Calories in vs. Calories out? Not that easy!!

kristy_estes21

Saw this on Jamie Eason's Facebook page this morning and couldn't agree more!!
"The most annoying thing I hear is when people attempt to simplify nutrition with the phrase, 'It's as simple as, calories in versus calories out!' NO IT'S NOT!!! You cannot eat cheesecake all day and just because its under your daily calorie requirement, be in shape! That's rubbish! Macros matter!!"

tellybelle

Girly! This is exactly what I needed after my wall post with my calorie concern! Thanks for sharing

4theking

Saw this on Jamie Eason's Facebook page this morning and couldn't agree more!!
"The most annoying thing I hear is when people attempt to simplify nutrition with the phrase, 'It's as simple as, calories in versus calories out!' NO IT'S NOT!!! You cannot eat cheesecake all day and just because its under your daily calorie requirement, be in shape! That's rubbish! Macros matter!!"

Losing weight yes, body composition of an athlete no.

mapexdrummer69

Calories determine body weight. Macronutrient consumption determines body composition. Simple as that. Whole foods are more dense in vitamins and nutrients vs. processed foods and are important to overall health, but they have no bearing on weight loss.

GrowOrDie

Not all calories are created equal... this is the "100 calorie pack" obesity generation. All about the QUALITY of those calories! If enough of us preach this, maybe we can save people allot of work and stress about what to do and what not to do!

mapexdrummer69

Not all calories are created equal... this is the "100 calorie pack" obesity generation. All about the QUALITY of those calories! If enough of us preach this, maybe we can save people allot of work and stress about what to do and what not to do!

Please clarify what you mean. Are you talking about the micronutrient composition of things, such as vitamins and minerals? I will agree that in that sense all FOOD is not created equally. A calorie is a calorie.

TK421NotAtPost

It's amazing how many people try to discredit the energy balance equation by saying idiotic things like "can't each cheesecake all day and be in shape". Well, no $ h i t Ms. Eason! And the fact that macros do matter isn't exactly an earthshattering comment either.

Energy balance equation does in fact, take into account many factors including hormonal responses, thermic effect of food & activity, resting metabolic rate, etc.

Hence, most people who know what they are talking about recommend setting protein levels first (usually quite high)...and then fill in carb and fats levels according to their varying levels of activity and carb sensitivity.

mapexdrummer69

Exactly. There are minimums of protein, ~1-1.5g per pound of LMB for active individuals, and ~.45g of fat per pound of bodyweight.


Those are essential and should be viewed as minimums.

ilsie99

It's amazing how many people try to discredit the energy balance equation by saying idiotic things like "can't each cheesecake all day and be in shape". Well, no $ h i t Ms. Eason! And the fact that macros do matter isn't exactly an earthshattering comment either.

Energy balance equation does in fact, take into account many factors including hormonal responses, thermic effect of food & activity, resting metabolic rate, etc.

Hence, most people who know what they are talking about recommend setting protein levels first (usually quite high)...and then fill in carb and fats levels according to their varying levels of activity and carb sensitivity.

I like this post.

pjenkinsabq

She is only making the comment that cals in vs. cals out is not what you should do,you do have to be smarter than that. I get what she is saying, why does everyone hate so much?

Where did she try to discredit the energy balance equation? Just saying she made a simple point and some people have to get all education on it.

kristy_estes21

She is only making the comment that cals in vs. cals out is not what you should do,you do have to be smarter than that. I get what she is saying, why does everyone hate so much?

Where did she try to discredit the energy balance equation? Just saying she made a simple point and some people have to get all education on it.

WORD.

kristy_estes21

Not all calories are created equal... this is the "100 calorie pack" obesity generation. All about the QUALITY of those calories! If enough of us preach this, maybe we can save people allot of work and stress about what to do and what not to do!

First of all, I would like to say, WOW!! You look amazing and have come a long way! Good job!! Second, I HATE 100 calorie packs! haha

NewVonnie

I'm new here so this is something I'm not too sure about. What are good percentages for nutrients when you want to lose weight and be healthy?

kristy_estes21

I think you fellas are missing the point. It doesn't say anything about weight loss in my original post. It says "be in shape." There's a HUGE difference in the two, as I'm sure you already know.

alison_cpb

The quality of the calories you eat determine whether you will be 125lbs at 30% body fat, or 125lbs with 18% body fat.... you'll still be 125lbs but you won't have a healthy 'composition'.

Angela_MA

I think you fellas are missing the point. It doesn't say anything about weight loss in my original post. It says "be in shape." There's a HUGE difference in the two, as I'm sure you already know.

AMEN sista!!!!

Has any one heard of the twinkie diet. Where a professor ate 2 twinkies a day and then ate a meal at dinner to show his students that you can lose weight with any kind of calorie restriction. It worked and he lost weight, but he felt like crap!!! He lost the weight but was not HEALTHY!!!!! So, yes to lose weight it can be simplified to calories in vs. calories out; however, to be healthy and fit the equation is much more complex!

kristy_estes21

I'm new here so this is something I'm not too sure about. What are good percentages for nutrients when you want to lose weight and be healthy?

I changed mine from what MFP recommended. I have my carbs set to 40%, protein 35%, and fat 25%.

4theking

I'm new here so this is something I'm not too sure about. What are good percentages for nutrients when you want to lose weight and be healthy?

I changed mine from what MFP recommended. I have my carbs set to 40%, protein 35%, and fat 25%.

