Calories In Versus Calories Out = CRAP!

MoreBean13

I don't consider eating carbs a weakness. It's pretty normal, actually.

I don't do low calorie dieting. I still lost my weight with calories in = calories out.

I believe in calories in = calories out.

Metabolic disease does not mean that calories in = calories out is untrue. You have a disease. Your disease does not apply to people without disease.

I have a metabolic disease that makes me carb sensitive. I still eat carbs. I just worked hard for a long time to figure out what works for me to control my disease, along with medicine. I would never recommend others follow my course, because I have a disease. My disease does not apply to others without the disease.

ETA: I'm eating deep dish pizza right now.

ihateroses

Anyone else have a giggle at the title?

Calories in+calories out indeed does=crap :laugh:

...I'm sorry my maturity is at an extreme low today.


OP my best advice to you is what you said at the bottom of your post. Work harder, you will see better results. There's obviously a disconnect somewhere in your diet or workout routine that isn't letting you progress, so switch it up if its not working.

Best of luck.

phee

One big thing I should have explained better. I am NOT unhappy with my progress at all. And I do not expect to lose every week etc. I was using this one week as a good example (I thought) of the many diets I have tried where I've had a really good calorie deficit but was not losing any weight. Also I was working out less than usual so I assumed that working out and gaining muscle would not be an explanation for this particular weeks non-loss. But the main point was how I have experienced this many times before and how it has contributed to my lack of motivation to continue in the past.

Thank you again. I really believe that the science on this stuff will shift in time. It already has started to.

ARHx0

Two things:

Are you on any kind of birth control and have you had your thyroid checked?

^^ THIS

BACONJOKESRSOFUNNY

Anyone else have a giggle at the title?

Calories in+calories out indeed does=crap :laugh:

...I'm sorry my maturity is at an extreme low today.

I love a good poop joke.

phee

well pointed out. lol :laugh:

phee

Two things:

Are you on any kind of birth control and have you had your thyroid checked?

^^ THIS

sorry, no birth control and have had thyroid checked = no probs. But thanks for your insightful questions. I was kind of hoping I could blame the thyroid. lol.

tigersword

I kept 35kg off for over 5 years as well as had another baby during that time and lost my baby weight afterward as well. But due to "life" and my own weaknesses, I went back to eating carbs like pasta and potatoes. I thought I could reintroduce them. I never went back to eating as much of them as I used to but over about a 3 year period, I regained that 35kg. I do believe that certain foods are just not for me. I do believe that I can eat small quanities of low GI carbohydrates early in the day and still be ok.

I completely disagree with you when you say that I did not maintain my weight loss. I certainly did. It was a lifestyle change for me and it worked. There were other reasons that contributed to me letting the kilos slip back on without dealing with it.

I have been thinking about this issue, and this is addressed to everyone, not just you, but it is clearly only those people who low calorie has worked for that are the hardcore promoters of calorie in versus calorie out! What would you all say if calories in versus calories out did not work for your body? The proponents are of the opinion that they represent the only truth about weight loss and that anybody who is different is just either lazy or an incompetent who can't weigh, calculate or measure their food accurately.

Let me just point out: I am not an idiot. I am educated! As I have said repeatedly, I have followed a low calorie diet many times without success while seeing others following the same program succeed. In my opinion there are obviously other factors which come into play. And the article that one poster put up seems to offer an explanation which suits my circumstances perfectly:

The overeating hypothesis : “All obese persons are alike in one fundamental respect,” Newburgh insisted, “they literally overeat.” This paradigm of energy balance/overeating/gluttony/sloth became the conventional, unquestioned explanation for why we get fat.

The alternative hypothesis: That obesity is a hormonal, regulatory defect — leads to a different prescription. In this paradigm, it is not excess calories that cause obesity, but the quantity and quality of carbohydrates consumed. The carbohydrate content of the diet must be rectified to restore health. This conclusion is based on endocrinology that has been understood for 50 years: insulin regulates fat accumulation, and blood levels of insulin are effectively determined by carbohydrate intake. The more easily digestible are the carbohydrates we eat (the higher their glycaemic index) and the sweeter they are (the higher their fructose content) the higher are our blood insulin levels, and the more fat accumulates.
If this is true, it suggests that the obesity epidemic was caused at least in part by the research community's failure to understand the nature of the disease, and by the food industry's exploitation of that failure.

I bolded the part I'm commenting on. I've lost 67 pounds eating around 2600-3000 calories a day. Do you consider that low calorie? I burn about 3500 a day. Calories in are less than calories out, and I've lost weight.

