It is NOT that simple.
Replies
-
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.
THIS! Exactly.0 -
I've came to the same conclusion and have lost over 30 lbs already, working towards a goal of 100. I'm having trouble hitting that higher calorie goal w/ 'healthy' foods sometimes though. Care to PM and discuss?0
-
glad you lost weight but you seem very angry..at least thats what I got....
^^^^This0 -
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.
Yes, you stated yourself that you went from 1100 to 1800 and lost. o.00 -
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.
I didn't intend it that way. If you look at the context, I was referring to people who were unhealthy but were not obese. That's all I meant by that.glad you lost weight but you seem very angry..at least thats what I got....
I am angry because there is an awful lot of shaming and pretentiousness coming from the cals-in/cals-out crowd who look down their noses at anyone who doesn't agree with their oversimplification of how weight loss works. Well, it doesn't work that way for everyone, and overall health is found in eating healthfully, which means a lot more than simply eating less. Otherwise anorexic people would be the epitome of health, no? It does make me angry that when someone posts something that might be useful to someone pursuing 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 because of course the answer is fewer cals... And that's not the whole picture. That's one tiny piece of the puzzle.
i eat pizza, pop tarts, and Reese's peanut butter cups and i lose weight.
what sort of magic is responsible for that if not "calories in vs. calories out", may i ask?
Including those types of foods in a calorie-restricted diet is doing a serious disservice to your body. It will almost certainly catch up to you. How long will you keep it off?0 -
Hmmm...if it's all about the "quality" of food, how did I lose > 20% of my body weight having frozen dinners for lunch, good ole fried chicken and mashed potatoes for dinner, and cake and ice cream for dessert every night?
By burning more than I consumed!
If it worked that way, she would have been losing weight easily..............Was she? NO.
Everyone needs to stop perpetuating this MYTH, along with the starvation mode MYTH and many other myths that the low fat camp have all brainwashed you all into thinking is so correct.
Hi - I think i've quite clearly explained the reasoning a couple of points above.0 -
i eat pizza, pop tarts, and Reese's peanut butter cups and i lose weight.
what sort of magic is responsible for that if not "calories in vs. calories out", may i ask?
Including those types of foods in a calorie-restricted diet is doing a serious disservice to your body. It will almost certainly catch up to you. How long will you keep it off?
OR you'll be just fine. Congratulations to you for learning to eat in moderation and still be successful. It's worked very well for me too.
But a lot of people keep trying to tell us that it won't.. I guess losing 80lbs and keeping it off for nearly a year now was just dumb luck on my part.0 -
Can I ask a serious question?
I do buy the calories in/calories out thing, however, I notice that I do SIGNIFICANTLY better losing weight when I cut my carbs and up my protein. Why is this, if I'm eating the same number of calories? (note: I eat 1500-1600 cals, usually around 100g of carbs & 160g protein).
Wouldn't this somewhat defy calories in/calories out? I'm not arguing, genuinely curious.0 -
Can I ask a serious question?
I do buy the calories in/calories out thing, however, I notice that I do SIGNIFICANTLY better losing weight when I cut my carbs and up my protein. Why is this, if I'm eating the same number of calories? (note: I eat 1500-1600 cals, usually around 100g of carbs & 160g protein).
Wouldn't this somewhat defy calories in/calories out? I'm not arguing, genuinely curious.
When you say you notice a better weight loss, how long is the period that you cut the carbs for before making that assessment?0 -
You can rationalize and analyze all you want, and talk about metabolism all you want - but YES the bottom line at the end of it all is CALORIES IN /CALORIES OUT. If you aren't incurring a deficit in that regard, you will not lose weight. END OF STORY.
Anything else, you're just wasting time.0 -
For everyone posting this morning and not reading this bloated thread, OP disclosed on page 8 that she has a couple metabolic issues that didn't allow her to lose weight using calories in / calories out.
