It's NOT Just Calories In VS Calories Out!!!

AllTehBeers

My mom is proof that WHAT you eat affects your health. By diet modification (not calorie modification), she has stabilized her blood sugar, drastically lowered her blood pressure and her cholesterol markers and no longer requires medication. She has not lost weight and does not exercise. Living proof right there.

Look at all the studies on Mediterranean diet and how it helps your cholesterol, etc.

Sure, there is a study for everything, but living proof, my 68 yo mother, is all I need to know that WHAT you eat affects your blood and your health markers.

So your mom is eating the exact same amout of calories as she did before and dropped the weight? Or the change in what she ate led to an automatic decrease in the amout of calories she was eating?

Hello

Please re-read what I wrote. She did NOT lose weight in my post. She improved her blood/health markers by changing the types of foods she ate. I was responding to Mr. Crickets....

My point is 10 year ago, when she was skinnier (lower weight after doing weight watchers), she lost weight and had still had high bp, high blood sugar and high cholesterol. 10 years later, she made a decision to eat the right foods, not restricting calories. Her weight did not go up or down by any significant amount. If anything, it is higher now that it was then, when she had her poor blood health markers. About 6 months since she has changed the quality of the foods she eats, she has significantly improved her blood health markers so much that she no longer needs meds for cholesterol and her blood sugar is perfect. :)

My post was in response to someone asking OP to give a study of blood health markers.

My mom is living proof that losing weight did nothing for her blood health markers but changing her diet did... 10 years older, no less...

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

RonSwanson66

All of this plus getting sleep!!!

http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/excessive-sleepiness-10/lack-of-sleep-weight-gain

FTA:

Exactly how lack of sleep affects our ability to lose weight has a lot to do with our nightly hormones, explains Breus.

The two hormones that are key in this process are ghrelin and leptin. “Ghrelin is the ‘go’ hormone that tells you when to eat, and when you are sleep-deprived, you have more ghrelin,” Breus says. “Leptin is the hormone that tells you to stop eating, and when you are sleep deprived, you have less leptin.”

Leptin and ghrelin regulate satiety and hunger. This affects (drumroll)


Calories in!

RonSwanson66

But you can increase your calories out and decrease your calories in by eating better food and by changing your metabolic rate. What i said in the OP was that there are other factors involved. I wanted to communicate that fact to newbies, because i see a lot of threads where newbies are saying "Why is my progress so slow?"

So it still boils down to calories in vs calories out.

Yes, among other factors. I said that calories in VS calories out is not the ONLY factor involved. There is important information for people who may need it, why you gotta split hairs? Ask yourself this, please, before posting: "Are my comments helpful to anyone?" I mean, other than the junk food industry's bottom line?

How is misinformation and alarmism helpful?

Pablosammy

While calories in vs calories out is a massive over simplification, it is true to an extent. I mean, many people will still lose weight eating 1200 calories of twinkies vs 1200 of healthy food. I've found the quality of the calories make the most difference for people concerned with fitness and overall healthy. Which is really the point of weight loss, in my opinion.

It's ALL about calories in vs out. Nothing ambiguous about it, you can't bend the first rule of thermodynamics.

The first post was asking the wrong questions. The most complicated bit about weight loss isn't the amount of calories in - which, as this site can attest, is very easy to calculate - but working out the calories going out. Aerobic exercise is fairly easy to estimate. Metabolic rate is incredibly hard - we can estimate what someone's BMR is, but it depends on diet history, activity, fitness, muscle mass... the list goes on forever. So when people are struggling to lose weight, they need to ask, "Why are the calories not going out as quickly as before?".

People constantly ask the wrong questions, and get upset with the replies as a result.

AllTehBeers

While calories in vs calories out is a massive over simplification, it is true to an extent. I mean, many people will still lose weight eating 1200 calories of twinkies vs 1200 of healthy food. I've found the quality of the calories make the most difference for people concerned with fitness and overall healthy. Which is really the point of weight loss, in my opinion.