As for your "lifestyle change," if you cut out carbs, lost weight, started eating carbs again and gained the weight back, then you didn't change your lifestyle. You went on a restrictive diet (cutting out or severely restricting any one macro leads to a caloric deficit. It's still calories in vs calories out.)

Also, insulin does NOT regulate fat accumulation, and blood insulin levels are affected by protein (which is also highly insulinogenic,) not just carbohydrates. In fact, the simple act of eating (even if it's 100% fat) leads to increases in blood insulin levels. Also, fructose doesn't impact blood insulin at all, so I don't understand how higher fructose levels in food lead to higher insulin levels. This isn't science "that's been understood for 50 years," this is outdated, 50 year old science that doesn't hold up to modern biology.

etoiles_argentees

Thank you Tiger, tired of this....

phee

I kept 35kg off for over 5 years as well as had another baby during that time and lost my baby weight afterward as well. But due to "life" and my own weaknesses, I went back to eating carbs like pasta and potatoes. I thought I could reintroduce them. I never went back to eating as much of them as I used to but over about a 3 year period, I regained that 35kg. I do believe that certain foods are just not for me. I do believe that I can eat small quanities of low GI carbohydrates early in the day and still be ok.

I completely disagree with you when you say that I did not maintain my weight loss. I certainly did. It was a lifestyle change for me and it worked. There were other reasons that contributed to me letting the kilos slip back on without dealing with it.

I have been thinking about this issue, and this is addressed to everyone, not just you, but it is clearly only those people who low calorie has worked for that are the hardcore promoters of calorie in versus calorie out! What would you all say if calories in versus calories out did not work for your body? The proponents are of the opinion that they represent the only truth about weight loss and that anybody who is different is just either lazy or an incompetent who can't weigh, calculate or measure their food accurately.

Let me just point out: I am not an idiot. I am educated! As I have said repeatedly, I have followed a low calorie diet many times without success while seeing others following the same program succeed. In my opinion there are obviously other factors which come into play. And the article that one poster put up seems to offer an explanation which suits my circumstances perfectly:

The overeating hypothesis : “All obese persons are alike in one fundamental respect,” Newburgh insisted, “they literally overeat.” This paradigm of energy balance/overeating/gluttony/sloth became the conventional, unquestioned explanation for why we get fat.

The alternative hypothesis: That obesity is a hormonal, regulatory defect — leads to a different prescription. In this paradigm, it is not excess calories that cause obesity, but the quantity and quality of carbohydrates consumed. The carbohydrate content of the diet must be rectified to restore health. This conclusion is based on endocrinology that has been understood for 50 years: insulin regulates fat accumulation, and blood levels of insulin are effectively determined by carbohydrate intake. The more easily digestible are the carbohydrates we eat (the higher their glycaemic index) and the sweeter they are (the higher their fructose content) the higher are our blood insulin levels, and the more fat accumulates.
If this is true, it suggests that the obesity epidemic was caused at least in part by the research community's failure to understand the nature of the disease, and by the food industry's exploitation of that failure.

I bolded the part I'm commenting on. I've lost 67 pounds eating around 2600-3000 calories a day. Do you consider that low calorie? I burn about 3500 a day. Calories in are less than calories out, and I've lost weight.

As for your "lifestyle change," if you cut out carbs, lost weight, started eating carbs again and gained the weight back, then you didn't change your lifestyle. You went on a restrictive diet (cutting out or severely restricting any one macro leads to a caloric deficit. It's still calories in vs calories out.)

Also, insulin does NOT regulate fat accumulation, and blood insulin levels are affected by protein (which is also highly insulinogenic,) not just carbohydrates. In fact, the simple act of eating (even if it's 100% fat) leads to increases in blood insulin levels. Also, fructose doesn't impact blood insulin at all, so I don't understand how higher fructose levels in food lead to higher insulin levels. This isn't science "that's been understood for 50 years," this is outdated, 50 year old science that doesn't hold up to modern biology.

I disagree, based on personal experience. But when I say I cut carbs, I mean I reduced them, not cut them out entirely.

MoreBean13

Two things:

Are you on any kind of birth control and have you had your thyroid checked?

^^ THIS

sorry, no birth control and have had thyroid checked = no probs. But thanks for your insightful questions. I was kind of hoping I could blame the thyroid. lol.

Why EXACTLY do you want a disease that can't be cured and requires daily medication and regular bloodwork for the rest of your life?

I find it incredibly insensitive when people wish for diseases.

phee

I kept 35kg off for over 5 years as well as had another baby during that time and lost my baby weight afterward as well. But due to "life" and my own weaknesses, I went back to eating carbs like pasta and potatoes. I thought I could reintroduce them. I never went back to eating as much of them as I used to but over about a 3 year period, I regained that 35kg. I do believe that certain foods are just not for me. I do believe that I can eat small quanities of low GI carbohydrates early in the day and still be ok.

