is a calorie just a calorie?

yarwell

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

300 calories / 4 = 75 grams a day * 7 = 525g / 454 = 1.15 lbs of muscle / 70% = 1.65 lbs per week of muscle/glycogen + water

Still hard to balance.............

yarwell

Just for information really, as I found it, a comparison of eating straight fat and protein without carbs in either case :-

http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/4/767/T1.expansion.html

The insulin line shows a big response to the protein (casein) and nothing to the fat (cream).

tigersword

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

Not enough information. Net calories are meaningless when it comes to these calculations, there's no way to correlate NET calories with TOTAL macronutrient consumption. Plus, as another poster pointed out, a 50 gram reduction in carbs only accounts for 200 calories. If you changed your consumption by at least 300 calories you didn't keep protein and fat constant. It's impossible.

So, how many total calories were you eating then vs now. How much protein, fat? Nobody can give you a realistic answer if you don't give all the information.

ladyraven68

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

http://www.burnthefat.com/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat.html

3500 calories in a lb of fat - only 600 in a lb of muscle.

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


"3,500 calorie/week deficit can yield drastically different changes in body mass depending on what percentage of tissue you’re losing. I’m going to use the extremes of 100% fat, 50/50 fat and muscle, and 100% muscle.


Condition -- - - Energy Yield - - Total Weight Lost
100% Fat -- - - 3500 cal/lb - - 1 pound
50%Fat/50% Muscle - - 2050 cal/lb - - 1.7 pounds
100% Muscle - - 600 cal/lb - - 5.8 pounds


See what’s going on? The assumption of one pound per week (3,500 cal/week deficit) is only valid for the condition where you lose 100% fat. If you lose 50% fat and 50% muscle, you will lose 1.7 pounds in a week for the same 3,500 calorie deficit. Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week."

joejccva71

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

http://www.burnthefat.com/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat.html

3500 calories in a lb of fat - only 600 in a lb of muscle.

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


"3,500 calorie/week deficit can yield drastically different changes in body mass depending on what percentage of tissue you’re losing. I’m going to use the extremes of 100% fat, 50/50 fat and muscle, and 100% muscle.


Condition -- - - Energy Yield - - Total Weight Lost
100% Fat -- - - 3500 cal/lb - - 1 pound
50%Fat/50% Muscle - - 2050 cal/lb - - 1.7 pounds
100% Muscle - - 600 cal/lb - - 5.8 pounds


See what’s going on? The assumption of one pound per week (3,500 cal/week deficit) is only valid for the condition where you lose 100% fat. If you lose 50% fat and 50% muscle, you will lose 1.7 pounds in a week for the same 3,500 calorie deficit. Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week."

Damn you beat me to it. Was going to post Lyle's pages lol.

I'm curious as to what "exercise" he's doing. I can guarantee you that he's losing not only water, maybe a little fat, but also muscle tissue. I'm also wondering what his protein intake is.

Yarwell? Care to enlighten us?

ladyraven68

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

http://www.burnthefat.com/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat.html

3500 calories in a lb of fat - only 600 in a lb of muscle.

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


"3,500 calorie/week deficit can yield drastically different changes in body mass depending on what percentage of tissue you’re losing. I’m going to use the extremes of 100% fat, 50/50 fat and muscle, and 100% muscle.


Condition -- - - Energy Yield - - Total Weight Lost
100% Fat -- - - 3500 cal/lb - - 1 pound
50%Fat/50% Muscle - - 2050 cal/lb - - 1.7 pounds
100% Muscle - - 600 cal/lb - - 5.8 pounds


See what’s going on? The assumption of one pound per week (3,500 cal/week deficit) is only valid for the condition where you lose 100% fat. If you lose 50% fat and 50% muscle, you will lose 1.7 pounds in a week for the same 3,500 calorie deficit. Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week."

Damn you beat me to it. Was going to post Lyle's pages lol.

Sorry

Believeth64

Bump

aippolito1

It really depends on how much weight you have to lose... starting out, I had 40 lbs to lose. I was eating 1200 calories per day, NOT eating my exercise calories, and just limiting what I was eating (not eating SUPER healthy), and I lost weight. BUT, once I got halfway... I had to clean up my diet, start eating my exercise calories, and increase my base calories (1200 went to 1400). Now I'm eating a base of 1330 on days I'm sedentary (only twice a week), and 1530 on days I'm lightly active, PLUS about 400-600 calories for my workout, and I have to eat PRETTY clean to lose weight. And by pretty clean I mean: most of my sugar comes from fruit, I don't eat a lot of fats that aren't natural, I try not to eat too many things that are processed, I eat whole grains, 120grams of protein per day, LOTS of fiber, etc.

I think for most people, if you have a lot to lose, just changing HOW much you eat will yield results... but as you get closer to your goal, the quality of calories definitely matter.

led6777

bump!

kbd388

Yup a cal is just a cal. Some foods contain other chemicals that make your body not as healthy. A corn muffin is pretty healthy and carbs are not the enemy. You don't have to be perfect to be thin. You just have to be aware of how much your eating.
The weight loss gurus take everything too far. You have to live in the real world, can you really exercise an hour and a half a day? Do you really have to eat perfectly? No, you don't. Over exercising can damage your body, and one scientist proved you can lose weight by eating only junk food. He stayed under his calorie allowance and lost 20 lbs. The takeaway is eat to make yourself feel good, exercise for that same reason and stay at the calorie level for the weight you want to be. A pure diet of twinkies doesn't make anyone feel energetic and good. Sitting on the couch all day doesn't either. Getting used to your real optimum calorie levels takes some time, but once you get there you are comfortable , happy and not in a struggle.

OP here, I haven't read everything yet, but this one caught my eye, because of this: You don't have to be perfect to be thin. You just have to be aware of how much your eating.

Yesterday I had a Blue Moon with an orange I'm not looking to be thin, just healthier than I was when I started

MoreBean13

Yesterday I had a Blue Moon with an orange I'm not looking to be thin, just healthier than I was when I started

B-vitamins and Vitamin C!

neanderthin

A calorie is a calorie, not be confused with calories are not created equally, which quite a few people do.:devil:

earlyxer

Yes, a calorie is a calorie - except the question was "Are all calories treated the same or does the type of food matter with weight loss?".... which isn't the same.

Believeth64

Bump





I Can Make This Journey~~~One Day At A Time~~~Giving Up Is No Option