Is this true? Calories don't matter?

Options
1246

Replies

  • LoseYouself
    LoseYouself Posts: 249 Member
    Options
    Calories do matter, but not ONLY calories. Nutritional density of the food matters as well. 2000 calories of cookies will not look the same on your body as 2000 calories of fresh, whole foods without chemicals and additives. The more nutritionally dense the calories you eat are, the better you'll feel and more satisfied you'll be.. therefore more often avoiding urges to over-eat or eat unhealthy foods. :)
  • starrisonmclennon
    starrisonmclennon Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    i don't think that calories don't matter, you should count fat and sugars and stuff but calories are helpful - like the things with more calories such as cake will have more sugar and fat, but the things with less calories like fruit with have less sugar and fat, and even if fruit does have sugar it'll be natural which is the type of sugar you should get anyway..
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    I did indeed hold all variables constant, exercise levels, protein intake, fat intake and cal intake. 2500 cals per day was maintenance level for me for 3 months prior. I had set out initially to prove the theory wrong. I documented the entire thing. Workout schedule, work schedule, diet remained the same the entire time. The only measurement which changed for the duration was my waistline, I lost 1.25" off the waistline and it has yet to return. I am well aware that you can get really lean using a cal deficit I am not disagreeing with that. However for me that was coming at a cost of lean muscle mass which I had no desire to lose. I tried quite a few methods to try and lean out without losing lean mass. Zig zagging cals, following macro ratios to the T, etc. I saw no visible difference between them other than my fat stayed (measured via calipers) and as I got lighter the caliper measurements did not change. 8 weeks of doing carb nite solution and I continually saw my strength go up, my definition increase and never dropping below maintenance levels. It may not work for everyone but it did work for me. I have since not looked at cal intake the same, and using carb backloading I managed to keep the fat off while gaining muscle mass. I do not know everything about the science behind it but it does work for me. Up until I had tried the low carb method I would have totally agreed with you, but the proof was in the pudding for me, it produced results for me unlike just cutting cals where I got weaker, and not leaner no matter how low/high the deficit was. After the prep phase the water/glycogen depletion is done, week 1 I lost 9 lbs (yes this was water/carb weight) post experiment I had gone from 178-160 lbs. I regained 6 lbs after going off the diet for 2 weeks, caliper measurement did not change though nor did visual definition. I then went on carb backloading to build some muscle. I gained an additional 8 lbs in 7 weeks with no change in caliper measurements. Now I have moved onto a heavier version of carb backloading to gain more muscle mass.
    I just have to say (and I know this is like 6 months old) that I don't believe this, just because the first sentence can't possibly be true. You absolutely cannot keep calories the same, protein the same, and fat the same, while lowering carbs. It is impossible. Carbs have calories, if carbs were reduced, but protein and fat were held constant (as was claimed) then calories were reduced. If carbs were lowered, and calories were held constant (as was ALSO claimed) then protein or fat had to increase in order to make up the difference.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    That is incorrect. Calories are the only thing that matters in weight loss. They can say, "watch your portions", "eat low carb,", "do the zone diet ratios" whatever... it's trick to make you eat less calories.

    All these posts on this thread are full of half truths. Calories are the easiest way. Vegans really don't need to worry b/c it's hard as hell to eat your calorie intake on veggies. However there are many people that can get away with 1/2 their recommended calorie intake if they eat nutrient dense foods.

    Some people eat for pleasure, when others make sure that every ounce of food is purpose driven.

    For all of our sakes, the simplest and easiest way is to at least know calorie counting. Carbs are not horrible- in fact all these new studies coming out saying proteins are bad... WHo knows? maybe 20 years from now they will have it together, but right now we can only use the info we have, and sift through all the BS (just b/c we don't understand or agree doesn't mean it's BS).
    Um... I can think of many, many, extremely calorie dense vegan foods. Pasta, many different kinds of cookies, avocados, potato chips (or just potatoes.) Very easy to eat 100% vegan and go way over maintenance calories.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    Calories do matter, but not ONLY calories. Nutritional density of the food matters as well. 2000 calories of cookies will not look the same on your body as 2000 calories of fresh, whole foods without chemicals and additives. The more nutritionally dense the calories you eat are, the better you'll feel and more satisfied you'll be.. therefore more often avoiding urges to over-eat or eat unhealthy foods. :)