I completely disagree with you when you say that I did not maintain my weight loss. I certainly did. It was a lifestyle change for me and it worked. There were other reasons that contributed to me letting the kilos slip back on without dealing with it.

I have been thinking about this issue, and this is addressed to everyone, not just you, but it is clearly only those people who low calorie has worked for that are the hardcore promoters of calorie in versus calorie out! What would you all say if calories in versus calories out did not work for your body? The proponents are of the opinion that they represent the only truth about weight loss and that anybody who is different is just either lazy or an incompetent who can't weigh, calculate or measure their food accurately.

Let me just point out: I am not an idiot. I am educated! As I have said repeatedly, I have followed a low calorie diet many times without success while seeing others following the same program succeed. In my opinion there are obviously other factors which come into play. And the article that one poster put up seems to offer an explanation which suits my circumstances perfectly:

The overeating hypothesis : “All obese persons are alike in one fundamental respect,” Newburgh insisted, “they literally overeat.” This paradigm of energy balance/overeating/gluttony/sloth became the conventional, unquestioned explanation for why we get fat.

The alternative hypothesis: That obesity is a hormonal, regulatory defect — leads to a different prescription. In this paradigm, it is not excess calories that cause obesity, but the quantity and quality of carbohydrates consumed. The carbohydrate content of the diet must be rectified to restore health. This conclusion is based on endocrinology that has been understood for 50 years: insulin regulates fat accumulation, and blood levels of insulin are effectively determined by carbohydrate intake. The more easily digestible are the carbohydrates we eat (the higher their glycaemic index) and the sweeter they are (the higher their fructose content) the higher are our blood insulin levels, and the more fat accumulates.
If this is true, it suggests that the obesity epidemic was caused at least in part by the research community's failure to understand the nature of the disease, and by the food industry's exploitation of that failure.

I bolded the part I'm commenting on. I've lost 67 pounds eating around 2600-3000 calories a day. Do you consider that low calorie? I burn about 3500 a day. Calories in are less than calories out, and I've lost weight.

As for your "lifestyle change," if you cut out carbs, lost weight, started eating carbs again and gained the weight back, then you didn't change your lifestyle. You went on a restrictive diet (cutting out or severely restricting any one macro leads to a caloric deficit. It's still calories in vs calories out.)

Also, insulin does NOT regulate fat accumulation, and blood insulin levels are affected by protein (which is also highly insulinogenic,) not just carbohydrates. In fact, the simple act of eating (even if it's 100% fat) leads to increases in blood insulin levels. Also, fructose doesn't impact blood insulin at all, so I don't understand how higher fructose levels in food lead to higher insulin levels. This isn't science "that's been understood for 50 years," this is outdated, 50 year old science that doesn't hold up to modern biology.

No, I do not consider 3000 calories per day low calorie, and good for you. But if your calories in versus calories out approach were robust, then it would also apply to me eating 1200 calories a day and expending 2200 which is my bmr without exercise.

Spartan_Maker

I did not have a loss this week despite the fact that I have been eating at a calorie deficit of between 800 and 1800 per day for the entire week. I haven't worked out as much but I have still worked out moderately 3 times this week. This is what I hate about traditional weight loss advice. It is simply not a matter of calories in versus calories out! Well it sure isn't for me! I have never had any real success with WW, Jenny Craig, Gloria Marshall and even dieticians for this reason. With the dieticians advice to eat more wholegrains like brown rice and whole wheat bread, I have been twice, and both times I gained weight!! It is very disheartening.

I guess it just means I have to work a lot harder than what I have been. Which is something I have never really done. So here goes to working harder and seeing what the results bring. I just thought I would post this for others who might be in the same boat.

The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are indisputable physical laws. You'd do well to focus on the "calories out" part of the equation: it's where biochemistry and endocrinology, in particular, come into play. "Calories out" is affected by many things, including but not limtied to (1) macronutrient composition of your diet; (2) micronutrient composition of your diet; (3) leptin; (4) insulin; and (5) thyroid. Your metabolism is dynamic. You just need to learn how to properly manipulate it. Open a spreadsheet and run simple correlation studies: you'll learn more there than anywhere else.

phee

Two things:

Are you on any kind of birth control and have you had your thyroid checked?

^^ THIS

sorry, no birth control and have had thyroid checked = no probs. But thanks for your insightful questions. I was kind of hoping I could blame the thyroid. lol.

Why EXACTLY do you want a disease that can't be cured and requires daily medication and regular bloodwork for the rest of your life?

