It is NOT that simple.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Actually I heard a doctor on NPR last week and he basically said that calories in and calories out is a fallacy. He advocated for eating whole foods, which is the basis of the whole clean eating movement. Below is the blurb from when he was on Talk of the Nation Science Friday:

In his new book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, endocrinologist and obesity doc Robert Lustig deconstructs the mythology of fat. He says exercise, for all its benefits, won't help you shed pounds -- and that fasting only worsens weight gain.

He was also on the Diane Rehm show when a nutritionist called in saying that weight loss is all about calories in and calories out, he basically tore her a new one.

This is basically what my endocrinologist has stated too.

andyisandy

You are so right about eating under the amount your body needs to stay alive. Doesn't work. And the quality of food is the key. Stack to it girl

quality of food (i assume you are talking about marcos) helps your body look but when it comes to weight loss its cals in and out.

brower47

Ok, it's simple. Calories in / calories out
.
.
.
with some exceptions: starvation, metabolic disorders.

Still quite simple. Especially for most of the folks on here that understand that basic concept (with its exceptions).

HaleyxErin

You weren't losing because your body was grabbing every calorie it could with a death grip 1100 isn't enough 1200 is the bare minimum you should eat but yes nutrients are far more important than calories nutrients=health

binknbaby

Oh my gosh! To the dozen or so people who just responded with the same thing...

I never said that it was totally wrong! I never said that it never works!

I said that sometimes there is MORE to weight loss than simply CI/CO. It's not that it is "wrong", but that it's INCOMPLETE.

Yes, it works on a basic level. But if oversimplified to the extreme, you get people like I was 5 years ago, who starve themselves. Or when other factors are ignored (low-quality food causing water retention, inflammation, blockages, etc), it can be irrelevant, because those other factors are holding it up.

THAT is what I mean. That the oversimplification is the problem. I have a problem with how it is presented, not the idea itself. I have a problem with some of the people here who IGNORE the other factors, and tell others "No, you're just doing it wrong" instead of having an open mind and considering if maybe there are other factors (even undiagnosed medical issues). There is very little room for alternative reasons for why weight loss stalls, and very little empathy for those who are struggling through it. Our bodies are simple, but they are also very complex, and one unknown factor can stall normal functions. So yes, under normal conditions, if a person consumes less than they burn, they will lose weight. But sometimes that is taken to the extreme (and people starve themselves), or it ignores all of the other things that could be going on which contribute to weight gain and stalling.

My example in the OP was not to say that it wasn't true, but that it wasn't that SIMPLE. That if it were that SIMPLE, then starvation diets would work. But clearly our bodies are more complex than "basic math", and do have certain requirements for weight loss, which may be affected by any number of situations. But that is not to say that the "basics" aren't *true*, only that they are one piece of a more complicated puzzle.

trogalicious

It can be that simple, but if you start with the wrong numbers... math isn't going to make sense. I posted a reply a page back or so comparing the entire thing to an engine. Roll back and take a look.

rm7161

That if it were that SIMPLE, then starvation diets would work.

Actually, they do result in weight loss, and eventually end in death if they do not end. Certainly not healthy. Most people will not hold to an actual starvation diet unless they have an eating disorder, or do it for other reasons (hunger strike/fasting, starving due to lack of food resources, etc).

rm7161

This is basically what my endocrinologist has stated too.

What Dr. Lustig says about sugar, was pretty much said by my cardiologist about a decade ago. Not much new there, I just wasn't ready to listen.

I still think he is trying to sell a book and sensationalising it more than necessary, giving some people the wrong impression that they don't have to exercise (wrong) and they don't have to count calories (also wrong). But overall, he is right about how different sugars metabolise and it is advice well heeded.

NRSPAM

My goodness!!! Where's the love folks???? I think the OP was not meant to be rude, and I didn't see it as being such. I think that it is just upsetting to people trying to lose weight, when people are always saying CI/CO, and so they keep cutting down calories, more and more, until they're just starving themselves! I've been there! I know what it felt like! Not good! Nobody wants to go through the torture of starving themselves, just to come up short! It's very discouraging, and eventually, the person will give up. While it is, on one hand, basically CI/CO, it CAN be more complex, like she is trying to say! She's not cutting down MFP, she's just telling people that it is not ALWAYS that simple. I think that we all need to be supporting each other!!! Weight loss is a hard enough thing to do, let alone all the crap we have to deal with just with life, in general. Can't we all just get along!!!