I'll reserve judgement as to why.0 -
I haven't read all the replies, but the phrase "I met a trainer" caught my eye. My guess is this trainer did more than up your calories in.0
-
Can I ask a serious question?
I do buy the calories in/calories out thing, however, I notice that I do SIGNIFICANTLY better losing weight when I cut my carbs and up my protein. Why is this, if I'm eating the same number of calories? (note: I eat 1500-1600 cals, usually around 100g of carbs & 160g protein).
Wouldn't this somewhat defy calories in/calories out? I'm not arguing, genuinely curious.
When you say you notice a better weight loss, how long is the period that you cut the carbs for before making that assessment?
How about starting a new/different thread with this question, and putting this one out of its misery......0 -
Can I ask a serious question?
I do buy the calories in/calories out thing, however, I notice that I do SIGNIFICANTLY better losing weight when I cut my carbs and up my protein. Why is this, if I'm eating the same number of calories? (note: I eat 1500-1600 cals, usually around 100g of carbs & 160g protein).
Wouldn't this somewhat defy calories in/calories out? I'm not arguing, genuinely curious.
No. You have to consider how much energy is expended to burn food into energy.
Protein's TEF (thermic effect of food) to be digested is 25-30%. That is to say it takes 25-30% of total energy per gram of protein to be converted to glucose and used as energy. Carbs 6-8% and fats 2-3%.
To quote Layne "For example, diets higher in protein are less “energy efficient” as the conversion of alanine to glucose during gluconeogenesis (production of glucose from amino acids and other substrates) requires 6 ATP molecules and the conversion of pyruvate to glucose also consumes 6 ATP molecules (2-3). Furthermore, 4 molecules of ATP are required to dispose of the nitrogen as urea (3)." This is the science behind it.
A higher protein diet, when everything is the same and regularly eaten that way, may well indeed cause greater weight loss.0 -
No. You have to consider how much energy is expended to burn food into energy.
Protein's TEF (thermic effect of food) to be digested is 25-30%. That is to say it takes 25-30% of total energy per gram of protein to be converted to glucose and used as energy. Carbs 6-8% and fats 2-3%.
To quote Layne "For example, diets higher in protein are less “energy efficient” as the conversion of alanine to glucose during gluconeogenesis (production of glucose from amino acids and other substrates) requires 6 ATP molecules and the conversion of pyruvate to glucose also consumes 6 ATP molecules (2-3). Furthermore, 4 molecules of ATP are required to dispose of the nitrogen as urea (3)." This is the science behind it.
A higher protein diet, when everything is the same and regularly eaten that way, may well indeed cause greater weight loss.
Thanks, this makes sense. I think I'm a bit of a nerd who gets off on knowing the science.
Sarauk2sf, I'm talking like a 6 month - 1 year period, not a couple weeks. I'm also not talking about ketosis, just taking like 25% of my calories in the form of carbs, not 50%.0 -
No. You have to consider how much energy is expended to burn food into energy.
Protein's TEF (thermic effect of food) to be digested is 25-30%. That is to say it takes 25-30% of total energy per gram of protein to be converted to glucose and used as energy. Carbs 6-8% and fats 2-3%.
To quote Layne "For example, diets higher in protein are less “energy efficient” as the conversion of alanine to glucose during gluconeogenesis (production of glucose from amino acids and other substrates) requires 6 ATP molecules and the conversion of pyruvate to glucose also consumes 6 ATP molecules (2-3). Furthermore, 4 molecules of ATP are required to dispose of the nitrogen as urea (3)." This is the science behind it.
A higher protein diet, when everything is the same and regularly eaten that way, may well indeed cause greater weight loss.
Thanks, this makes sense. I think I'm a bit of a nerd who gets off on knowing the science.
Sarauk2sf, I'm talking like a 6 month - 1 year period, not a couple weeks. I'm also not talking about ketosis, just taking like 25% of my calories in the form of carbs, not 50%.
Matt explained the TEF of upping protein. The low carb bit always gets the kudos - but really it's the higher TEF for protein that is a big difference, medical issues aside. Plus protein is more satiating so it often leads to better adherence.0 -
Calories in, Calories out IS how it works.
The problem with a 1100 calorie diet is that it is too low. You've tricked your body into thinking it is starving, so it lowers your metabolism. You gained weight because 1100 is just under the 1200 minimum needed to prevent that, so while you dropped your intake you were still eating more than you were burning. If you adjusted your diet to match what you burned in starvation mode, you would probably be diagnosed with an eating disorder.
Eating that little bit more, raised your metabolism allowing your to burn more than you ate again.
This happens to a smaller degree on a normal diet which is why people plateau, but adding exercise will keep the metabolism rate up and allow continued weight loss.
This calories in calories out equation..............
If it were THAT simplistic, then she should have been losing weight effortlessly. See where this logic is a myth and doesn't work that way?
She was moving more and eating less. According to the equation, should have lost weight. She didn't.
Explain that brainiacs, since YOU ALL know SOOOOOOOOOOOO much more than the Doctors that have been studying the Endocrine and Metabolic systems for years and years and heads up a research center???????
You can't explain it because it is far too complex to be able to explain away with some simple equation. GTFOH
as an engineer, i will say that you can model the energy of the human body and come up with an equation similar to the "calories in vs. calories out" equation. you're getting hung up on the idea that since not all inputs and outputs are explicitly expressed, the equation itself must be wrong. but that's not necessarily the case. some terms in the equation may be small in comparison to others and can be neglected. we engineers do this all the time to simplify equations and not get hung up on small details that don't materially affect the results. it's important to KNOW that you're neglecting those variables and to verify that there are no conditions under which those variables have a significant impact on the results, but once you are sure that they can be neglected, you do neglect them and simply factor their impact into the error margin of the result.0 -
I eat healthy, I eat junk. I eat whatever the *kitten* I want. I drink water, beer, tequila, rum. I cook my own meals, but also go out. I have a fcuked up sleep schedule due to work, I hardly work out due to a back injury where I am not allowed to. But, I log everything I eat. I am losing weight. 9 lbs since the first of the month. I have more energy than ive had in a long time. I count calories and it works, FOR ME. Don't come in, and vomit your views all over and throw articles around and declare there is only one way! If it works for you, that us awesome and I wish you continued success, but don't tell those of us who have found something that works for us that it won't work. Why are you on a calorie counting website if you don't believe in calorie counting, even better why are you on the forums? Maybe a paleo(so) based website would be a better fit for you?0
-
I eat healthy, I eat junk. I eat whatever the *kitten* I want. I drink water, beer, tequila, rum. I cook my own meals, but also go out. I have a fcuked up sleep schedule due to work, I hardly work out due to a back injury where I am not allowed to. But, I log everything I eat. I am losing weight. 9 lbs since the first of the month. I have more energy than ive had in a long time. I count calories and it works, FOR ME. Don't come in, and vomit your views all over and throw articles around and declare there is only one way! If it works for you, that us awesome and I wish you continued success, but don't tell those of us who have found something that works for us that it won't work. Why are you on a calorie counting website if you don't believe in calorie counting, even better why are you on the forums? Maybe a paleo(so) based website would be a better fit for you?
you should have concluded your post with this gif, for proper effect. :bigsmile:
0 -
Even Gary Taubes and his business partner Peter Attia, you know the PhD behind them admit their not violating the first law of thermodynamics, you may want to enlighten them the next time you see them.Calories in, Calories out IS how it works.
The problem with a 1100 calorie diet is that it is too low. You've tricked your body into thinking it is starving, so it lowers your metabolism. You gained weight because 1100 is just under the 1200 minimum needed to prevent that, so while you dropped your intake you were still eating more than you were burning. If you adjusted your diet to match what you burned in starvation mode, you would probably be diagnosed with an eating disorder.
Eating that little bit more, raised your metabolism allowing your to burn more than you ate again.
