It's NOT Just Calories In VS Calories Out!!!
Options
Replies
-
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 -
Thank you. It's amazing how many people chime in without actually reading what has been written.
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, but 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 -
As far as losing weight goes... it really is just calories in vs calories out, because you can't lose weight with a calorie surplus. You can have reactions to a bunch of different things but if you are eating more than you are burning, you aren't going to lose weight. So in a sense it really is only calories in vs calories out.
HOWEVER if we are talking about health, there is much more involved. Sure you can lose weight eating nothing by twinkies but you won't be that healthy and you wouldn't have learned a healthy lifestyle.
The end0 -
Thank you. It's amazing how many people chime in without actually reading what has been written.
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, but 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.
I think if folks re-read they will see what you are saying.
I honestly read it as the following: You were not discrediting calories in/out... rather, you were giving ideas and warnings of things that affect long term success. There are many studies which support what you say. As with anything in this world, there are studies on both sides of things and people will go with their gut. Politics, anyone??? KIDDING lol0 -
I've had friends who have dropped 10+ pounds of water weight in a day when going from very high weights, so it's pretty substantial. If someone is going months without change though, chances are their net caloric intake is excessive, either due to miscalculating intake, overestimating exercise burn, or a combination of the two. People can't magically pull energy from the ether, and the Minnesota starvation study fairly conclusively demonstrated that when eating at a substantial deficit, metabolic adaptation never accounts for more than a fraction of caloric reduction. From what I have read from some of the prolonged 0 calorie diets that morbidly obese individuals have been on, caloric downregulation caps out at around 40%, even on a sustained 0 calorie diet. For people restricted ~40%, a 10% downregulation seems typical. Basically, it is not nearly as substantial as most people on this forum seem to think. I have 3 friends who have lost ~120-150 pounds in a year on 1200 or fewer calories/day (2 of them were at 600-800). I will probably have a fourth by the end of the year. They are all SO much healthier at this point (i.e. not "you are going to be dead within a few years")... that's part of why a lot of the starvation mode people upset me so much, for some people, under doctor's supervision, a very low calorie diet is medically advisable.
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.
Edit: As an addendum, water weight is trickier with women due to a high level of variance based upon hormonal factors. I think most women are better off getting a body fat meter and measuring tape, and using those to determine progress, and only use the scale as a secondary measure.0 -
I see people all the time say that weight loss is just as simple as "calories in/calories out" but, that is a serious oversimplification!!!! I want to share what i have learned about the OTHER FACTORS involved so others don't make the same mistakes i have made in the past. There are a variety of factors involved with why we all became overweight, and stayed that way, despite great efforts.
Factor 1: STRESS
Stress releases stress hormones within our bodies that not only make us desire more food, they make our bodies go into a storage state. Google "Cortisol"
Factor 2: HYDRATION
Most of us don't drink enough water. In addition, most of the man-made foods we eat have low water content, compared with the foods we would eat in nature. This makes our water requirements even greater. Water is necessary for almost every function of the body, including flushing out toxins from cells. You should be peeing clear.
Factor 3: UN-NATURALLY CONCENTRATED FOODS
Most man-made foods that we eat have a high concentration of calories, without much or any fiber or water. They don't fill up our stomachs, but they do provide us with a lot of calories. They are also stripped of most mirco nutrients. It is very easy to eat too many calories without our bodies telling us to stop eating. As Doug Lisle says, "Our mechanisms of satiation are being fooled". Even when we have had ENOUGH calories, we desire MORE because our stomachs aren't full.
Google "Dr. Doug Lisle, Pleasure Trap"
Factor 3: UNDERNOURISHMENT
ALL processed food has been stripped of at least some of it's nutrients. ALL cooked food has had at least some of it's nutrients destroyed. Most of the minerals that are found in normal plants are not replaced in the soil each year, so most commercial produce is deficient in proper minerals. Plus, once a plant is picked, the nutrients start degrading. By the time we pick it up on the grocery store shelf, it's already at least a week old. All of these factors combined mean that we are not getting enough nutrients. Despite getting more than enough MACRO-NUTRIENTS (calories), we are not getting enough MICRO-NUTRIENTS (vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, etc). When we don't get the micro nutrients we need, we are starving internally, and the hunger signal remains strong, so we continue to eat. Unfortunately, most people continue to eat foods that have high calories, and low micro nutrients, further exacerbating the problem.
FACTOR 4: TOXICITY/FOOD CHEMICALS
Most of the food that we eat contains preservatives, artificial flavorings, artificial colorings, etc. The body is not made to process this stuff. The body sees these chemicals as irritants, and acts to remove them from the blood stream. It either creates mucus to flush them out, or stores them in fat cells. When the body takes on these chemicals in the fat, they alter the body's ability to utilize the fat stored in the cell properly. This is very over-simplified. Research this topic. Seriously.
Google "Dr. Joel Fuhrman: Toxic Hunger"
Google "Jon Gabriel Method"
Factor 5: MSG
Several of the food chemicals in most of today's food make you want to continue eating, even when you are full.
Factor 6: ADDICTION
Many of the additives and processed foods today are physically addicting. Don't believe that big food companies would stoop to that level? Why not, the tobacco did it too. Think you are an "over eater"? Ever wonder why you can't seem to control yourself when food is concerned? Ever tell yourself, "I'll just have one" and then have more? ADDICTION.
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.
High quality calories? You've heard it before. High quality calories come from:
High water content, high nutrient content, high fiber content, natural, unprocessed, local, fresh, organic, plant based foods. Yes, i'm talking about fruits and vegetables.
This
WOW this is so true Thank You for posting this I am saving to my hard drive to remember. I have kicked the sugar addiction or so I thought until I find it in places I never dream of like my favorite shore lunch fish batter. Sugar increases my appetite and being hypoglycemic sets me up for a hard fall.0 -
WELL SAID!!!!! AND AGREE WITH THE SLEEP! NUMB 1 FACTOR AS WELL0
-
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:
Has it occurred to you that it may have been a simple typo? You seem awfully quick to take offense when it's possible none was intended......and your retort is hardly mature either.0 -
He accidentally put quotes on both sides of the misspelled word? Quite a typo.
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:
Has it occurred to you that it may have been a simple typo? You seem awfully quick to take offense when it's possible none was intended......and your retort is hardly mature either.0 -
bump for later !!!!0
-
Thanks for the thread - it was entertaining for the first 3 pages...now it's just going in circles. Just agree to disagree...lol0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions