It's NOT Just Calories In VS Calories Out!!!
Replies
-
I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.
This is what the hippies who rely on their feelings before science always say. Because it's always a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of facts.0 -
I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.0
-
That was helpful. I'm glad you could share your insights and show everybody exactly what kind of person you are. Are your parents proud of you? This is a forum for helping people lose weight. Some people bring intelligent, productive things to the conversation. For those not smart enough to come up with honest, insightful, and intelligent things to say, please go bounce a ball somewhere.I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.-1 -
How do we rationalise the experiences of people failing to lose weight while eating 1200 or 1500 calories with expenditure over 2000 ? Granted they never show up in clinical studies, because they are deemed to be cheating or under-reporting and thrown out.I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.0 -
One of the people i called my friends in my 20's worked for the tobacco industry. His job was to go to bars, and smoke cigarettes with people, and get them to continue thinking it was cool. He got paid for this.I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.
This is what the hippies who rely on their feelings before science always say. Because it's always a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of facts.
These people exist. I met one. If you don't think there is disinformation being spread about obesity, weight loss, and health, just tune your TV to any show/news report about weight loss. If there wasn't so much disinformation being spread, why would there be so many fat people in the US today? Why such high rates of diabetes? Heart disease? Cancer? So many are dying of these diseases, while others, who eat different foods, are not dying of these diseases, but there is no connection?
You don't think the people who make money off selling you crap have an interest in making you think that it's OK? Pull your head out of the sand, my friend. Or don't. I don't care.0 -
I agree 10000% thanks for this!0
-
Factor 1: STRESS
Effects calories out.Factor 2: HYDRATION
Effects calories outFactor 3: UN-NATURALLY CONCENTRATED FOODS
Calories inFactor 3: UNDERNOURISHMENT
Irrelevant to fat lossFACTOR 4: TOXICITY/FOOD CHEMICALS
No effect at all on fat lossFactor 5: MSG
No effect at all on fat loss.Factor 6: ADDICTION
Calories in
word. lol0 -
If you don't think there is disinformation being spread about obesity, weight loss, and health, just tune your TV to any show/news report about weight loss. If there wasn't so much disinformation being spread, why would there be so many fat people in the US today? Why such high rates of diabetes? Heart disease? Cancer? So many are dying of these diseases, while others, who eat different foods, are not dying of these diseases, but there is no connection?I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.
This is what the hippies who rely on their feelings before science always say. Because it's always a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of facts.
0 -
sounds interesting x0
-
Factor 1: STRESS
Effects calories out.Factor 2: HYDRATION
Effects calories outFactor 3: UN-NATURALLY CONCENTRATED FOODS
Calories inFactor 3: UNDERNOURISHMENT
Irrelevant to fat lossFACTOR 4: TOXICITY/FOOD CHEMICALS
No effect at all on fat lossFactor 5: MSG
No effect at all on fat loss.Factor 6: ADDICTION
Calories in
BAHAHA! YES!0 -
I agree with everything here as long as we are talking about overall health and well-being. When it comes to JUST weight loss, which is SIMPLE MATH, then its all irrelevent. I want to be healthy, but I can't go from eating all the stuff I am used to.. to eating grass... so I learned portion control. When you work off more calories than you take in, you lose weight. SIMPLE!0
-
One of the people i called my friends in my 20's worked for the tobacco industry. His job was to go to bars, and smoke cigarettes with people, and get them to continue thinking it was cool. He got paid for this.I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.
This is what the hippies who rely on their feelings before science always say. Because it's always a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of facts.
These people exist. I met one. If you don't think there is disinformation being spread about obesity, weight loss, and health, just tune your TV to any show/news report about weight loss. If there wasn't so much disinformation being spread, why would there be so many fat people in the US today? Why such high rates of diabetes? Heart disease? Cancer? So many are dying of these diseases, while others, who eat different foods, are not dying of these diseases, but there is no connection?
You don't think the people who make money off selling you crap have an interest in making you think that it's OK? Pull your head out of the sand, my friend. Or don't. I don't care.
This site keeps flashing a banner ad by the Beverage Association (or something similar). It's trying to convince people that sugary sodas aren't associated with obesity. Uh huh.0 -
It's the shirtless men who seem to disagree.I agree 10000% thanks for this!
0 -
getting the popcorn...this is going to be a long topic.0
-
That was helpful. I'm glad you could share your insights and show everybody exactly what kind of person you are. Are your parents proud of you? This is a forum for helping people lose weight. Some people bring intelligent, productive things to the conversation. For those not smart enough to come up with honest, insightful, and intelligent things to say, please go bounce a ball somewhere.I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.
