A calorie is a calorie, but not always the same.
Options
Replies
-
you are all unique little snowflakes
You usually have such valuable input to add, even if I don't always agree, but things like this...they make you seem like a real jerk.
"seem like?"
I clearly haven't been working hard enough.0 -
A calorie is a calorie is thrown around a lot on these forums. If you get to the nitty gritty base of it all, then yes, a calorie is a calorie no matter where it came from. What does matter is how it became a calorie. Hear me out!
In losing weight calories in vs calories out is king and the major piece of the puzzle. That doesn’t mean it’s the only piece of the puzzle though. Our bodies are all different and we process different foods which themselves are not calories but provide calories. It is key to learn how our bodies process these foods and everyone’s bodies process them differently.
Some people can get away eating under calories and eating pure junk food. I’m someone who can not. Some reason if I eat over 150g of Carbs I will not lose weight. I do know that carbs will make your body take on an extra 3-4g of water per carb but that isn’t the only factor. There has been times in the past (looking back just under a years worth of data) that I’ve ate higher carbs (around 200g daily) and over the month didn’t lose any weight. Several months like that actually. Even eating always at a deficit. I may have an insulin issue of some sort, though the blood work has never shown any. I’ve learned over time what my body can and can’t respond to. Adjusting to that I’ve allowed myself to lose just over 100 pounds since August 1st. There has been times it’s slowed down and those times almost always have been a higher carb consumption. Now I’m not saying.. LOW CARBS and etc.. I’m saying learn how your body reacts to the foods you eat. I can eat high protein and go over on calories and not gain a lick and even lose. Just how my body reacts to it. There is many other factors but it comes down to our bodies are different.
This mainly goes out as advice to those who are stuck on a long plateau; advice is usually eat more, which sometimes works. Sometimes it doesn’t. Change up your macros next time, shock the system, see if maybe your body utilizes food differently. What do you have to lose?
A Calorie is a calorie is the back bone of all diets but don’t be so blind that you don’t look at other factors. Just some food for thought on a long Monday morning!
I agree with you 100% - I spent a lot of time watching every calorie - not really paying attention to macros and I would exercise out the wazooo...and weight would come off but sooooooooooooooo slowly...it was a never ending cycle of gaining and loosing the same 5 lbs....and me getting frustrated of why the heck am I watching every little calorie and exercising and not seeing any results...
I started reading and reading and removing things slowly from my diet...once I got down to eating clean about 85% of my food source and seeing the scale budge a little better but not as much as I would like...I started reading all about nutrients and how fats, carbs and protiens all react within your bodies...(which I am not going to even attempt to explain)...and how a lot of conventional wisdom is really misguided (i.e. fat is the enemy...yes there was a time I was all worried about the fat grams of something...I wouldn't eat things like Avocados because they were too high in fat - oh how stupid I was) - I found that cutting things out sort of lead me to the Primal/paleo lifestyle and within that eating style I adjusted my intake so my carb load is under 85G most days (note you dont' have to be Primal/Paleo to go lower carb - I ate the lifestyle before tweaking it to lower daily carbs)...by doing that (lower carbs) i have been having a steady decline for the past few months...still slow going but a lot better progress than before...still eating the same amount of calories - exercising about the same....but better results overall...
So I firmly believe that while straight calories in - calories out may work for a segment of the population...for another segment they may have to watch thier macros to see weight budging....0 -
you are all unique little snowflakes
You usually have such valuable input to add, even if I don't always agree, but things like this...they make you seem like a real jerk.
"seem like?"
I clearly haven't been working hard enough.
Your snark is just a tad off. Are you coming down with a cold or something?0 -
you are all unique little snowflakes
You usually have such valuable input to add, even if I don't always agree, but things like this...they make you seem like a real jerk.
"seem like?"
I clearly haven't been working hard enough.
Your snark is just a tad off. Are you coming down with a cold or something?
I've been trying to move toward a more effective, targeted snark. I may reconsider the carpet-bombing strategy.0 -
I think he very elegantly expressed a sense of frustration with people who make fitness overly complicated by believing they their body somehow defies the laws of physics. Of course weight loss is all about carbs, it has nothing to do with caloric intake and caloric expenditure. We have these magical engines in our bodies that produce energy from the ether! Someday we will harness this energy and fly to the stars! Weeee!you are all unique little snowflakes
You usually have such valuable input to add, even if I don't always agree, but things like this...they make you seem like a real jerk.0 -
Not sure I agree with the premise of the OP's comment, but the underlying advice I whole-heartedly approve of. All the science in the world doesn't mean jack **** in practice if you can't get it to work. If you can't get something to work, confirm that you're doing it right and that you've given the change enough time to take affect. If it's still not working, try something else.0
-
I think he very elegantly expressed a sense of frustration with people who make fitness overly complicated by believing they their body somehow defies the laws of physics. Of course weight loss is all about carbs, it has nothing to do with caloric intake and caloric expenditure. We have these magical engines in our bodies that produce energy from the ether! Someday we will harness this energy and fly to the stars! Weeee!you are all unique little snowflakes
You usually have such valuable input to add, even if I don't always agree, but things like this...they make you seem like a real jerk.