This happens to a smaller degree on a normal diet which is why people plateau, but adding exercise will keep the metabolism rate up and allow continued weight loss.
This calories in calories out equation..............
If it were THAT simplistic, then she should have been losing weight effortlessly. See where this logic is a myth and doesn't work that way?
She was moving more and eating less. According to the equation, should have lost weight. She didn't.
Explain that brainiacs, since YOU ALL know SOOOOOOOOOOOO much more than the Doctors that have been studying the Endocrine and Metabolic systems for years and years and heads up a research center???????
You can't explain it because it is far too complex to be able to explain away with some simple equation. GTFOH0 -
i eat pizza, pop tarts, and Reese's peanut butter cups and i lose weight.
what sort of magic is responsible for that if not "calories in vs. calories out", may i ask?
Including those types of foods in a calorie-restricted diet is doing a serious disservice to your body. It will almost certainly catch up to you. How long will you keep it off?
why? is my body mad at me? is it holding a grudge and biding its time waiting for an opportunity to enact its revenge on me?
i don't think so. i think the food i eat is broken down into the various nutrients that my body needs and is used, stored, or discarded rather efficiently, depending on its needs at the time. i'm pretty healthy for a 45 year old guy who still has 70 or so pounds to lose to get back to my college weight. i'm certainly healthier than i was a year ago when i weighed quite a bit more. i ate these foods and many other foods you would consider "bad" during that year. i fail to see what sort of disservice i've done to my body. of course, i eat plenty of "good" foods too. i just don't deprive myself of "bad" foods if i want them. i also don't consider any food to be "bad" (although black licorice is nasty).0 -
Oy, my head. I think I made it to page 5 of this post. There are a couple of things I would like to say.
First, I joined this site last year but never logged on. I have logged in almost everyday since the beginning of this new year and I really like it. Everyone here is really nice and encouraging, and I have found no one to be rude or arrogant. I believe, OP, your initial post was rude and arrogant and hence, why you got some rude and arrogant posts in return. I am a big believer in its not what you say but how you say it. If it wasn't that simple for you, OP, but you found another way to lose weight, I applaud you. Good job. However, for you to say to those who do believe in CI/Co that we are stupid or idiotic or whatever is not a nice thing to say. People in glass houses.....
Secondly, I DO believe CI/Co, but there isalso more to it. Everyone can agree that if you sit on your *kitten* and eat 1100 calories a day, you will gain weight. Also, Everyone can agree that a person who works out 3 hours a day and eats 2000 calories will lose. Also, Everyone can agree that if you are on an 1100 calorie diet, but you drink soda to make up that 1100 calorie diet, you will gain. And even if you didn't, I believe, like most people have said, that you were in starvation mode and not eating enough to keep your body going. If I stuck to a 1200 calorie a day diet but worked out 2 hours a day, I would probably not lose because I was not eating enough to keep my body fueled properly. If I burn, say 2000 calories but only eat 1200 calories, clearly that is not enough to keep my body going and my body will think I am in starvation mode and hold onto those calories. However, if I burn 2000 calories and I eat 1500 calories, well that is a 500 calorie deficit and I will lose a pound in a week.
I don't believe the people who believe in the calorie in calorie out method don't also believe it's also about the quality of the food you eat and you have to keep your body fuel right. You can't have a lower calorie intake based on eating crap. You need fruits, vegetables, protein, water, etc. It could be they assume any person would also know that 100 calories worth of carrots are better for you than 100 calories of reeces pieces.0 -
1100 calories a day isn't a healthy amount for anyone. I don't think MFP ever recommends under 1200 in the first place. No wonder you weren't losing.0
-
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??
1100 cals for over a year?! No wondering you were not droping any of that fat! You were starving yourself!!!!! Your body was holding onto any fat/calories (whatever you want to call it make yourself feel better) because it knew it was not going to get enough to sustain what a "healthy" body needs to function!