I find it incredibly insensitive when people wish for diseases.

it was a joke ffs!

MoreBean13

Two things:

Are you on any kind of birth control and have you had your thyroid checked?

^^ THIS

sorry, no birth control and have had thyroid checked = no probs. But thanks for your insightful questions. I was kind of hoping I could blame the thyroid. lol.

Why EXACTLY do you want a disease that can't be cured and requires daily medication and regular bloodwork for the rest of your life?

I find it incredibly insensitive when people wish for diseases.

it was a joke ffs!

Hilarious.

chrisdavey

I may have missed it in all these pages but how have your measurements changed?

I call the scales the random number generator as there a whole lot of factors that can influence them daily.

Overweight people can be insulin resistant and quite often cutting carbs (to cut cals) will work well.

Hit your protein and fat minimums first and hit your cal target consistently. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=133634471

Do that for a month (hard over xmas ) and see how you go.

Also, BMF are 90% accurate (whatever that actually means). Mine was pretty spot on for me at 5'8" 80kg.

edit: after looking at your diary, you aren't eating enough. 1000cal deficit max. There is a limit to how much fat you can lose in a day and going over 1000cal deficit per day is not going to help.

littlepinkhearts

Check out this group on MFP...lots of info that may help you out..... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/forums/show/3834-eat-more-to-weigh-less :flowerforyou:

WendyTerry420

Okay so I know that a lot of people on here are very successful, but is it at all possible that it just doesn't work that way for everyone? I might get a lot of flack for this but I am feeling the same way as the OP. I have been doing this (watching my cals, exercising more, etc) since the end of August and I've only lost a total of 4 lbs. I know that my ticker says 7 lbs lost but that's not what the scale says and I can't bring myself to log the gain. Its just too disheartening.

That being said, I have had some off days, but I've had more good days then bad. At least I think so. Maybe I'm kidding myself. Any help (not BASHING) is greatly appreciated.

I have had my blood work done and no there are no thyroid issues. I CANNOT eat a lot of dairy and we CANNOT afford for me to eat copious amounts of meat either, so I am really struggling with meeting my protein goals. If you look at my diary over the past couple of days, my sodium is high because we've been eating out more lately as people have been taking me out for my B-day. I turn 33 tomorrow, and I DO NOT want to be overweight for my entire life. However, over the last couple of weeks with no loss, I am seriously beginning to think that its just my lot in life to be this way forever :sad:

I am attempting to be good with all of my levels perhaps I just don't have the right information? Eat back exercise cals, don't eat back the exercise cals? If you are under cals but over on some of the macros is that okay? I don't have a HRM but I am hoping to get one for Christmas this year. So all of my exercise cals are what MFP says when I log my time and activity.

HELP? Advice?

Eggs for protein. That's about as cheap as it gets. Also, spinach, which is pretty cheap if you get it frozen, and dairy, though dairy isn't exactly cheap these days. You might consider trying to hit at least 70ish, which you have done in many of the days I saw. You might also consider lowering your carbs a hair to make room for a little more healthy fats and eat more nuts for snacks.

There is a lot inconsistency in your calories though. Do you know anything about spreadsheets? I put my numbers in a spreadsheet and look at my calories on a long-term basis. You can then match it to your scale recordings and put it in a graph.

jofjltncb6

One big thing I should have explained better. I am NOT unhappy with my progress at all. And I do not expect to lose every week etc. I was using this one week as a good example (I thought) of the many diets I have tried where I've had a really good calorie deficit but was not losing any weight. Also I was working out less than usual so I assumed that working out and gaining muscle would not be an explanation for this particular weeks non-loss. But the main point was how I have experienced this many times before and how it has contributed to my lack of motivation to continue in the past.

Thank you again. I really believe that the science on this stuff will shift in time. It already has started to.

Just so we're all clear here, and I won't be citing any studies for support, but I don't think muscle gain will ever be the explanation for "non-loss" in any one-week period. Ever.

chrisdavey

One big thing I should have explained better. I am NOT unhappy with my progress at all. And I do not expect to lose every week etc. I was using this one week as a good example (I thought) of the many diets I have tried where I've had a really good calorie deficit but was not losing any weight. Also I was working out less than usual so I assumed that working out and gaining muscle would not be an explanation for this particular weeks non-loss. But the main point was how I have experienced this many times before and how it has contributed to my lack of motivation to continue in the past.

Thank you again. I really believe that the science on this stuff will shift in time. It already has started to.

Just so we're all clear here, and I won't be citing any studies for support, but I don't think muscle gain will ever be the explanation for "non-loss" in any one-week period. Ever.

no need to. Especially for women.