I never said it was all about carbs. I said the body processes stuff differently. It's funny enough that bb.com and am.com used to be filled with the arrogant people that killed the boards but more and more they've found their ways to these boards. It's funny when you go to bb.com and am.com to get away from people who have very little reading comprehension and think that the main post was all about go low carb or how someone things their body defies the laws of physics. God forbid someone may have an intolerance that is causing inflammation or something. You want to make something simple that there can be other factors. Glad you are someone who can have things simple, it doesn't work for everyone.
Well back to the bro scientist on am.com at least they are funny when they to shoot something down
Add in things such as hormones which get off balance from trying to lose the weight, insulin levels and more and that can greatly effect the calories out/burnt. That is why it's key to find out how your body works. Might do you some good to read up on some Layne Norton or Lyle McDonald.
At this point what I found is working for me, it might work for others. May feel like somehow that is an insult and that I'm breaking the rules to the calorie in vs calorie out but whatever works to get to the end goal my friend.0 -
To add to that..
Numerous scientific studies show that small caloric changes have almost no long-term effect on weight. When we skip a cookie or exercise a little more, the body’s biological and behavioral adaptations kick in, significantly reducing the caloric benefits of our effort… As a recent commentary in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted, the “small changes” theory fails to take the body’s adaptive mechanisms into account.0 -
Just FYI, I wasn't talking about you in particular. There is just a heavy trend towards mystical thinking on these boards that gets in the way of people's progress.I never said it was all about carbs. I said the body processes stuff differently. It's funny enough that bb.com and am.com used to be filled with the arrogant people that killed the boards but more and more they've found their ways to these boards. It's funny when you go to bb.com and am.com to get away from people who have very little reading comprehension and think that the main post was all about go low carb or how someone things their body defies the laws of physics. God forbid someone may have an intolerance that is causing inflammation or something. You want to make something simple that there can be other factors. Glad you are someone who can have things simple, it doesn't work for everyone.
Well back to the bro scientist on am.com at least they are funny when they to shoot something down.
Thought experiment: Bob is eating at a 500 calorie daily deficit. He has been doing so for 3 months, and has not lost a single pound, even though he should have lost over 10! Which is more likely:
1) Bob processes food differently than other people, and has entered starvation mode, where his body needs less food than a normal human's to survive.
2) Bob is counting his calories wrong, and has actually been eating at his TDEE for the last 3 months.
Many people here seem to lean towards #1. I personally think #2 is more likely.
I just want to help people achieve their fitness goals. Believing in magical thinking doesn't do that.
Edit: too many quotes0 -
Excellent observation. That has more to do with the glycemic index of the food than body type.
Refined/processed sugars give you a quick energy boost but raise your blood sugar quickly. This causes an insulin response in the body, which damps the sugar response, and the sugars that aren't burned up quickly get rapidly converted to fat and stored. So you don't gain any metabolic/long term energy gain from them, and when the sugar high runs out you feel hungry.
Natural sugars tend to be less concentrated and more complex, so they burn longer, meaning your body actually has a chance to use them up before they go to long-term storage (and it also means you are more energetic, longer, so your metabolism stays up and burns more calories for a longer period). They also often come with nutritional benefits (vitamins and minerals) that make the sugars worth having.
"Natural sugars" like fruit sugar (fructose) aren't polysaccharides, therefore they cannot be complex. Fruits are "natural" yet "give you quick energy boost."0 -
A calorie is the same as any other calorie in the sense that a calorie is just a unit of energy. It sounds like the OP is suggesting that the problem is that our bodies may not be finely calibrated bomb calorimeters.0
-
Just FYI, I wasn't talking about you in particular. There is just a heavy trend towards mystical thinking on these boards that gets in the way of people's progress.I never said it was all about carbs. I said the body processes stuff differently. It's funny enough that bb.com and am.com used to be filled with the arrogant people that killed the boards but more and more they've found their ways to these boards. It's funny when you go to bb.com and am.com to get away from people who have very little reading comprehension and think that the main post was all about go low carb or how someone things their body defies the laws of physics. God forbid someone may have an intolerance that is causing inflammation or something. You want to make something simple that there can be other factors. Glad you are someone who can have things simple, it doesn't work for everyone.
Well back to the bro scientist on am.com at least they are funny when they to shoot something down.
Thought experiment: Bob is eating at a 500 calorie daily deficit. He has been doing so for 3 months, and has not lost a single pound, even though he should have lost over 10! Which is more likely:
1) Bob processes food differently than other people, and has entered starvation mode, where his body needs less food than a normal human's to survive.
2) Bob is counting his calories wrong, and has actually been eating at his TDEE for the last 3 months.
Many people here seem to lean towards #1. I personally think #2 is more likely.
I just want to help people achieve their fitness goals. Believing in magical thinking doesn't do that.
Edit: too many quotes
Okay I can get that. I'm not saying my body is magical, and I wasn't trying to imply that. It was more of change things up if it's not working and find out works for you. Sorry for getting bent of out shape, must be the lack of carbs ;-)
I can get what you are getting at. I was at a point where I was weighing all my food down to .0 oz and using a polar hrm80 to help figure this out and even eating less trying to figure this out. This post was more of a try to find what works for you.
Another factor we have is this here site just guesses at your BMR which could be off.0 -
Thanks for this post! While I know this, I need the reminder every now and then to get my eating back in line. Today was the day I really need to refocus! Thanks again!0
-
[/quote]
You probably have what they call a protein bodytype, meaning you need less carbs but more protein to lose weight. I am the same and when I stick to that simple rule, providing I stay within my daily calorie allowance, the weight comes off.
Some people are suited to more carbs and less protein.
Good thread!
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm suited to more carbs and less protein. It's great (I love carbs), though I don't go crazy.0 -
That definitely seems feasible, although you won't gain any friends here by suggesting that a large caloric deficit is more effective for weight loss. Personally, having done CR for years, your body WILL adapt to any slow changes in diet.To add to that..
Numerous scientific studies show that small caloric changes have almost no long-term effect on weight. When we skip a cookie or exercise a little more, the body’s biological and behavioral adaptations kick in, significantly reducing the caloric benefits of our effort… As a recent commentary in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted, the “small changes” theory fails to take the body’s adaptive mechanisms into account.0 -
That definitely seems feasible, although you won't gain any friends here by suggesting that a large caloric deficit is more effective for weight loss. Personally, having done CR for years, your body WILL adapt to any slow changes in diet.To add to that..
Numerous scientific studies show that small caloric changes have almost no long-term effect on weight. When we skip a cookie or exercise a little more, the body’s biological and behavioral adaptations kick in, significantly reducing the caloric benefits of our effort… As a recent commentary in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted, the “small changes” theory fails to take the body’s adaptive mechanisms into account.
Correct, I was just gearing more towards while a calorie is a calorie and it's calorie in vs calorie out at the base our bodies aren't standard even daily on what that calorie out is. Like I was trying to say it's all about finding what works for you. It's tough to do sometimes. When I first started man those pounds melted off, then about 70 pounds down my body really started to adjust and has made it a struggle. I just want back to college days at this point!0 -
Well said!!! EXCELLENT ADVICE!!!0
-
Yeah, the BMR calculation here is not very precise. The best way to do it IMO is to get your body fat % if you can, calculate BMR based on that, use a conservative activity multiplier (I think too many people use 1.5+ when they should be using 1.375), add a deficit to support whatever weight loss/gain you are targeting, and put that into the custom goals settings. If you can't get your body fat, use one of the other formulas.Okay I can get that. I'm not saying my body is magical, and I wasn't trying to imply that. It was more of change things up if it's not working and find out works for you. Sorry for getting bent of out shape, must be the lack of carbs ;-)
I can get what you are getting at. I was at a point where I was weighing all my food down to .0 oz and using a polar hrm80 to help figure this out and even eating less trying to figure this out. This post was more of a try to find what works for you.
Another factor we have is this here site just guesses at your BMR which could be off.
Body fat formula for BMR is (in case anyone needs it):
BMR (men and women) = 370 + (21.6 X lean mass in kg)0 -
you are all unique little snowflakes
You usually have such valuable input to add, even if I don't always agree, but things like this...they make you seem like a real jerk.
Really?? I thought is was funny, in a Walter Mathau kind of cynical way.0 -
Yeah, the BMR calculation here is not very precise. The best way to do it IMO is to get your body fat % if you can, calculate BMR based on that, use a conservative activity multiplier (I think too many people use 1.5+ when they should be using 1.375), add a deficit to support whatever weight loss/gain you are targeting, and put that into the custom goals settings. If you can't get your body fat, use one of the other formulas.Okay I can get that. I'm not saying my body is magical, and I wasn't trying to imply that. It was more of change things up if it's not working and find out works for you. Sorry for getting bent of out shape, must be the lack of carbs ;-)
I can get what you are getting at. I was at a point where I was weighing all my food down to .0 oz and using a polar hrm80 to help figure this out and even eating less trying to figure this out. This post was more of a try to find what works for you.
Another factor we have is this here site just guesses at your BMR which could be off.
Body fat formula for BMR is (in case anyone needs it):
BMR (men and women) = 370 + (21.6 X lean mass in kg)
You know what that makes more sense for the BMR. I like that equation.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions