calories in/calories out?

chanstriste13

i hear the phrase, 'it's a simple matter of calories in/calories out' thrown around a lot. i don't particularly subscribe to this theory. i don't think that bodies compute data like a simple machine, being that we're organic matter and genetics and metabolism and all that rolled up into one. also, i have seen so many 'naturally thin' people eating a ton of crap all the time, but somehow they still stay thin - even the ones that never exercise. a teacher i worked with once was model thin, hated heating vegetables of any kind, did not work out, and ordered two footlong chili dogs with fries three out of five days for lunch. she was a total junk-a-holic, but she had never had any issues with her weight.

i also know it's super frustrating for a lot of my husband's students. many of his high school girls talk about how they all eat the same kind of junk, but some of them are cheerleader-types (size-wise, not activity-wise) and some of them can't fit into their marching band pants. my husband has actually come home with some pretty cool stories about how his students know about metabolism and that the heavy students aren't all shoving their faces with food 24/7 - i think it's kind of cool that the kids are aware of this kind of thing.

of course, there are plenty of other health issues with eating junk, but as far as weight gain/loss, goes, i'm just curious about other people's thoughts on the calories in/calories out theory. what say you?

kirstiey

Ah but I think that is all a myth actually. They may eat a tonne of crap but you don't see what they eat when you are not with them.

9 times out of 10 their total calorie intake in still lower than the person who eats what they believe to be a healthy diet over the course of a day.

Plus you cannot compare a 18 - 25 year olds calorific expenditure with a 35 - 40 year old. The metabolism is totally different at resting rate at these ages.

EVERYONE without fail (Unless they have a problem affecting their thyroid to other related issue) WILL lose weight if they eat less and do more than they did before. I have yet to see anyone prove any different.

iAMaPhoenix

The basic concept is the correct in my opinion. Being that we are a complex being, there is no absolute, but in nature there are no absolutes. There are some people who live outside the box as with everything, but for the masses, it is as simple as calories in/calories out. Professional athletes, people with genetic disorders, and Johnny #5 are some example of those who live outside the box...

UpEarly

Personally, calories in - calories out has always worked fine for me. As long as I watch portion sizes and keep my bottom line numbers in check, I seem to lose weight at a pretty consistent rate.

I've found that everything in moderation is really what works best for me. I've tried paleo, low-carbing, and other 'clean' diets and frankly, I've never felt great following any restrictive regime. I know so many people talk about how amazing they feel and how they can't stand 'junk' anymore. That's just never been the case for me. So, for the past 4.5 months, I've been eating 'normal' stuff - just in more reasonable portions.

kirstiey

Here Here upearly! I don't live in a world where I can "Eat Clean" my whole life. Well not without ditching my lifestyle, friends and becoming a total diet bore! Eat less, Do More.

agthorn

I think the problem you're having is with the "calories out" side. You are right that bodies are different, but absent a medical condition we all pretty much metabolize stuff in the same WAYS. The difference is how quickly we do it - and the formulas for BMR and daily caloric needs are only rough estimates. Unless you can afford metabolic testing to find out your true individual BMR you're only ever making an educated guess (which is still pretty good for 80-90% of us). The calories in/calories out works - but it's only as good as the data you give it (accurately measuring your food intake and your daily expenditures).

Calories in/calories out worked for me. Including some junk food. I just moved to maintenance and I didn't have to "add back carbs" or face a lifetime of low-fat eating. I just increased my calories and kept doing what I was doing before.

melinda6569

I agree with UpEarly..Calories in Calories out has worked for me as well ( 40 pounds lighter in a year)..Portion Control is the best way to change you way of life. limit you bad days..

kirstiey

The reason we are bombarded by weightloss psycho babble is that if everyone realised how simple it was to lose weight, no one would make any money out of it. This is what i love MFP. It is just about calories in v calories out.

Most people who cannot lose weight can't due to emotional issues which make them over eat. Not the fact that they eat 53% carbs or all their calories for the day in a hotdog!

kirstiey

One thing for sure is the bigger you are, the higher your metabolism. Its the ONE bonus!! LOL

rachpiper720

I know I'm going to need my fire-proof suit for this thread, but I agree with the original poster. I think calories/calories out work for some people because let's be honest, we don't always eat good things, and don't pay attention. However, what is missing from the equation is how our bodies react to the food we eat. I don't see in the calorie in-calorie out = fat loss equation how insulin, lepton, type of food (food drives hormonal responses), sleep, stress (cortisol), nutrient deficiencies/uptake, type of workout aerobic/anaerobic, adrenal function,etc. work into it. Our bodies are not that simple. We are complex creatures, and sometimes when something is broken, it affects us in many ways, and one big one is weight. Ya ever seen those people who are at they gym constantly, probably eat minimally, and then still have a spare tire? The calories in-calorie out isn't working for them. I know then the next issue is "they didn't eat their exercise calories back or they're in starvation mode" but, according to that equation, they should be skin and bones. Guess what??? Starvation mode and not eating calories back and still not losing weight are products of the above mentioned factors not included in the equation.

If you're broken, and can't lose weight, look beyond calories...something else is wrong!

lanicoleesnerd

I belive in the calories in calories out but i also belive that are some blessed people that somehow this doesn't apply I know it sound stupid but my sister eat junk all day like seriously all day she spend most of her day watching tv (she only go out to school or to eat) and doesn't gain a pound. I wish I was blessed with her metabolism (my dad's) but no i inherited my mother's

bachooka

Ah but I think that is all a myth actually. They may eat a tonne of crap but you don't see what they eat when you are not with them.

9 times out of 10 their total calorie intake in still lower than the person who eats what they believe to be a healthy diet over the course of a day.

Plus you cannot compare a 18 - 25 year olds calorific expenditure with a 35 - 40 year old. The metabolism is totally different at resting rate at these ages.

EVERYONE without fail (Unless they have a problem affecting their thyroid to other related issue) WILL lose weight if they eat less and do more than they did before. I have yet to see anyone prove any different.

So true... In highschool, my diet consisted of three cans of pepsi, a snack sized pringles container, and then whatever my dad made for dinner. So even tho all people ever saw me eat was junk, I didn't eat enough to sustain myself. It's why I gained so much once I started staying at home while I was pregnant with my kids.

Blueberry09

I know I'm going to need my fire-proof suit for this thread, but I agree with the original poster. I think calories/calories out work for some people because let's be honest, we don't always eat good things, and don't pay attention. However, what is missing from the equation is how our bodies react to the food we eat. I don't see in the calorie in-calorie out = fat loss equation how insulin, lepton, type of food (food drives hormonal responses), sleep, stress (cortisol), nutrient deficiencies/uptake, type of workout aerobic/anaerobic, adrenal function,etc. work into it. Our bodies are not that simple. We are complex creatures, and sometimes when something is broken, it affects us in many ways, and one big one is weight. Ya ever seen those people who are at they gym constantly, probably eat minimally, and then still have a spare tire? The calories in-calorie out isn't working for them. I know then the next issue is "they didn't eat their exercise calories back or they're in starvation mode" but, according to that equation, they should be skin and bones. Guess what??? Starvation mode and not eating calories back and still not losing weight are products of the above mentioned factors not included in the equation.

If you're broken, and can't lose weight, look beyond calories...something else is wrong!

I totally agree! With the in/out theory, if you've reduced your calories and started exercising, weight loss should happen rather quickly if your variance is large enough. If you're eating back your exercise calories then it's not really in/out anymore. Other factors are coming into play. It doesn't seem right that you need to eat more to lose. That's why I find this whole journey so frustrating at times.

chanstriste13

love seeing everyone's take on this! i'm still standing with my original stance, and i appreciate blueberry and rachpiper for explaining my thoughts better than i did! keep this coming - i love learning new stuff.

maidentl

i have seen so many 'naturally thin' people eating a ton of crap all the time, but somehow they still stay thin

But it's still calories in versus out. Those people just have higher metabolisms and so they burn more. That doesn't disprove the "theory" at all.

Russellb97

OP,

No matter what, it is always a factor of calories in versus out.
Fat storage and fat burning is all a result of energy balance.

That being said there are so many factors to the calories out part.
Starvation mode, genetics, hormones all affect metabolism
and our exercise, activity increase our calorie output.

The problem is we are not all cut from the same cloth. I think the biggest problem for most dieters is a slowed metabolism from years of dieting and exercising.

Like someone said, if we are "borke" we are not working properly.

jacksonpt

I know I'm going to need my fire-proof suit for this thread, but I agree with the original poster. I think calories/calories out work for some people because let's be honest, we don't always eat good things, and don't pay attention. However, what is missing from the equation is how our bodies react to the food we eat. I don't see in the calorie in-calorie out = fat loss equation how insulin, lepton, type of food (food drives hormonal responses), sleep, stress (cortisol), nutrient deficiencies/uptake, type of workout aerobic/anaerobic, adrenal function,etc. work into it. Our bodies are not that simple. We are complex creatures, and sometimes when something is broken, it affects us in many ways, and one big one is weight. Ya ever seen those people who are at they gym constantly, probably eat minimally, and then still have a spare tire? The calories in-calorie out isn't working for them. I know then the next issue is "they didn't eat their exercise calories back or they're in starvation mode" but, according to that equation, they should be skin and bones. Guess what??? Starvation mode and not eating calories back and still not losing weight are products of the above mentioned factors not included in the equation.

If you're broken, and can't lose weight, look beyond calories...something else is wrong!

calories in/calories out is just a label for a concept. Do you understand the concept? You use people at the gym who work out constantly and eat minimally yet still have a spare tire as an example. They don't fall into the calorie in/calorie out concept because their deficit is too high. I know someone who does this... eats fairly well, lowish calories (900-1000 per day) and works out a few times a week. She is having trouble losing weight but doesn't understand why. She's not eating enough.

You can't look at calories in/calories out without also considering starvation mode.

Furthermore, calories in/calories out is a rule of thumb (as is virtually every piece of advice given on this site)... it's something that works for most people most of the time in most circumstances. Yes... there are other health issues that can throw things off, but that doesn't mean that it's not a valid rule of thumb.

And we haven't even considered the balance/quality of those calories...

Russellb97

You are exactly right,
Plus calories are not totally equal. For example protein calories increase your metabolism 10X more than carbs and fat do thus increasing your calories out.
Strength training and cardio both burn calories while you do them, but strength training increases your metabolism through muscle building/recovery.

Another very important fact, is metabolism is what will really burn fat for energy. Exercise and cardio mostly burn glucose and glycogen. So if your metabolism is broke you will struggle to burn fat.

I know I'm going to need my fire-proof suit for this thread, but I agree with the original poster. I think calories/calories out work for some people because let's be honest, we don't always eat good things, and don't pay attention. However, what is missing from the equation is how our bodies react to the food we eat. I don't see in the calorie in-calorie out = fat loss equation how insulin, lepton, type of food (food drives hormonal responses), sleep, stress (cortisol), nutrient deficiencies/uptake, type of workout aerobic/anaerobic, adrenal function,etc. work into it. Our bodies are not that simple. We are complex creatures, and sometimes when something is broken, it affects us in many ways, and one big one is weight. Ya ever seen those people who are at they gym constantly, probably eat minimally, and then still have a spare tire? The calories in-calorie out isn't working for them. I know then the next issue is "they didn't eat their exercise calories back or they're in starvation mode" but, according to that equation, they should be skin and bones. Guess what??? Starvation mode and not eating calories back and still not losing weight are products of the above mentioned factors not included in the equation.

If you're broken, and can't lose weight, look beyond calories...something else is wrong!

calories in/calories out is just a label for a concept. Do you understand the concept? You use people at the gym who work out constantly and eat minimally yet still have a spare tire as an example. They don't fall into the calorie in/calorie out concept because their deficit is too high. I know someone who does this... eats fairly well, lowish calories (900-1000 per day) and works out a few times a week. She is having trouble losing weight but doesn't understand why. She's not eating enough.

You can't look at calories in/calories out without also considering starvation mode.

Furthermore, calories in/calories out is a rule of thumb (as is virtually every piece of advice given on this site)... it's something that works for most people most of the time in most circumstances. Yes... there are other health issues that can throw things off, but that doesn't mean that it's not a valid rule of thumb.

And we haven't even considered the balance/quality of those calories...

rachpiper720

I know I'm going to need my fire-proof suit for this thread, but I agree with the original poster. I think calories/calories out work for some people because let's be honest, we don't always eat good things, and don't pay attention. However, what is missing from the equation is how our bodies react to the food we eat. I don't see in the calorie in-calorie out = fat loss equation how insulin, lepton, type of food (food drives hormonal responses), sleep, stress (cortisol), nutrient deficiencies/uptake, type of workout aerobic/anaerobic, adrenal function,etc. work into it. Our bodies are not that simple. We are complex creatures, and sometimes when something is broken, it affects us in many ways, and one big one is weight. Ya ever seen those people who are at they gym constantly, probably eat minimally, and then still have a spare tire? The calories in-calorie out isn't working for them. I know then the next issue is "they didn't eat their exercise calories back or they're in starvation mode" but, according to that equation, they should be skin and bones. Guess what??? Starvation mode and not eating calories back and still not losing weight are products of the above mentioned factors not included in the equation.

If you're broken, and can't lose weight, look beyond calories...something else is wrong!

calories in/calories out is just a label for a concept. Do you understand the concept? You use people at the gym who work out constantly and eat minimally yet still have a spare tire as an example. They don't fall into the calorie in/calorie out concept because their deficit is too high. I know someone who does this... eats fairly well, lowish calories (900-1000 per day) and works out a few times a week. She is having trouble losing weight but doesn't understand why. She's not eating enough.

You can't look at calories in/calories out without also considering starvation mode.

Furthermore, calories in/calories out is a rule of thumb (as is virtually every piece of advice given on this site)... it's something that works for most people most of the time in most circumstances. Yes... there are other health issues that can throw things off, but that doesn't mean that it's not a valid rule of thumb.

And we haven't even considered the balance/quality of those calories...

Funny...you attack me and what I said, and then you begin to reiterate exactly the conundrum of the calories in/calories out "rule of thumb" to which I stated. Classic.

ScarlettVamp

The reason we are bombarded by weightloss psycho babble is that if everyone realised how simple it was to lose weight, no one would make any money out of it. This is what i love MFP. It is just about calories in v calories out.

Most people who cannot lose weight can't due to emotional issues which make them over eat. Not the fact that they eat 53% carbs or all their calories for the day in a hotdog!

"Calories in/calories out" is not the "simple" way to lose weight that everyone needs to learn, IMO. The more important thing to learn is that all calories are not created equally. The calories in a hot dog are not the same as the calories in a veggie salad with turkey and low fat cheese even if the calorie count happened to be the same (I have no clue if they are/aren't, I'm just using this to make a point). I have struggled with my weight since I was in the 5th grade and I know that MY BODY does not lose weight unless the majority of my calories comes from lean protein/veggies/low fat foods with very limited carbs, even if I exercise vigorously every day. I have learned this about my particular metabolism and have had to adjust accordingly to start pulling this weight off and change my lifestyle forever.

Just my opinion based on what does/does not work for me. I think each person has to find out what works for them as far as a combination of diet and exercise.

chanstriste13

"Calories in/calories out" is not the "simple" way to lose weight that everyone needs to learn, IMO. The more important thing to learn is that all calories are not created equally.

well said!