Yes clean/healthy eating is important. You dump in 1100 calories of crap into your body, you're still going to look and feel like crap. Put in 1100 calories of clean food...sorry but you're starving yourself and your body is going to hold onto what little fat is in that food. YOU were trashing you metabolism.
Don't be angry at the saying "calories in, calories out" unless you do it the healthy way. It's good that you raised those calorie intake levels so your body actual had something to survive on and burn. Your metabolism got a nice kick start...0 -
Can I ask a serious question?
I do buy the calories in/calories out thing, however, I notice that I do SIGNIFICANTLY better losing weight when I cut my carbs and up my protein. Why is this, if I'm eating the same number of calories? (note: I eat 1500-1600 cals, usually around 100g of carbs & 160g protein).
Wouldn't this somewhat defy calories in/calories out? I'm not arguing, genuinely curious.
i don't know how much this will apply to you, but i know that in a ketogenic diet (very low carbs, high fat and medium/high protein) that when the body reaches ketosis (where glycogen stores are depleted to the point that fats in the body are utilized as the sole source of energy through the creation of ketones in the blood), that your body will burn 1 lb of fat for every 2800 calories in deficit (as opposed to 3500 calories). this happens because the body using ketones for energy is less efficient than glucose + fat + a little protein. so you have a pound of fat that would give you 3500 calories of energy under the average american's diet giving you only 2800 calories on a ketogenic diet. it is basically wasting calories because of the mode of energy expenditure you are using.0 -
I completely agree with this. I see so many people eating under their goals, but not exactly eating healthy. I feel way better and my body is starting to do what I want it to do because I changed some items to whole grain and on other things I went to organic. Instead of cookies I grab a yogurt. It's the small changes that make a big difference.0
-
I eat healthy, I eat junk. I eat whatever the *kitten* I want. I drink water, beer, tequila, rum. I cook my own meals, but also go out. I have a fcuked up sleep schedule due to work, I hardly work out due to a back injury where I am not allowed to. But, I log everything I eat. I am losing weight. 9 lbs since the first of the month. I have more energy than ive had in a long time. I count calories and it works, FOR ME. Don't come in, and vomit your views all over and throw articles around and declare there is only one way! If it works for you, that us awesome and I wish you continued success, but don't tell those of us who have found something that works for us that it won't work. Why are you on a calorie counting website if you don't believe in calorie counting, even better why are you on the forums? Maybe a paleo(so) based website would be a better fit for you?
you should have concluded your post with this gif, for proper effect. :bigsmile:
0 -
First of all, NO, I am not condoning anorexia.
When I was anorexic, I lost approximately 3/4 lb per week on 1,000 or fewer, sometimes 300 calories per day, over a period of 6 months or so? I'm not sure how long it 'took' me, but I know I lost at that rate because I kept immaculate records. (Thank you ocd) I also exercised a lot but obviously I wasn't healthy. After my recovery (1986) I gained weight, but it took me 2 years to get up to a normal weight. Fast forward to the 2000's I gained weight because I sat around, didn't eat healthy foods and ate too many calories. It took me 4 months to lose 40lbs on MFP, eating anywhere from 1200 (on days with no exercise) to 1800, sometimes more, calories per day. That is 40lbs in 16 weeks. Y'all can do the math. So, I have to say it was MUCH easier losing weight by eating more. However, I don't think I would have lost the weight so fast without exercise, but then again, I exercised even more while anorexic.
Is this relevant? Maybe. I lost weight while I was eating 1000 calories or less, but I KNOW I was eating that much. When you're anorexic there is no such thing as cheating.
I'd also like to add that if the op was truly only eating 1100 cals and weighed 250 or so, wouldn't an obese persons tdee be high enough to lose weight? When I was heavier and eating like a pig, my heart rate would skyrocket just walking across the room. Maybe she was bedridden. IDK.
Just sayin.0 -
0
-
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 When I started logging my food it changed my whole way of thinking, I could not believe the calories that I was really taking in. No to mention the sodium.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions