Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

F00LofaT00K

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 I used the search function but some of the info may be outdated - not sure.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?

Absolutely. I believe in it, because it is true. There is never a time when a person would be in a caloric deficit that they aren't losing weight. In situations where people have severely under-active thyroids or other medical problems, they may have to eat a very small amount of food to create a deficit, but a deficit is a deficit. If you don't provide your body with enough fuel to sustain it's current weight, it will convert store fat into energy instead. Every. Single. Time. This is why I've been losing weight while eating more junk food than I did when I was fat.

#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.

When you introduce a new exercise regime, especially lifting, your body stores a whole load of water to assist in the repair of muscle. As your body gets used to its new activities, it will adapt and you will see weight loss. 3 weeks is not a long time to say that your weight loss has slowed. Weight loss is not linear, there are many variables such as storage of water weight, miscalculations in activity level, variation in calories in foods, etc. The weight is still coming off. Have you been taking measurements? Monthly measurements are a better assessment of progress than a scale IMO; though, I use both methods to track my own progress.

#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?

Just because one of the functions of insulin is to store fat, doesn't mean you will gain weight from eating carbohydrates. It also doesn't mean that ALL calories from ALL macronutrients don't store as fat. An excess amount of calories from protein or fat will also be stored as fat on your body unless you are actively using muscle, in which case you will also gain weight in the form of muscle. Your body is good at conserving calories for later use; this is what it was designed to do to ensure our survival. If your body is in a caloric deficit, you will be using your own fat as fuel. This will not be replaced by ANY of the foods that you eat because you will also be using the calories in the foods that you eat for fuel. You cannot store fat while in a deficit; you use the fat while you are in a deficit.

athenanehta

1. Yes. Calories in vs calories out is definitely how it works, but remember that metabolism can vary based on a number of factors- this will affect the 'calories out' part of the equation. These factors include current health, stress, hormones and nourishment.

2. Strength training depletes glycogen stores in muscles. To compensate, your body begins to store MORE glycogen in the muscles. For every glycogen molecule you store, you store three water molecules. These all weigh something, hence reducing your 'weight' loss, even though it is healthier for your muscles. You will still be burning fat and getting smaller, but that won't be reflected as much in the scales.

3. Insulin is a vital hormone- ask anyone with diabetes! We give insulin a bad rap because we exploit is with our high GI foods. Insulin effectively tries to keep our blood sugar level regulated, so if we eat high GI foods, we cause a big spike, requiring insulin to drastically pack all that sugar wherever it will fit- namely in fat cells (as well as in muscle as glycogen stores). If we are eating low-med GI foods, we are absorbing sugars from foods at a much more regulated level, reducing blood sugar spikes and therefore NOT NEEDING as much insulin. Therefore these absorbed sugars/carbs are not packed into fat cells, but rather are used for energy.

PS- exercise counters this somewhat, as when we exercise, we deplete the glycogen stores in our muscles, so when we do get insulin packing sugar away, it will replenish the glycogen stores --> meaning less sugar stored as fat

Momjogger

Yes you need to reduce calories to lose weight. Period. Exercise can also help decrease weight loss time by burning more calories, so calories in, calories out is a true statement for weight loss. There are a couple other things to think about though. I eat less and am less hungry when I focus on whole food carbs because they are more filling and less calorie dense (so I can eat more) and process slower (still calories in/calories out, but a good reason to choose whole food carbs such as fresh fruit and veggies). Also some whole fruits, vegetables, and protein take more effort for your body to process, so you burn SLIGHTLY more calories processing these foods. Is it enough to make a noticeable difference? Probably not. Also, I lose weight easier because I am less hungry when I eat more protein so I naturally take in less calories - still affecting calories in/calories out. I COULD lose weight eating only potato chips and french fries daily (yes please!) if I could control myself and my hunger only eating 1280 calories of them, but unfortunately for me, I cannot control my calories eating those foods. There are many reasons for this that include the fact that processed food and starchy carbs are calorie dense, so you cannot eat as much or feel as full when you eat them. I can eat more fresh carbs and more lean protein and feel satisfied on a calories deficit, so I do.

vismal

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

yarwell

I'm talking about fat loss on the aggregate, not on an instantaneous level, because the aggregate is what's important anyway.

Yep, over a week there isn't enough glycogen reserve to handle a big discrepancy. For some hours after eating a large amount of carbs the oxidation of fat is suppressed so if fat burning is the goal that may not be the best idea. The same calories eaten as fat don't do that. Hence there is more to it than just calories, as the body responds differently to different sources of calories.

I don't think the human body has the faintest notion of the somewhat arbitrary concept of energy but the balances of fat, protein and carbohydrate are honoured under the control of hormones etc. If you come along afterwards with your notebook and calculator you can probably make the calories taken in match the calories you can find coming out.

vismal

I'm talking about fat loss on the aggregate, not on an instantaneous level, because the aggregate is what's important anyway.

Yep, over a week there isn't enough glycogen reserve to handle a big discrepancy. For some hours after eating a large amount of carbs the oxidation of fat is suppressed so if fat burning is the goal that may not be the best idea. The same calories eaten as fat don't do that. Hence there is more to it than just calories, as the body responds differently to different sources of calories.

I don't think the human body has the faintest notion of the somewhat arbitrary concept of energy but the balances of fat, protein and carbohydrate are honoured under the control of hormones etc. If you come along afterwards with your notebook and calculator you can probably make the calories taken in match the calories you can find coming out.

Fat oxidation is not suppressed for hours after eating carbs. It's not that long of a period of time. Also, in the absence of carbs, protein can cause just as much of an insulin spike. So operating under the belief that insulin spikes prevent weight loss, one would need to eat no carbs and no protein to lose weight. This simply is not the case. Calories in vs calories out always trumps any short term changes in fat oxidation. If you eat 500 less calories then you burn for several weeks/months, the body MUST make up for the energy discrepancy. It will do this by burning stored fuel.

nomorebingesgirl2014

Bump

LunaStar2008

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....

QuietBloom

Belief refers to faith. I don't 'believe' it is strictly calories in calories out, I KNOW it is because science.

What gets people tripped up is figuring out what their calories in and how many they are expending in exercise. That takes a little work. Personally I use a food scale and own a FitBit. That's as close as anyone can get to a good estimation IMO.

MelodyandBarbells

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 basis

ironanimal

@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.

AnswerzPwease

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.

brittaney0625

#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.

FisherGT

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.

EvgeniZyntx

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 ...

SunofaBeach14

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% ethanol

Muffie22

#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.

brower47

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.

SunofaBeach14

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? Totes