WOW! Someone's a little pissy aren't they. I'm sorry that you don't like it but that's the way it is. Eat over your BMR, gain weight. Eat under it, lose weight. I don't see how you can argue with that. Now body composition is something different entirely, but the very first sentence of your original post said "it's not jsut calories in vs. calories out for weight loss" and for strictly weight loss yes it is!
Oh and by the way, yes, my parent's are very proud of me, thanks for asking! :drinker:0 -
Read about Caldwell Esselstyn's OWN 20 year study on nutrition's effect on heart disease
Read about Caldwell Esselstyn's 20 year study on nutrition's effect on heart disease.
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.
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.
Link?
Colpo wrote on thisCaldwell Esselstyn
Unlike many of his media-hungry vegan peers, cardiologist Caldwell Esselstyn tends to keep a relatively low profile. I don’t know much about the guy, but I get the impression he’s a sincere bloke who’s primary concern is helping his patients. But of course, that’s no guarantee his dietary claims are based on sound science.
In 1995, Esselstyn published a paper in which he reported his intervention program helped a number of his patients arrest or even reverse coronary artery disease progression. This study, discussed in Forks Over Knives, is repeatedly used by the vegan/vegetarian crowd to sing the praises of a plant-based diet and remind us all for the umpteenth time that animal foods will choke our arteries with sticky sludge and cause our disgusted cardiac muscles to call a permanent stop-work meeting.
The trouble is, using a study involving multiple interventions as ‘proof’ of the effectiveness of a single intervention is a sterling example of inappropriate extrapolation. Esselstyn’s intervention was multifactorial: each patient was assigned to a very low-fat lacto-vegetarian diet and cholesterol-lowering drugs, the most common protocol being cholestyramine, 4 g twice daily, and lovastatin, 40 mg to 60 mg daily (Esselstyn has since gone on to eschew the use of low-fat dairy). Esselstyn’s strict dietary instructions meant forsaking all the refined processed garbage the patients were previously eating. So in in addition to eschewing meat, the patients also had to forgo all the nutrient-depleted, sugar/vegetable fat/additive-drenched junk they were previously scoffing down.
So let’s take a look at the long list of potential confounders. As a result of the intervention, the patients lost weight. Weight loss itself, irrespective of the diet employed, can causes improvements in arterial function, regression of arterial thickness, and anti-platelet activity[2-5]. The one consistent theme is that the degree of IMT reduction is linked to the amount of weight lost, not the mode of diet followed.
Also, a regimen that involves a calorie reduction large enough to induce significant weight loss and that eliminates all the processed sugar-rich and vegetable fat-laden junk that typifies modern Western diets can be expected to have numerous cardiovascular benefits. As I explain at length in The Great Cholesterol Con, reducing the glycemic load of your diet and eliminating omega-6-rich vegetable oils can reduce the highly damaging process of glycation, reduce atherosclerotic plaque formation (and possibly rupture), reduce clotting tendencies, and improve arterial function.
But there is no law saying one must sentence themselves to a life of tofu and bean sprouts in order to achieve these effects, despite what Esselstyn and his fellow vegans in Forks Over Knives would have you believe.
And let’s not forget Esselstyn’s use of statin drugs. While I personally think statins are a garbage drug for reasons I have already elucidated several million times before (long time readers will know that was not an exaggeration), the fact remains they too have been shown to favorably affect the kind of IMT measurements employed in Esselstyn’s study[6-8].
Let’s also not forget that, similar to Ornish’s Lifestyle trial, Esselstyn’s study was a very small project with no randomized comparison group, and no mortality data. So we have no way of knowing how a comparison group receiving a similarly calorie- and crap-restricted omnivorous diet and the same medication regimen would have fared, and to what degree (if any) reductions in IMT and other risk factors would have eventually translated into actual mortality reductions. I’m not having a go at Ornish or Esselstyn here, as they at least made some effort to systematically tackle CVD in their patients and publish the findings. While the low-carb crowd loves to dump on these guys, the fact remains that folks like Dr. Robert Atkins and Dr. Michael Eades – both former practicing physicians who have publicly boasted about having had “thousands of patients” – never published so much as a single case study, despite having several decades to do so. What I do strongly oppose about the Ornish and Esselstyn studies is the way the results from these multifaceted interventions are disingenuously used to hype the alleged value of a single intervention. Which, of course, invariably happens to be a very low-fat, plant-based diet.
http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=22580 -
I whole heartily agree with the fact that eating the right foods is much better than eating crap foods. If this were a perfect world we'd all eat 100% organic fruits, vegetables, and meats, but the fact is if all your concerned about is losing weight one of the easiest ways is calorie counting. I could eat 1500 calories a day of cookies until I reach my target weight and then eat 2100 calories of cookies a day to maintain. Obviously it's not healthy or safe for that matter, but it would work. I've lost 28 pounds in 60 days by doing nothing but counting calories. I don't exercise and I still eat a small amount of junk food almost everyday. I currently live a sedative lifestyle. I log what I eat and do my best to not go over.0
-
I completely agree! I know that we CAN lose weight eating processed food, but SHOULD we? Ideally, no. Our risks of cancer, diabeties, heart issues, etc. go down, just by losing weight so do what works for you to lose. But consider studies such as:
http://www.biospiritual-energy-healing.com/raw-food-diet.html
Now I don't eat raw foods and I know cats, pigs, etc. are different then humans, but it should make you think...0 -
So if you don't retrain yourself to eat healthy foods until you are satisfied and only diet with junk food (using calories in/calories out theory), what do you do once you reach your goal weight? Also, as you lose weight, your BMR decreases, which means less twinkies and cookies in order to lose/maintain. Junk food is traditionally loaded with added sugar, sodium and calories.
The question then becomes: How can you possibly maintain and live a healthy life unless you learn to eat good foods, with some junk in moderation?
Is it not the best idea to learn how to eat better foods in an effort for a healthy lifestyle, instead of just a calorie-restricted temporary diet?0 -
At very least, please research the toxicity issue. Not all calories are the same. It is harder to burn off calories when you are consuming food chemicals. Don't trust me, research it for yourself. Try it for yourself. Look back at all the responses in this thread and find the ones where people said "I tried eating higher quality calories, and my weight loss accelerated" or something to that effect. Listen to the people who have had success. I'm not saying to completely forget the "calories in/calories out" equation, because that IS the weight loss/maintenance/gain formula, but as you continue your journey, please continue your research, and learn of the MANY OTHER FACTORS that influence your weight loss/overall health/energy level/fitness.I agree with everything here as long as we are talking about overall health and well-being. When it comes to JUST weight loss, which is SIMPLE MATH, then its all irrelevent. I want to be healthy, but I can't go from eating all the stuff I am used to.. to eating grass... so I learned portion control. When you work off more calories than you take in, you lose weight. SIMPLE!
And i don't eat grass, and i don't know anyone who does. Eat more fruit.-1 -
It happens under controlled circumstances, it has just been determined to be 100% water weight (water retention is substantial when in a sustained caloric deficit). See the Minnesota starvation study for more details.
How do we rationalise the experiences of people failing to lose weight while eating 1200 or 1500 calories with expenditure over 2000 ? Granted they never show up in clinical studies, because they are deemed to be cheating or under-reporting and thrown out.I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.
What has NEVER been demonstrated is someone eating at a substantial deficit and failing to lose body mass.0 -
And i don't eat grass, and i don't know anyone who does. Eat more fruit.
LOVE IT!
0 -
It happens under controlled circumstances, it has just been determined to be 100% water weight (water retention is substantial when in a sustained caloric deficit). See the Minnesota starvation study for more details.
How do we rationalise the experiences of people failing to lose weight while eating 1200 or 1500 calories with expenditure over 2000 ? Granted they never show up in clinical studies, because they are deemed to be cheating or under-reporting and thrown out.I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.
What has NEVER been demonstrated is someone eating at a substantial deficit and failing to lose body mass.
^^^^^^^^:drinker: :drinker: :drinker: ^^^^^^^^0 -
At very least, please research the toxicity issue. Not all calories are the same. It is harder to burn off calories when you are consuming food chemicals. Don't trust me, research it for yourself. Try it for yourself. Look back at all the responses in this thread and find the ones where people said "I tried eating higher quality calories, and my weight loss accelerated" or something to that effect. Listen to the people who have had success. I'm not saying to completely forget the "calories in/calories out" equation, because that IS the weight loss/maintenance/gain formula, but as you continue your journey, please continue your research, and learn of the MANY OTHER FACTORS that influence your weight loss/overall health/energy level/fitness.I agree with everything here as long as we are talking about overall health and well-being. When it comes to JUST weight loss, which is SIMPLE MATH, then its all irrelevent. I want to be healthy, but I can't go from eating all the stuff I am used to.. to eating grass... so I learned portion control. When you work off more calories than you take in, you lose weight. SIMPLE!
And i don't eat grass, and i don't know anyone who does. Eat more fruit.
Lol at the bolded0 -
So if you don't retrain yourself to eat healthy foods until you are satisfied and only diet with junk food (using calories in/calories out theory), what do you do once you reach your goal weight? Also, as you lose weight, your BMR decreases, which means less twinkies and cookies in order to lose/maintain. Junk food is traditionally loaded with added sugar, sodium and calories.
The question then becomes: How can you possibly maintain and live a healthy life unless you learn to eat good foods, with some junk in moderation?
Is it not the best idea to learn how to eat better foods in an effort for a healthy lifestyle, instead of just a calorie-restricted temporary diet?