    As often happens surrounding this issue, I think your post illustrates a confusion of 2 different issues. The energy balance equation is the lion's share of the equation when it comes to weight loss. A diet of nutrient dense foods in a proper mix of macronutrients is the lion's share of the equation for overall long terms health. Weight loss improves some health markers even in the absence of good diet but would not be an intelligent overall strategy and I don't know of a single intelligent person whose opinion I respect that would recommend that.

    I think James Kreiger, the highly respected nutrition expert put it best. In the quote below he is refering to MA or metabolic advantage relative to a low carb diet but the same concept applies to any diet that claims a metabolic advantage.

    "The MA hypothesis does not trump the concept of energy balance. It postulates inefficiencies in energy metabolism, which would translate to an increase in measured energy expenditure (due to heat loss) in a living organism. Thus, if the MA was true, "calories out" would increase for a given "calories in".

    More on Kreiger can found at www.weightology.net

    He also has a lot to say about the demonization of insulin at http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
  • Richie2shoes
    Richie2shoes Posts: 412 Member
    Options
    Do what works for you. If you are counting calories and losing weight then it's a good choice.
  • CuteAndCurvy83
    CuteAndCurvy83 Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    I understand what he is saying about the calories vs nutritional value of the food, however I believe these things work in unison as opposed to one not counting. A well rounded 500 calorie dinner which has chicken, on a fresh bed of spinach with home made mango salsa IS going to affect your body in a different way then 500 calories worth of oreos.
  • CuteAndCurvy83
    CuteAndCurvy83 Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    Have you ever looked into "The Pleasure Trap"? Highly interesting stuff..
  • kalasuuru
    kalasuuru Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    JB is actually right! I mean, granted, I'm not an expert by any means, and I've struggled with dieting and weight loss in the past (and currently), however, once I found out about full fat foods actually being more satisfying, I decided to do a little experiment. For the past week and a half, I've been counting calories AND I've been eating full fat foods such as nuts, avocados,butter, etc. especially following a work out at the gym. The caloric intake seems absolutely scary, because like you, I've wanted to maximize my calories by choosing low-fat or non-fat options so that I could eat more! But, I've been struck with an epiphany...those full fat foods are so filling, that I don't need to EAT a large quantity, and I actually feel so much better...as if my body is satisfied nutritionally, and not feeling like i'm depriving myself on a "diet". It's really revolutionized my thinking of what healthy eating actually means, and has eliminated the negative stigma....if we can incorporate more healthy full fat foods, we can reject the notion of a temporary diet, and therefore be able to maintain the weight loss by being completely satisfied by our food choices, instead of bingeing once those 20 pounds have been shed. Just some food for thought ;)
  • eyeshuh
    eyeshuh Posts: 333
    Options
    In terms of straight up losing weight, calories are calories are calories. You eat too many and you gain weight. You eat less and you lose weight. That's it. That's the only rule. If you are looking at overall health, there are other things to consider, but if you are looking at only weight loss with no other considerations then calories in < calories out.

    All these different diets are just a way to trick/train/help you into eating less calories. That's not to say it's a bad thing, or that it won't be healthier for you, or that you won't completely change your life and eating habits because of a diet or new way of looking at food and eating. However, no matter how you slice it, it all comes down to how many calories you are consuming. There's no magic. Calories in < calories out.
  • MaraDiaz
    MaraDiaz Posts: 4,604 Member
    Options
    Calories matter, especially the closer you are to goal weight, when losing starts to really be a struggle.

    I'm low carb, Atkins-style, and I love it and wouldn't trade it because I feel full most of the time, but on one thing I don't listen to the standard advice. I do track calories, and yes, I can and have gone over my 1200 on no exercise days while remaining under on carbs. And no, I didn't lose weight when that happened!

    In the end it is about calories eaten versus calories expended. Low carb, high fat diets are no miracle reformulation of the basics, it's just what happens to keep me full and cut my cravings for unhealthy, high-calorie foods.
  • LoraF83
    LoraF83 Posts: 15,694 Member
    Options
    Here's the thing:

    The calories in the second dish aren't that high anyway. The chicken comes out to about 250 cals per serving. Is that more than plain chicken breast? Well, yes. But it isn't high. Paired with a baked potato (110 cals) and a salad, and that's a nice dinner that's STILL LOW IN CALORIES.

    When you're cooking with "whole" ingredients and "quality" food - those items are typically lower in calories anyway. You can eat a lot more chicken and veggies than you can Bertolli frozen meals or McDonalds (not that there is anything wrong with either of those options).

    It's a moot point.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    I understand what he is saying about the calories vs nutritional value of the food, however I believe these things work in unison as opposed to one not counting. A well rounded 500 calorie dinner which has chicken, on a fresh bed of spinach with home made mango salsa IS going to affect your body in a different way then 500 calories worth of oreos.
    It will affect your body differently when it comes to overall health, but not for weight loss. Losing weight is all about calories, health is all about nutrition. They are not the same thing, although there is an overlap.
  • BSchoberg
    BSchoberg Posts: 712 Member
    Options
    Two comments:

    First - he's merely pointing out that calories are simply a unit of energy and makes the very valid point that 500 calories of crap produces a very different effect in the body than 500 calories of whole, raw, clean food. He says calories aren't the macro you should be MOST concerned with... I think his point is we're too calorie focused.

    Second - the two recipies in his article? My big take-away was the second, healtier option probably costs 4 times more!



    People, calm down --- make healthy, sensible choices. I've hopped off the low-fat/fat-free bandwagon in all animal products and feel amazing! Full fat milk, full fat cheese (really hard to find these days), highest possible fat content in meat (again - harder and harder to find, but also the least expensive since it's not trimmed to within an inch of it's life).

    Remember: how you BUILD your calorie total does count - make the most of them with whole foods and good fats and you'll be better off for it.
  • bcf7683
    bcf7683 Posts: 1,653 Member
    Options
    Ooo... butter prevents heart disease? Damn, bring on the shrimp & lobster tails!
  • cubbies77
    cubbies77 Posts: 607 Member
    Options
    I don't get why people feel the need to make this **** so complicated.

    Body needs energy. You give it energy. You give it too much, it will store some. You give it less than it needs, it uses the stores.

    Word.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Options
    dietary fat doesn't put fat on you

    anything in excess will lead to weight gain

    both these points are correct, if the second one reads "anything in excess will lead to weight gain if you go of the number of calories that your body needs to maintain your weight"
  • baconrocket
    Options
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4


    Now everyone argue about it.
  • jjrichard83
    jjrichard83 Posts: 483 Member
    Options
    If calories don't matter, I don't know how the heck I lost this 50lbs.

    becoming aware of healthier choices?

    I have done extensive tests with professionals. I need 2600 calories a day to lose 1 lb. I am eating 1900 and only eating back 1/4 of my exercised calories. I've gained one inch in the chest, lost an inch in the legs, stomach, etc. If it were that simple as calories in/out I would not be at this weight for the last 8 days - I should have lost about 3 lb.

    I also should not have lost 27 lb in the first month - no way I was 95,000 calories below my monthly intake requirements.

    Not saying it isn't so, but calories are the easiest way for most to keep track - not accurate, but if we are all playing the same game, it doesn't matter.
  • jjrichard83
    jjrichard83 Posts: 483 Member
    Options

    JB: As is elaborated in the article above that I wrote, calories are meaningless. It's the bull**** of the diet world. I work as a health coach and specialize in weight loss :)

    I call BS on this. If they knew anything about weight loss they would know it's all about calories. Funny how everyone on facebook is some sort of weight loss guru.

    If it was ALL about calories, then it wouldn't matter where the calories came from. If anyone could test the theory - twins both eating 2000 calories a day - one of a well balanced diet, the other of 2000 calories straight from sugar - I bet the results would be very different.

    Yes it's an extreme case, but highlights the fact that it's not necessarily as simple as it is thought to be.