It is NOT that simple.

diodelcibo

Micronutrients changes will change metabolic rate...

/thread.

lambertj

I have seen so many people here quote the "calories in, calories out" mantra it's ridiculous.

If that is true, please explain how I could be my heaviest while consuming only 1100 cals a day, and "suddenly" lost 60 lbs when I changed my diet to 1600-1800 cals of whole foods. It was the QUALITY of food that changed my health, not the QUANTITY. Not only that, but for overall HEALTH AND WELLNESS, there needs to be much more to it than simply BMI or BF%. There is such a thing as a "skinny fat" person--who may not be "obese" but is still extremely unhealthy. There are thin people who eat 2500 cals/day and obese people who eat 1000 cals/day.

It is absolutely NOT as simple as cals in, cals out. It's much more complicated. Our bodies are so much more complex than that. I can't tell you how many times docs told me I should simply eat less to lose weight. Which is how I got down to 1100 cals/day... and 235lb. I met a trainer who told me to EAT, but to eat WELL, and SURPRISE!!! I lost weight. Go figure. Now, two children later, I'm trying to lose a little more. Not at my heaviest, by far, and even 10lb under what I weighed at high school graduation... but still not where I want to be. Point being, I have SEEN FOR MYSELF what "lower cals" can do, and what "more cals" can do. And I am here to tell you that QUALITY IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN QUANTITY. You cannot be healthy when you eat fewer cals but all processed food; and you can be healthy by eating more cals of whole foods.

Please stop perpetuating this lie. It's just not that simple.

I'm going to agree with you in that it is not as simple as calories in and calories out. I've been at this over a year and I log consistently and measure everything. I wear a heart rate monitor during workouts as well. I can have a week where I am in a calorie deficit and gain and weeks where I over eat and I lose. It's crazy. I think particularly for women, moreso than men, there are many more factors that go into weight loss and yes it's frustrating as hell.

swolegirlcb

Excellent...you ate more, and were able to lose the weight.

Where those calories came from is irrelevant, however.
You would have lost either way.

agreed.
#iifym

MoreBean13

How long did you consume 1100 cals per day for and do you still have those tracking records?

Roughly a year, possibly more. But it was mostly processed foods--just smaller quantities.

Weightloss is magic

what makes you think you were overweight at 1100 calories a day?

Ummm... Being 235 lb. Am I understanding this question correctly? I was clinically obese and was only consuming 1100 cals a day. I increased my intake, but changed the quality of food, and lost 60 lb.

I think it is more likely you did not track properly

We need an eyeroll smiley.

Yes, because it is so impossible for me to have only consumed 1100 cals and be nearly 100lb oveweight. It MUST be that I just didn't track properly. And the part about losing 60 lbs when adding cals... that was a fluke, right??

By eating too little, you altered the "CALORIES OUT" side of the equation. You didn't defy physics, sorry. It still applies to you.

TripleJ3

I had a coworker who swore that she tried everything, even Weight Watchers but could never lose weight because she only ate one to two times a day and would always have all these points/calories left over.....

She never logged or considered it may have been the full size Snickers bars, Reese's PB cups, Doritos, sodas and candy such as Laffy Taffys that she consumed at all times during work. Every day.

tino124

I have seen so many people here quote the "calories in, calories out" mantra it's ridiculous.

If that is true, please explain how I could be my heaviest while consuming only 1100 cals a day, and "suddenly" lost 60 lbs when I changed my diet to 1600-1800 cals of whole foods. It was the QUALITY of food that changed my health, not the QUANTITY. Not only that, but for overall HEALTH AND WELLNESS, there needs to be much more to it than simply BMI or BF%. There is such a thing as a "skinny fat" person--who may not be "obese" but is still extremely unhealthy. There are thin people who eat 2500 cals/day and obese people who eat 1000 cals/day.

It is absolutely NOT as simple as cals in, cals out. It's much more complicated. Our bodies are so much more complex than that. I can't tell you how many times docs told me I should simply eat less to lose weight. Which is how I got down to 1100 cals/day... and 235lb. I met a trainer who told me to EAT, but to eat WELL, and SURPRISE!!! I lost weight. Go figure. Now, two children later, I'm trying to lose a little more. Not at my heaviest, by far, and even 10lb under what I weighed at high school graduation... but still not where I want to be. Point being, I have SEEN FOR MYSELF what "lower cals" can do, and what "more cals" can do. And I am here to tell you that QUALITY IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN QUANTITY. You cannot be healthy when you eat fewer cals but all processed food; and you can be healthy by eating more cals of whole foods.

Please stop perpetuating this lie. It's just not that simple.

It is that simple. U mad bro?

ApexLeader

How long did you consume 1100 cals per day for and do you still have those tracking records?

Roughly a year, possibly more. But it was mostly processed foods--just smaller quantities.

Weightloss is magic

what makes you think you were overweight at 1100 calories a day?