NRSPAM

That if it were that SIMPLE, then starvation diets would work.

Actually, they do result in weight loss, and eventually end in death if they do not end. Certainly not healthy. Most people will not hold to an actual starvation diet unless they have an eating disorder, or do it for other reasons (hunger strike/fasting, starving due to lack of food resources, etc).

Yes, eventually, when even what the body holds on to, is not even enough to sustain life, although, most of us are food junkies, and are not capable of starving ourselves to that point, willingly.

trogalicious

I think that it is just upsetting to people trying to lose weight, when people are always saying CI/CO, and so they keep cutting down calories, more and more, until they're just starving themselves.

...and that's the problem. We're trying to help the OP understand that in order for the body to burn calories, it needs to have fuel to do so. If you don't amply fuel the body, it won't burn and lose. Eating less isn't necessarily the answer in a straight-forward sense. It is, however, burning more than you consume.

It is CI/CO, effectively. It is more complex in the sense of figuring out what number an individual needs to be at, but it isn't "everyone is a special unique snowflake" complex.

verdancyhime

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.

TBH, I've used the term in the past to describe people who have very unhealthy habits but aren't fat. Basically because weight/clothing size is not the end all be all of determining how unhealthy someone is.

I think we should all just stop assuming we know how healthy someone is just by looking at them.

rainbowbow

Not at all. I was 118 pounds at 5'3 and 32% body fat. Just saying~

I don't think she was using skinny fat to insult body type, but to describe a skinny person's health being just as bad as an obese person's because they eat piles of **** wrapped in bacon...

well yeah in that case it's true. eating a crappy diet is bad. most people don't use the term skinny fat to mean that. they use it to mean skinny, but not muscular. that's why i hate the term.

I disagree there. Skinny fat means that yes they are at a healthy BMR and a healthy weight, but still at an unhealthy body fat percentage

I think this happening is pretty rare.

cassiepv

Actually I heard a doctor on NPR last week and he basically said that calories in and calories out is a fallacy. He advocated for eating whole foods, which is the basis of the whole clean eating movement. Below is the blurb from when he was on Talk of the Nation Science Friday:

In his new book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, endocrinologist and obesity doc Robert Lustig deconstructs the mythology of fat. He says exercise, for all its benefits, won't help you shed pounds -- and that fasting only worsens weight gain.

He was also on the Diane Rehm show when a nutritionist called in saying that weight loss is all about calories in and calories out, he basically tore her a new one.

^^ this

Some foods are not meant for human consumption

infamousmk

Actually I heard a doctor on NPR last week and he basically said that calories in and calories out is a fallacy. He advocated for eating whole foods, which is the basis of the whole clean eating movement. Below is the blurb from when he was on Talk of the Nation Science Friday:

In his new book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, endocrinologist and obesity doc Robert Lustig deconstructs the mythology of fat. He says exercise, for all its benefits, won't help you shed pounds -- and that fasting only worsens weight gain.

He was also on the Diane Rehm show when a nutritionist called in saying that weight loss is all about calories in and calories out, he basically tore her a new one.

^^ this

Some foods are not meant for human consumption

You mean like cat food?

binknbaby

My goodness!!! Where's the love folks???? I think the OP was not meant to be rude, and I didn't see it as being such. I think that it is just upsetting to people trying to lose weight, when people are always saying CI/CO, and so they keep cutting down calories, more and more, until they're just starving themselves! I've been there! I know what it felt like! Not good! Nobody wants to go through the torture of starving themselves, just to come up short! It's very discouraging, and eventually, the person will give up. While it is, on one hand, basically CI/CO, it CAN be more complex, like she is trying to say! She's not cutting down MFP, she's just telling people that it is not ALWAYS that simple. I think that we all need to be supporting each other!!! Weight loss is a hard enough thing to do, let alone all the crap we have to deal with just with life, in general. Can't we all just get along!!!

Yes, that is exactly it. It's the way it's being presented that causes problems; not the concept itself. I wasn't trying to be rude or condescending, I was trying to explain how the way it's being said can cause some issues. I had doctors over many years tell me to cut down, so I kept cutting down. They assumed that since I was overweight, I must eat too much. So I kept cutting, and kept cutting, until I was starving. So to oversimplify (like those doctors did), one can take it too far and wind up starving. And to state it in such a condescending way ("you're just doing it wrong", "you're lying", etc) is hurtful and does not show support. Rather than accusing people, why not try to figure out if there's an underlying cause? Why not suggest they see an endocrinologist? And if someone offers some information that may help people who are stalled, why mock and degrade them? Why make them out to be ignorant? Why not accept that there may be certain situations and factors that could possibly stall weight loss? In short, why the negativity???

Yes, I was frustrated, but I never once thought I was better than anyone or knew more than everyone here. I was merely trying to point out that the very limited view that if someone isn't losing on CI/CO, then they are just wrong.... is not only rude and unsupportive, but also ignorant of the medical facts, that sometimes underlying issues may cause weight loss to come to a halt, or may have trouble starting in the first place. So while I acknowledge my initial post was not as clear, and while I was frustrated, I do want everyone to know that my intentions were to bring understanding and to bridge the gap, so that we can all support each other, and not talk down to everyone who offers a different view. And that if someone does stall and needs help, that we won't perpetuate the problem by oversimplifying, and will offer alternative suggestions to help them figure out what is going on.

Mr_Bad_Example

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.

Um, stop overgeneralizing based on your own personal experiences. For some people it is that simple - for others, it's not.

binknbaby

I think that it is just upsetting to people trying to lose weight, when people are always saying CI/CO, and so they keep cutting down calories, more and more, until they're just starving themselves.

...and that's the problem. We're trying to help the OP understand that in order for the body to burn calories, it needs to have fuel to do so. If you don't amply fuel the body, it won't burn and lose. Eating less isn't necessarily the answer in a straight-forward sense. It is, however, burning more than you consume.

It is CI/CO, effectively. It is more complex in the sense of figuring out what number an individual needs to be at, but it isn't "everyone is a special unique snowflake" complex.

I've never disagreed with this. If you'll read my responses again, you'll see that I'm not arguing against CI/CO as a whole, but I'm pointing out that the way it's being presented on some threads is willfully ignorant of the very possibility of other factors affecting weight loss--and being done in a condescending manner.

I agree with the basic premise, but I don't believe it's the end-all to weight loss, as many other things can affect the body's ability to metabolize that energy properly. I'm not saying I disagree, only that the way it's presented can lead to a misunderstanding of its truth, and lead to people taking it too far and starving themselves. And that it's talking down to anyone who offers a possible insight as to why someone has stalled.

Lleldiranne

OP: the trick, the part that makes it less simple, is figuring the calories out. When you were consuming 1100 cal's per day, you probably had a slower metabolism, both from undereating and possibly less activity (I'm assuming that part). There are a lot of things that affect your "calories out" from nutrition to activity to hormones and other metabolic issues. There's where it's not simple.

Calories in/calories out IS what determines weight loss. You can't get away from the law of thermodynamics any more than you can from the law of gravity. It's physics.

Sarauk2sf

I apologize if this has already been discussed, I may have missed it, but if you were eating such low calories for such a long time while being at that weight and maintaining, why did you not go and see a doctor? I know I would have.

I did see a doctor when I was about 1600 or so... They told me to eat less because "it's basic math". When I still was not seeing any loss after starting a workout regimen 2-3x/wk, I cut back even more until I got to 1100. When I still had not seen any loss, I found a trainer, who then told me to eat more and added one day (with her) to my workouts. When I got up to 1800 and ate less processed food, I lost 60lb in 5 mos. Yes, I did work out a little more, but it wasn't very significant, as I only added one day. One day wouldn't have made that significant of a difference, being only 500 or so more cals burned in a week, so I do attribute the bulk of my weight-loss to the change in diet.

And clearly I was starving myself, but again... although that was the example I provided, was not the whole point.

You say you were at 1100 for a year? Or did I misunderstand that? When you were not losing at that level did you not go back to the doctor and ask them to tests? PCOS, thyroid?

Not trying to interrogate here - just trying to understand.

upgetupgetup

What the ****, it so obviously IS a million times more complex than calories in/out. And it's definitely different for women than for men. And it's different again for people who've been obese than for people who haven't.

Endocrinology, biology matter. We're not cars.

And given that science has yet to figure out *exactly* how it all works, and this is really the first time in history there's been such a mass of mass (and then mass lost) to study, I think it's pretty amazing this site's full of experts, and that they're all so confident.

However, as a rule of thumb, in/out works as well as anything.

trogalicious

I've never disagreed with this. If you'll read my responses again, you'll see that I'm not arguing against CI/CO as a whole, but I'm pointing out that the way it's being presented on some threads is willfully ignorant of the very possibility of other factors affecting weight loss--and being done in a condescending manner.

The entire time I've been here, almost a year now, I've never seen anyone throw out a condescending response when someone asked for help with their lifestyle. More often than not, I'll see people that are new to the forum come here, bash how many of us have found success, then wind up having to backpeddle for 5 or 6 pages of a thread.

Every possible chance I (and the rest of my friends list) have, we typically will offer information based on what we know has worked for us.. and what has not. I'm sorry you didn't have the same experience that has kept many of us here, active on the forums, trying to understand why our bodies do what they do.. and helping to spread that information around.

The general accepted rule, though, is that calories in vs calories out does apply to the law of thermodynamics.

No, we aren't cars, but for some people, they need the breakdown to understand how keeping yourself fueled matters. I can't tell you how many threads have popped up this past week of folks that signed up in January 2013 with hopes of changing their lives.. and when they aren't eating the goal number that MFP gave them, they aren't losing.. and don't understand it.

ldrosophila

Sure a person can be skinny fat... Triglycerides through the roof, hypercholesterolemia, poor HDL/LDL ratio, hypertension. Unless someone is morbidly obese or seriously underweight you cant tell the health of person by the scale. Jeeshers!

SanteMulberry

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.

Same thing happened to me. I was eating 1200 calories and nothing was happening (and I could barely move off the couch). I got off of the crappy food (no offense to anyone, but Lean Cuisine is crap) and sugar and wheat which were addictive for me and would trigger binges when my body was messed up by the prolonged 1200 calorie crap diet. I started eating real food and after a while, I felt so much better that I started to want to move more. I have lost 50 pounds (8 inches off my waist) and have gone from 50% BF to 32% BF so far. I'd like to lose at least 30 more but now I know how. I always eat at least 1600 calories a day now--more on my heavier exercise days. I feel great and my medical problems (high blood pressure and high blood sugar have resolved themselves and my gouty arthritis is greatly improved.

binknbaby

I apologize if this has already been discussed, I may have missed it, but if you were eating such low calories for such a long time while being at that weight and maintaining, why did you not go and see a doctor? I know I would have.

I did see a doctor when I was about 1600 or so... They told me to eat less because "it's basic math". When I still was not seeing any loss after starting a workout regimen 2-3x/wk, I cut back even more until I got to 1100. When I still had not seen any loss, I found a trainer, who then told me to eat more and added one day (with her) to my workouts. When I got up to 1800 and ate less processed food, I lost 60lb in 5 mos. Yes, I did work out a little more, but it wasn't very significant, as I only added one day. One day wouldn't have made that significant of a difference, being only 500 or so more cals burned in a week, so I do attribute the bulk of my weight-loss to the change in diet.

And clearly I was starving myself, but again... although that was the example I provided, was not the whole point.

You say you were at 1100 for a year? Or did I misunderstand that? When you were not losing at that level did you not go back to the doctor and ask them to tests? PCOS, thyroid?

Not trying to interrogate here - just trying to understand.

I worked my way down to 1100, but my starting point was still under my TDEE (found that out later, actually, but still true). I think I was around 1600 when I started (if I'm remembering correctly), and then kept cutting down more and more until I remained at 1100 for about 8 months. When I hadn't lost after 8 mos of being 1100 (net, after workouts, which I never ate back), I sought a trainer, who told me to eat more.

The doctor was the one who told me to cut down, and that it was basic math, and if I just cut down enough, it would come off.

And there WERE underlying factors, which is exactly my point. That yes, I was starving myself and that clearly wasn't going to work in my favor, but also the oversimplification from the doctor did not account for the possibility of any other problems. I went to multiple doctors who all assumed that since I was overweight, I must eat too much. They saw the weight as the cause, not the symptom, of something larger. And so when people on here oversimplify and INSIST that if someone isn't losing on CI/CO that they are doing it wrong, lying, or ignorant... they completely ignore the possibility that there are other things going on that may make it difficult (or impossible) to lose weight. To them, there seems to be no other possibilities or other means to lose weight. They seem to assume that there is nothing more to it--that everyone's metabolism is exactly the same. But certain foods can cause inflammation, water retention, hormonal imbalances, gut disturbances, malnutrition, and even autoimmune reactions. But none of that is mentioned--it's just "You're wrong", "You're lying", "You don't understand science", "You just don't get it", etc. It's rude and ignorant to take that stance.

ldrosophila

Actually I heard a doctor on NPR last week and he basically said that calories in and calories out is a fallacy. He advocated for eating whole foods, which is the basis of the whole clean eating movement. Below is the blurb from when he was on Talk of the Nation Science Friday:

In his new book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, endocrinologist and obesity doc Robert Lustig deconstructs the mythology of fat. He says exercise, for all its benefits, won't help you shed pounds -- and that fasting only worsens weight gain.

He was also on the Diane Rehm show when a nutritionist called in saying that weight loss is all about calories in and calories out, he basically tore her a new one.

^^ this

Some foods are not meant for human consumption

You mean like cat food?

Well some organisms can survive on hot thermal vents of hydrogen sulfide and you couldnt down a bowl of tha so they got a good point there, but kitty food would be perfectly acceptable especially if you like tuna and liver and you want your breathe to smell kitty cute.

Now I dont know what the macro break down of kitty food is, but I'm sure it will be the best option for us all cuz its like totally high in taurine and we need it for our night vision and ability to pounce.

trogalicious

But none of that is mentioned--it's just "You're wrong", "You're lying", "You don't understand science", "You just don't get it", etc. It's rude and ignorant to take that stance.

...and that's all in these threads that you can't seem to come across again... so you're casting a "you're rude and ignorant to take any stance that doesn't cater to my needs" blanket over us.

If you dealt with inept medical professionals and they couldn't figure it out, why would you think a random forum of strangers on the internet would have better advice for free?

Good luck with your loss. Glad to see you've finally got it all figured out. I can't keep chasing my tail in this thread.

SanteMulberry

If quality food was the only relevant factor, and processed "junk" foods are the true cause of obesity, then how is it possible that any of our ancient predecessors ever became obese? They didn't have candy bars, boxed meals, fast food, etc. They ate what they could hunt, grow and produce for themselves. Yet some of them were still overweight...

Only the rich ones, honey. The rest of the folks were very fortunate to get three squares a day and were engaged in heavy manual labor for their rich, fat overlords. That is why "corpulence" was a status symbol among the wealthy and wannabes.

Now it is completely reversed--obesity is a sign of poverty and being slim and trim is the province of those better off.

upgetupgetup

But none of that is mentioned--it's just "You're wrong", "You're lying", "You don't understand science", "You just don't get it", etc. It's rude and ignorant to take that stance.

...and that's all in these threads that you can't seem to come across again... so you're casting a "you're rude and ignorant to take any stance that doesn't cater to my needs" blanket over us.

If you dealt with inept medical professionals and they couldn't figure it out, why would you think a random forum of strangers on the internet would have better advice for free?

Good luck with your loss. Glad to see you've finally got it all figured out. I can't keep chasing my tail in this thread.

I skipped through like half the thread and missed your earlier analogy (with which I have zero issues, as you articulated it) entirely, in case you read my 'cars' jab as having anything to do with you.

binknbaby

But none of that is mentioned--it's just "You're wrong", "You're lying", "You don't understand science", "You just don't get it", etc. It's rude and ignorant to take that stance.

...and that's all in these threads that you can't seem to come across again... so you're casting a "you're rude and ignorant to take any stance that doesn't cater to my needs" blanket over us.

If you dealt with inept medical professionals and they couldn't figure it out, why would you think a random forum of strangers on the internet would have better advice for free?

Good luck with your loss. Glad to see you've finally got it all figured out. I can't keep chasing my tail in this thread.

Wow, way to totally twist everything I've said to this point. And since you repeatedly do that each and every time you respond, I don't see the point in actually addressing what you've said, other than to say, "Thanks for proving my point."