, and you certainly cannot build muscle faster than you can burn fat, regardless fo your calorie intake.
That's what scares me.
I'll be going on 3 weeks of weight lifting with only 1 pound lost. If I'm not building muscle, then I must be retaining a TON of water.
I should have lost AT LEAST 6 pounds of fat in that time. More like 8 to 10 considering my deficit. Am I holding on to 6 to 10 pounds of water due to the lifting? Eek!
Edited to add: I have been eating a banana with 32g (weighed) of PB before bed. Not sure if that's an issue. It's my "treat" so to speak.0 -
For #2, muscle is denser than fat, so it weighs more. You may be losing fat at the same rate if you're sticking to your diet, but if you're building muscle you will weigh more than expected than if you were only losing fat. Don't worry about that!
False. You cannot build muscle while on a deficit, and you certainly cannot build muscle faster than you can burn fat, regardless fo your calorie intake.
That's what scares me.
I'll be going on 3 weeks of weight lifting with only 1 pound lost. If I'm not building muscle, then I must be retaining a TON of water.
I should have lost AT LEAST 6 pounds of fat in that time. More like 8 to 10 considering my deficit. Am I holding on to 6 to 10 pounds of water due to the lifting? Eek!
Edited to add: I have been eating a banana with 32g (weighed) of PB before bed. Not sure if that's an issue. It's my "treat" so to speak.
That shouldn't cause any issues.
What's your situation? How much do you weight, how much have you lost? How much do you have left to go?0 -
I think the calories in versus calories out is a good start of course you should use those calories wisely after all the are all you get for the day. If you use all your calories up on sugar then when you get hungry after the sugar calories are used up what will you eat then.0
-
1. Yes, only caveat is that if you were to eat too high a percentage of carbohydrates for a long period of time, eventually your body would develop a resistance to insulin, and that changes the calorie balance equation, but if you eat a relatively balanced diet, then yes calories in vs calories out all the way.
2. Yes
3. The purpose of insulin is to lower the amount of glucose in your blood stream. When insulin is released, it shuttles glucose out of your blood stream and either stores it as glycogen in your muscles and liver or stores it as body fat. You are always storing fat and you are always oxidizing fat (burning fat). The relative rates of the two processes determine the whether you are netting a fat burn or netting a storage of fat at any given point in time. 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. Don't think of insulin as a bad thing, insulin is a good thing as long as you don't abuse it.
0 -
For #2, muscle is denser than fat, so it weighs more. You may be losing fat at the same rate if you're sticking to your diet, but if you're building muscle you will weigh more than expected than if you were only losing fat. Don't worry about that!
False. You cannot build muscle while on a deficit, and you certainly cannot build muscle faster than you can burn fat, regardless fo your calorie intake.
That's what scares me.
I'll be going on 3 weeks of weight lifting with only 1 pound lost. If I'm not building muscle, then I must be retaining a TON of water.
I should have lost AT LEAST 6 pounds of fat in that time. More like 8 to 10 considering my deficit. Am I holding on to 6 to 10 pounds of water due to the lifting? Eek!
Edited to add: I have been eating a banana with 32g (weighed) of PB before bed. Not sure if that's an issue. It's my "treat" so to speak.
That shouldn't cause any issues.
What's your situation? How much do you weight, how much have you lost? How much do you have left to go?
5 foot 11. 369 pounds. Started at 390. Lost 20 of the 21 in the first 2 weeks. Have lost only 1 pound since starting weight lifting.0 -
False. You cannot build muscle while on a deficit, and you certainly cannot build muscle faster than you can burn fat, regardless fo your calorie intake.
This is not quite correct - It should read ... One cannot build a lot of muscle while on a large deficit but it is certainly possible to have limited gains in muscle mass during a small deficit. In particular, the idea that early or "newbie" gains are quite possible at a deficit is generally recognized.
In other words, even in a diet that results in an average deficit over a day or a week there are always periods of excess protein, lipids and energy that may lead to selective utilization for muscular development. It's limited during a (small) deficit but it isn't absent.0 -
False. You cannot build muscle while on a deficit, and you certainly cannot build muscle faster than you can burn fat, regardless fo your calorie intake.
This is not quite correct - It should read ... One cannot build a lot of muscle while on a large deficit but it is certainly possible to have limited gains in muscle mass during a small deficit. In particular, the idea that early or "newbie" gains are quite possible at a deficit is generally recognized.
In other words, even in a diet that results in an average deficit over a day or a week there are always periods of excess protein, lipids and energy that may lead to selective utilization for muscular development. It's limited during a (small) deficit but it isn't absent.
^ This can't be said enough as it seems to be regularly glossed over and it's important considering how many new lifters are here.0 -
False. You cannot build muscle while on a deficit, and you certainly cannot build muscle faster than you can burn fat, regardless fo your calorie intake.
This is not quite correct - It should read ... One cannot build a lot of muscle while on a large deficit but it is certainly possible to have limited gains in muscle mass during a small deficit. In particular, the idea that early or "newbie" gains are quite possible at a deficit is generally recognized.
In other words, even in a diet that results in an average deficit over a day or a week there are always periods of excess protein, lipids and energy that may lead to selective utilization for muscular development. It's limited during a (small) deficit but it isn't absent.
I am guilty of glossing over this, I admit. Mostly because I don't want to get into it with the serious lifters who repeat this like it is dogma and will defend it to the death. But that is just a reason, and not an excuse.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