Ummm... Being 235 lb. Am I understanding this question correctly? I was clinically obese and was only consuming 1100 cals a day. I increased my intake, but changed the quality of food, and lost 60 lb.

I think it is more likely you did not track properly

exactly. if she was only eating 1100 calories a day, somehow she was burning fewer. you can't spontaneously create energy in the human body. if she was capable, scientists should be picking and prodding at her to find out how she is mystically creating more energy than she's consuming.

maybe she's a plant and was using photosynthesis and she didn't realize.

bearkisses

I had a coworker who swore that she tried everything, even Weight Watchers but could never lose weight because she only ate one to two times a day and would always have all these points/calories left over.....

She never logged or considered it may have been the full size Snickers bars, Reese's PB cups, Doritos, sodas and candy such as Laffy Taffys that she consumed at all times during work. Every day.

this. or starving themselves for a day or two and then eating the whole world.

rockangel8907

I started losing when I upped my calories. I had been eating at 1200 Cals a day but I was miserable and I'd end up bingeing and eating 2000+ Cals....then other days I'd barely hit 800 Cals. Now I'm at 1550 Cals and some days I do go over but I find it much easier to eat at that level. I started losing because my body was being properly fueled, not starved one day then having a surplus the next.

AllTehBeers

Awww all those special snow flakes are so pretty!

oregonzoo

There is such a thing as a "skinny fat" person--who may not be "obese" but is still extremely unhealthy.

I really hate this term and think it needs to stop. It's used way too much to shame otherwise healthy women who just happen to not be muscular. I don't believe you have to be muscular in order to be healthy.

We all know how you feel about muscle tone.

_SusieQ_

As per the usual in the forums, sometimes it is the tone in which something is conveyed that causes negative or condescending reactions and responses. When one approaches a subject in anger, or with an air of superiority or irritation towards a certain group (who by the way are in majority on this site), one cannot expect to have a civilized discussion.

This of course is just MY opinion, one that will be lost amid the responses of NUH UH! and hilarious gifs.

eyeshuh

Excellent...you ate more, and were able to lose the weight.

Where those calories came from is irrelevant, however.
You would have lost either way.

Yup. The simple saying stands.

yo_andi

There is such a thing as a "skinny fat" person--who may not be "obese" but is still extremely unhealthy.

I really hate this term and think it needs to stop. It's used way too much to shame otherwise healthy women who just happen to not be muscular. I don't believe you have to be muscular in order to be healthy.

Honey, you made it very clear how you feel about muscle tone!

simplyk8

I believe you. When I ate <1100 calories per day I ballooned up. I wasn't eating junk food, we've always been healthy eaters, but I was not eating until early afternoon ("no time") and rarely hit 1000 calories a day. When I finally started forcing myself to eat 3-4 times a day, and bumped my calories up to no less than 1200, I suddenly started losing weight. I lost 2-3 pounds per week consistently for 6 months. When my days got so crazy that I stopped eating regularly, I started creeping up again. Started eating more, and weight is coming off nicely again.

Sorry people suck, but I share your experience, whether they believe you or not.

nevmarchant

"Skinny fat" or as doctors call it "normal weight obesity" has nothing to do with whether a person has muscles. It has to do with percentage of body weight as fat. Some people (not just women) are a "healthy" normal weight but when their body fat percentage is measured it is sometimes 30% and even higher. This percentage is not healthy and brings a lot of health risks with it. That is what "skinny fat" or "normal weight obesity" is about. Normal Weight obesity is often seen in people who don't eat a lot, rely on junk food or processed foods and often skip meals.

pastryari

Well, it doesn't work that way for everyone,

Yes, it does (with the exclusion of medical issues)

Otherwise anorexic people would be the epitome of health, no?

No they wouldn't, because they don't eat and therefore are not getting their bodies the nutrients it needs.

It does make me angry that when someone posts something that might be useful to someone pursing health, and when they post something that is different from the mainstream view of health/weight loss, then they get jumped on and called idiots

disagreement =/= getting jumped on and called an idiot.

because of course the answer is fewer cals...

I'm not sure where you're looking but most people on here are trying to tell people they don't need to starve themselves and that they need to eat more. I think you are confusing a healthy calorie deficit with an extreme calorie deficit.

tldust

Everybody is different. You have to do what works for you. But in general, calorie counting works.

PetulantOne

My thoughts exactly

BinaryPulsar

. There is such a thing as a "skinny fat" person--who may not be "obese" but is still extremely unhealthy. There are thin people who eat 2500 cals/day and obese people who eat 1000 cals/day.

Wrong. Thin people who eat 2500 calories a day are not skinny fat. They have muscle and are very active. That is why they can eat a lot. It's because of low body fat. I am slender and I have low body fat, so I have to eat more (especially when I am very active) so that I do not lose unwanted weight. I'm not saying I have tons of muscles (plenty women on here have more muscle than me), but in my own body ratio I have low body fat to lean body mass ratio for my size (which is small).