No one is advocating for someone's diet to be crap food all the time. They're arguing with the premise that losing weight is a super complicated process. If the conservation was "how to lose weight and never feel hungry" or "how to reduce the amount of calories you eat but not lose any nutrients" or something, this post would be more on the level. It's titled one thing and pushing another.0 -
The accelerated weight loss from eating "healthier foods" is due to the greater thermic effect of food for whole foods vs. processed foods, which has been scientifically documented. This effects net calories out (or in, depending on how you look at it... more of the food energy is required to process the food into usable energy). This is also why high protein diets are vastly superior to high fat/carb diets in terms of weight loss (TEF on protein is ~30%).
At very least, please research the toxicity issue. Not all calories are the same. It is harder to burn off calories when you are consuming food chemicals. Don't trust me, research it for yourself. Try it for yourself. Look back at all the responses in this thread and find the ones where people said "I tried eating higher quality calories, and my weight loss accelerated" or something to that effect. Listen to the people who have had success. I'm not saying to completely forget the "calories in/calories out" equation, because that IS the weight loss/maintenance/gain formula, but as you continue your journey, please continue your research, and learn of the MANY OTHER FACTORS that influence your weight loss/overall health/energy level/fitness.I agree with everything here as long as we are talking about overall health and well-being. When it comes to JUST weight loss, which is SIMPLE MATH, then its all irrelevent. I want to be healthy, but I can't go from eating all the stuff I am used to.. to eating grass... so I learned portion control. When you work off more calories than you take in, you lose weight. SIMPLE!
And i don't eat grass, and i don't know anyone who does. Eat more fruit.0 -
Bumpity-bump bump.0
-
The accelerated weight loss from eating "healthier foods" is due to the greater thermic effect of food for whole foods vs. processed foods, which has been scientifically documented. This effects net calories out (or in, depending on how you look at it... more of the food energy is required to process the food into usable energy). This is also why high protein diets are vastly superior to high fat/carb diets in terms of weight loss (TEF on protein is ~30%).
At very least, please research the toxicity issue. Not all calories are the same. It is harder to burn off calories when you are consuming food chemicals. Don't trust me, research it for yourself. Try it for yourself. Look back at all the responses in this thread and find the ones where people said "I tried eating higher quality calories, and my weight loss accelerated" or something to that effect. Listen to the people who have had success. I'm not saying to completely forget the "calories in/calories out" equation, because that IS the weight loss/maintenance/gain formula, but as you continue your journey, please continue your research, and learn of the MANY OTHER FACTORS that influence your weight loss/overall health/energy level/fitness.I agree with everything here as long as we are talking about overall health and well-being. When it comes to JUST weight loss, which is SIMPLE MATH, then its all irrelevent. I want to be healthy, but I can't go from eating all the stuff I am used to.. to eating grass... so I learned portion control. When you work off more calories than you take in, you lose weight. SIMPLE!
And i don't eat grass, and i don't know anyone who does. Eat more fruit.
From original post:YES, calories in, vs calories out is a big factor, but there are many other things to consider. You need high quality calories or you will be fighting with your hunger drive all the time.
OP specified and conceded the calories in/ out as the equation but was also advocating for quality of calories, as well as fighting the hunger, and, by correlation, long term success.
The only healthy way, IMHO, to lose and maintain is to retrain. I believe the OP was advocating for the retraining on how and what to eat in an effort to make long term weight loss successful. 0 -
I didn't change your name to something childish because i disagreed with you. This is a forum for people helping people, and i put myself out there to help. It's ok to respectfully disagree. Would you call me "rocbloa" if we were having a conversation in a different setting? If you are not here to help, and only here to act childish, then what kind of a man are you? Do your parents know who you really are? And from the picture, it looks like you are an adult!?!? Pathetic.
That was helpful. I'm glad you could share your insights and show everybody exactly what kind of person you are. Are your parents proud of you? This is a forum for helping people lose weight. Some people bring intelligent, productive things to the conversation. For those not smart enough to come up with honest, insightful, and intelligent things to say, please go bounce a ball somewhere.I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.
WOW! Someone's a little pissy aren't they. I'm sorry that you don't like it but that's the way it is. Eat over your BMR, gain weight. Eat under it, lose weight. I don't see how you can argue with that. Now body composition is something different entirely, but the very first sentence of your original post said "it's not jsut calories in vs. calories out for weight loss" and for strictly weight loss yes it is!
Oh and by the way, yes, my parent's are very proud of me, thanks for asking! :drinker:-1 -
So a staller is accumulating water at a rate that equals the loss rate of fat / non-fat body mass ?What has NEVER been demonstrated is someone eating at a substantial deficit and failing to lose body mass.
Is there a limit to this, for example there are women over 200 lbs failing to lose weight - what would be an upper limit on how much extra water could be retained before something had to happen.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions