Calories In Versus Calories Out = CRAP!

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 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.

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.

Have you thought about incorporating more weight lifting exercise? Specifically, heavy lifting? Muscle burns fat and will rev your metabolism. Also, how bout eating several small meals and snacks throughout the day?

OP - I think you are looking at the wrong thing.

Weight Loss occurs when Calories In is less than Calories Out. Thank you to whomever pointed out the law of thermodynamics. And You have adjusted the calories in downward, and increased your exercise, but I think you are assuming that the RATE you are burning is always the same.

I think almost everyone accepts that if you eat too few calories, your body goes into starvation mode - that's the rate your body burns. But do we really understand all of the factors that influence your metabolic rate. Ambient temperature, eating breakfast in the morning, eating smaller more frequent meals, thyroid (ie hormones), birth control (ie hormones) etc etc. The Taubes hypothesis is that in addition to how much you eat (again, we accept that too few = starvation mode), that the types of food can also influence that rate. That carbohydrates drive insulin (ie a hormone) and that in turn causes a change to much you a burning. Think of a fire - does it burn the same whether you feed it green wood or dry wood? Not at all.

So I disagree with you that Calories in Versus Calories Out = Crap
But think that something is going on to impact your metabolic rate, which in turn impacts how you burn calories, and which therefore impacts your calories out.

Anyway, that's my two cents.