Some people just wanna look sexy naked.

wackyfunster

Ah so calories in calories out really covers everything when you tweak it every which way. Now when we say that over and over and over and over to women trying to lose, do we factor that in? No, not usually. We just say "calories in calories out" and then they get discouraged and quit.
We have women on here in menopause (and no, it's not just "metabolic efficiency"). We have women who've just had a baby. We have women with PCOS all having a hard time getting the pounds to shift.
And then we have (primarily shirtless men) telling them it's "just calories in calories out".
Not so helpful, nor motivating as far as I'm concerned.

cheers!

Actually, having just had a baby is hugely advantageous from a weight-loss perspective, as long as you breast-feed, as nature intended. It also makes it easy to lose fat from 'problem areas,' as the reason your body stores fat in the hips/thighs is to provide fat for breast milk production.

People overcomplicate matters, and fail as a result. Three steps to fitness:
1) Get enough protein.
2) Eat at a deficit
3) Lift weights (or do HIIT, but weights will help retain muscle mass better)

That's really all there is to it until you hit "athletic" body fat levels. There are other factors that have a minor effect on overall weight loss (thermic effect of food differences between whole and processed foods, sleep, genetics), but they account for probably 10% of the overall variance, and won't stop anyone who wants to get in shape from getting in shape.

wackyfunster

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

Rocbola

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

Read about Caldwell Esselstyn's 20 year study on nutrition's effect on heart disease.

pg3ibew

I agree wih Swanson about Cals in vs. Cals out.

I started my diet with that mentality and still use it to a large degree.

BUT, big BUT.

Because I was allowed less and less calories as I lost, I started to consciously looking for lower calorie foods with more substance. As to fill me up for less cals.

So, by default almost, I started eating better quality foods, not just less calories.

These things take time for a fat person, like myself, to figure out.

I make this suggestion to all my friends that have started on MFP after seeing me. I tell them: Don't cut out any foods you like, YET. Just eat less of them and eventually, one week, one month, 6 months, you will figure out HOW to eat HEALTHIER.

So, While I agree you can lose weight with Cals in vs. Cals out, at some point we need to change our eating HABITS.

Rocbola

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I wonder how the blood health would look after 20 years on that diet?

wackyfunster

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I wonder how the blood health would look after 20 years on that diet?

Probably still better than after 20 years of being obese.

AllTehBeers

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I don't like the twinkie diet as an example, even though its the epitome of what we're talking about. No one here is just eating twinkies. Eating less then what you burn will make you lose weight and losing fat creates a better body composition. Better body composition equals better health.

Rocbola

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I wonder how the blood health would look after 20 years on that diet?

Probably still better than after 20 years of being obese.

Feel free to devote your body to doing the first long term study. Fruits and vegetables for me. Fruits and vegetables are good for you. Salt, excessive fats, stress, Mr. Swanson, processed foods, food chemicals, sedentary lifestyle, poor sleep, etc are bad for you, EVEN IF YOU DON'T GAIN WEIGHT.

RonSwanson66

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

Read about Caldwell Esselstyn's 20 year study on nutrition's effect on heart disease.

Please provide primary sources. So far as I can tell, Esselstyn is basing his conclusions on the steaming pile of crap known as the China Study.

AllTehBeers

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I wonder how the blood health would look after 20 years on that diet?

I don't know when 20 years came into the picture. We were talking about losing weight, not a compilation of what a person eats for 20 years. it doesn't take 20 years to lose weight, you're talking now about what has been eaten in maintenence.

RonSwanson66

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I wonder how the blood health would look after 20 years on that diet?

Probably still better than after 20 years of being obese.

Feel free to devote your body to doing the first long term study. Fruits and vegetables for me. Fruits and vegetables are good for you. Salt, excessive fats, stress, Mr. Swanson, processed foods, food chemicals, sedentary lifestyle, poor sleep, etc are bad for you, EVEN IF YOU DON'T GAIN WEIGHT.

Prove it.

Rocbola

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I don't like the twinkie diet as an example, even though its the epitome of what we're talking about. No one here is just eating twinkies. Eating less then what you burn will make you lose weight and losing fat creates a better body composition. Better body composition equals better health.

Better body composition is not the only factor in good health. If you think eating crappy chemical laden man-made nutrient-devoid food is good for you, as long as you keep it under a certain amount of calories, than you are in for some troubles later in life.

AllTehBeers

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I wonder how the blood health would look after 20 years on that diet?

Probably still better than after 20 years of being obese.

Feel free to devote your body to doing the first long term study. Fruits and vegetables for me. Fruits and vegetables are good for you. Salt, excessive fats, stress, Mr. Swanson, processed foods, food chemicals, sedentary lifestyle, poor sleep, etc are bad for you, EVEN IF YOU DON'T GAIN WEIGHT.

Again. You're talking about long term diet, not what relates to immediate weight loss.

RonSwanson66

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I wonder how the blood health would look after 20 years on that diet?

I don't know when 20 years came into the picture. We were talking about losing weight, not a compilation of what a person eats for 20 years. it doesn't take 20 years to lose weight, you're talking now about what has been eaten in maintenence.

The term is "moving the goalposts", a common tactic employed by those that cannot support their original claims.

AllTehBeers

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I don't like the twinkie diet as an example, even though its the epitome of what we're talking about. No one here is just eating twinkies. Eating less then what you burn will make you lose weight and losing fat creates a better body composition. Better body composition equals better health.

Better body composition is not the only factor in good health. If you think eating crappy chemical laden man-made nutrient-devoid food is good for you, as long as you keep it under a certain amount of calories, than you are in for some troubles later in life.

Who has argued that eating crap is good for you? We are just saying, only deficit matters in weight loss. I wouldn't recommend only eating two big macs a day, but you'd lose weight.

Rocbola

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I wonder how the blood health would look after 20 years on that diet?

Probably still better than after 20 years of being obese.

Feel free to devote your body to doing the first long term study. Fruits and vegetables for me. Fruits and vegetables are good for you. Salt, excessive fats, stress, Mr. Swanson, processed foods, food chemicals, sedentary lifestyle, poor sleep, etc are bad for you, EVEN IF YOU DON'T GAIN WEIGHT.

Prove it.

You need proof that junk food is bad for you? And that fruits/vegetables are good for you? Really? REALLY!?!?!? No i wont prove it, i don't need to, nor do i have any desire to. It makes intuitive sense to anyone who wants to listen to their own bodies. Try it out. Eat nothing but fruits and veggies for 30 days, and see how you feel.

But you wont do that.

You never seem to discuss what YOU think IS healthy food, but you are always there to ask someone else to prove their point. I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.

RonSwanson66

You never seem to discuss what YOU think IS healthy food, but you are always there to ask someone else to prove their point.

The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.

I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.

wackyfunster

Better body composition is not the only factor in good health. If you think eating crappy chemical laden man-made nutrient-devoid food is good for you, as long as you keep it under a certain amount of calories, than you are in for some troubles later in life.

That is possibly true, but if you think that being morbidly obese and eating 'clean' is healthier, then you are mistaken (one of my vegan friends was just told that he would be dead within 5 years if he didn't lose a lot of weight... totally healthy diet, but too much food. 179/120 blood pressure, pre-diabetic, etc.)

You can look at my diary... I don't exactly eat 'clean' (although I don't eat fast food). My diet consists of a lot of eggs, meat, tons of carbs (most of it refined). Burgers/steak and ice cream are regular dinners, and I will sometimes eat an entire box of frosted flakes in one sitting... yet I have 105/65 blood pressure, a RHR of 50, and all indicators of health are at the outside bound of normal (in the words of my physician, I am the "most disgustingly healthy" person he has ever seen). Why? Because I control my caloric intake, I exercise regularly, and I have single-digit body fat and 45% skeletal muscle (soon to be MOAR!).

I think if you eat total crap, then it will definitely adversely impact your health. But someone who is morbidly obese and eats great food is still going to be less healthy than someone who is fit and eats total crap. Carbs/proteins/fats are very similar from the perspective of the body... it is used to getting by on a variety of sources, as a result of our evolution. We did NOT evolve to carry around 40+% body fat.

AllTehBeers

You never seem to discuss what YOU think IS healthy food, but you are always there to ask someone else to prove their point. I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.

I think this thread is over.

Rocbola

You never seem to discuss what YOU think IS healthy food, but you are always there to ask someone else to prove their point. I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.

I think this thread is over.

Then leave.

Acg67

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I will answer anyway.
The "twinkie diet" showed us that markers of health do indeed improve when body composition improves. In fact, body composition is statistically a better indicator of overall health than all other notable indicators, as it is highly correlated to virtually every indicator of health.

I wonder how the blood health would look after 20 years on that diet?

Probably still better than after 20 years of being obese.

Feel free to devote your body to doing the first long term study. Fruits and vegetables for me. Fruits and vegetables are good for you. Salt, excessive fats, stress, Mr. Swanson, processed foods, food chemicals, sedentary lifestyle, poor sleep, etc are bad for you, EVEN IF YOU DON'T GAIN WEIGHT.

Prove it.

You never seem to discuss what YOU think IS healthy food, but you are always there to ask someone else to prove their point. I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.

Labeling foods "healthy" or "unhealthy" without taking into consideration how they fit into the context of your total diet and in what amounts is silly. Maybe the exception is synthetic trans fats

Christine1110

Love it!! and it's so true....people that don't lose weight don't buy this....and that is why the fail!!

Glad you posted it!! Thank you!!

Rocbola

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

Read about Caldwell Esselstyn's 20 year study on nutrition's effect on heart disease.

Please provide primary sources. So far as I can tell, Esselstyn is basing his conclusions on the steaming pile of crap known as the China Study.

Read about Caldwell Esselstyn's OWN 20 year study on nutrition's effect on heart disease

RonSwanson66

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

Read about Caldwell Esselstyn's 20 year study on nutrition's effect on heart disease.

Please provide primary sources. So far as I can tell, Esselstyn is basing his conclusions on the steaming pile of crap known as the China Study.

Read about Caldwell Esselstyn's OWN 20 year study on nutrition's effect on heart disease

Link?

tnqnt

My mom is proof that WHAT you eat affects your health. By diet modification (not calorie modification), she has stabilized her blood sugar, drastically lowered her blood pressure and her cholesterol markers and no longer requires medication. She has not lost weight and does not exercise. Living proof right there.

Look at all the studies on Mediterranean diet and how it helps your cholesterol, etc.

Sure, there is a study for everything, but living proof, my 68 yo mother, is all I need to know that WHAT you eat affects your blood and your health markers.

So your mom is eating the exact same amout of calories as she did before and dropped the weight? Or the change in what she ate led to an automatic decrease in the amout of calories she was eating?

Hello

Please re-read what I wrote. She did NOT lose weight in my post. She improved her blood/health markers by changing the types of foods she ate. I was responding to Mr. Crickets....

My point is 10 year ago, when she was skinnier (lower weight after doing weight watchers), she lost weight and had still had high bp, high blood sugar and high cholesterol. 10 years later, she made a decision to eat the right foods, not restricting calories. Her weight did not go up or down by any significant amount. If anything, it is higher now that it was then, when she had her poor blood health markers. About 6 months since she has changed the quality of the foods she eats, she has significantly improved her blood health markers so much that she no longer needs meds for cholesterol and her blood sugar is perfect. :)

My post was in response to someone asking OP to give a study of blood health markers.

My mom is living proof that losing weight did nothing for her blood health markers but changing her diet did... 10 years older, no less...

I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.

Hello

No worries

I think that is what I answered In my mom's case, her health markers DID NOT improve by weight loss alone (regardless of diet) at all, not one bit. The sole thing (besides meds) that helped her markers improve was her better eating habits 10 years later (which did not include any weight loss, in fact, I confirmed with her - she actually has gained 12 pounds since then).
:)