Great percentages!

kristy_estes21

LOL Thanks! I didn't realize you could change it at first and I was like, "man that's a lot of carbs and very little protein!" I'm liking the new percentages much better. The one thing I always have trouble with is sugar intake though. Not really any added sugar, but mostly from fruit and stuff. 20g is just so low. I wish they would have some sort of column with total sugar and added sugar. lol

daisymae9801

I think you fellas are missing the point. It doesn't say anything about weight loss in my original post. It says "be in shape." There's a HUGE difference in the two, as I'm sure you already know.

AMEN sista!!!!

Has any one heard of the twinkie diet. Where a professor ate 2 twinkies a day and then ate a meal at dinner to show his students that you can lose weight with any kind of calorie restriction. It worked and he lost weight, but he felt like crap!!! He lost the weight but was not HEALTHY!!!!! So, yes to lose weight it can be simplified to calories in vs. calories out; however, to be healthy and fit the equation is much more complex!

Actually, from CNN:

"For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

4theking

LOL Thanks! I didn't realize you could change it at first and I was like, "man that's a lot of carbs and very little protein!" I'm liking the new percentages much better. The one thing I always have trouble with is sugar intake though. Not really any added sugar, but mostly from fruit and stuff. 20g is just so low. I wish they would have some sort of column with total sugar and added sugar. lol

I don't monitor sugar but if I was, that would definitely be a pain. I agree, 20gms is nothing.

mynameisuntz

Saw this on Jamie Eason's Facebook page this morning and couldn't agree more!!
"The most annoying thing I hear is when people attempt to simplify nutrition with the phrase, 'It's as simple as, calories in versus calories out!' NO IT'S NOT!!! You cannot eat cheesecake all day and just because its under your daily calorie requirement, be in shape! That's rubbish! Macros matter!!"

Too bad Jamie Eason is wrong and probably lacks a basic concept of nutrition.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

mynameisuntz

I think you fellas are missing the point. It doesn't say anything about weight loss in my original post. It says "be in shape." There's a HUGE difference in the two, as I'm sure you already know.

How do define "be in shape" then?

You can eat cheesecake all day, moderate calories, and exercise. Your blood sugar levels will be fine, cholesterol fine, weight fine.

Is that "in shape" to you? How do you define "be in shape"?

newbeautifulme

Our grandparents had it right - you are what you eat! If you want to eat junk all day, you aren't going to be healthy. Our body runs on what we feed it. You may see short gains, as seen with the guy losing weight on the Twinkie diet, but 10 years of eating like that can't be good.

TK421NotAtPost

I think you fellas are missing the point. It doesn't say anything about weight loss in my original post. It says "be in shape." There's a HUGE difference in the two, as I'm sure you already know.

AMEN sista!!!!

Has any one heard of the twinkie diet. Where a professor ate 2 twinkies a day and then ate a meal at dinner to show his students that you can lose weight with any kind of calorie restriction. It worked and he lost weight, but he felt like crap!!! He lost the weight but was not HEALTHY!!!!! So, yes to lose weight it can be simplified to calories in vs. calories out; however, to be healthy and fit the equation is much more complex!

Actually, from CNN:

"For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Thanks for posting that. It pretty much confirms what study after study has shown.... weight loss is generally accompanied by an improvement in health markers.

Janet39

It's amazing how many people try to discredit the energy balance equation by saying idiotic things like "can't each cheesecake all day and be in shape". Well, no $ h i t Ms. Eason! And the fact that macros do matter isn't exactly an earthshattering comment either.

Energy balance equation does in fact, take into account many factors including hormonal responses, thermic effect of food & activity, resting metabolic rate, etc.

Hence, most people who know what they are talking about recommend setting protein levels first (usually quite high)...and then fill in carb and fats levels according to their varying levels of activity and carb sensitivity.

I like this post.

Thanks TK421NotAtPost

I also like this post, I have been overweight all my life, and am only now learning the lessons that matter

rileysowner

Saw this on Jamie Eason's Facebook page this morning and couldn't agree more!!
"The most annoying thing I hear is when people attempt to simplify nutrition with the phrase, 'It's as simple as, calories in versus calories out!' NO IT'S NOT!!! You cannot eat cheesecake all day and just because its under your daily calorie requirement, be in shape! That's rubbish! Macros matter!!"

Losing weight yes, body composition of an athlete no.

Ditto. If a person just wants to lose weight, it is purely calories in and calories out. If they want to resculpt their body it get a little more complicated. Just doing the calories in/out thing will give you a skinner version of what you are now.

TK421NotAtPost

mynameisuntz, according to Jamie Eason, Michael Phelps is out of shape... after all, he eats pizza, fried egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, fried onions, french toast topped with powdered sugar, chocolate chip pancakes, ...etc...etc.... :laugh: :laugh:

mynameisuntz

mynameisuntz, according to Jamie Eason, Michael Phelps is out of shape... after all, he eats pizza, fried egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, fried onions, french toast topped with powdered sugar, chocolate chip pancakes, ...etc...etc.... :laugh: :laugh:

Exactly!

People are rather ignorant when it comes to body composition. Is she really trying to tell me that our bodies will look at the molecular structures of glucose from cheesecake different from how it sees the glucose in a strawberry? Our bodies don't care where the glucose came from when it comes to body composition: glucose is glucose.

The fact that she's trying to act like our bodies are smart enough to differentiate between two molecular structures that are EXACTLY THE SAME is absurd.

ladybug2020

bump