Is this true? Calories don't matter?
Replies
-
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.
0 -
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..0
-
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.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.0 -
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.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).0 -
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=3190 -
Do what works for you. If you are counting calories and losing weight then it's a good choice.0
-
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.0
-
Have you ever looked into "The Pleasure Trap"? Highly interesting stuff..0
-
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
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
Ooo... butter prevents heart disease? Damn, bring on the shrimp & lobster tails!0
-
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.0 -
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"0 -
0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
Lol0 -
Someone on my Facebook made a post about how they lost weight and I shared some of the differences I've been making in my diet to attain my goals. I ended up talking with someone else on their friends list, which led to this conversation. And note, I do consume full-fat foods on occasion, such as avocados, nuts, etc.
JB: @Sarah: Do your body a favor and switch to full fat. Non-fat is a refined food virtually devoid of nutrition. Here's a good article to consider:
http://behealthynow.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/a-tale-of-two-meals/
Me: Yeah, I know full fat is way better for you, in some cases. (or at least low fat!) I'm just doing this while I'm dieting, to save calories.
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
Me: Well, it's helping me right now. I'm just trying to lose 20 pounds or so and I figure it's better than bingeing on Oreos and fast food. Just trying to get my BMI into the medium-normal category.
JB: That's the thing, calories are meaningless by themselves. It's the food itself that affects the body in a physiological manner. 200 calories of sugar will affect the body differently than 200 calories of fat, since sugar boosts insulin, which causes inflammation, and makes the body store fat. Dietary fat helps the body with insulin resistance, is quite satiating, and medium chain fatty acids burn fat.
Me: Okay, well if I start going out and buying full fat everything that will most likely make me put on weight. Especially if I'm not watching any calories. I'm not trying to dispute you or anything, but I know that if I don't watch it a little I'm prone to overdoing/overeating.
JB: Sarah, your choice is your own, but dietary fat doesn't put fat on you. Half of the point behind a high fat diet is that it is satiating. There is not overeating. Calories themselves are meaningless. It's simply a unit of energy.
This is the program I use for my clients:
http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Fat-Lose-Healthy-Alternative/dp/0452285666
The book is short, cheap, and absolutely one of the best I've read (topped only by Nina Planck's "Real Food: What to Eat and Why")
I'm just not sure I agree with any of it. I've done the whole not counting calories thing, intuitive eating, and ate high fat things, and guess what? I still overate. I'm not sure this guy knows anything about eating disorders and things that can trigger a person to binge that leads to yes, overeating and gaining weight. Calories can be important to some people in being healthy, as long as they're kept in a reasonable amount, during weight loss and maintenance. Yes, fats can be good, but anything in excess most likely will lead to weight gain. I don't know...I just thought what he said was sort of questionable.
Thoughts?
um, no.
Protein, fats, and carbs HAVE CALORIES. They are NOT calories.
Calories are ENERGY.
To lose weight you must burn more energy(calories) than you consume. Doesn't matter how the macro nutrients effect your body, makes no difference to weight loss. Weight loss is about energy deficit. If you don't consume enough energy to maintain your activity, your energy reserves(fat) gets used up and you lose weight.
Has nothing to do with Carbs/fats/protein.
Funny how everyone is some sort of specialist and doesn't know what they're talking about.
Fat does put fat on you. That's a rediculouse claim that it does not. It works through the ASP metabolic path way. Ask this guy "SO if I consume 5,000 calories of fat a day i'd lose weight?" that's just non sense.
if you could, check my diet. I have not lost weight in about 8 days. Drinking at least 2 liters of water a day. If it's as easy as calories in vs. calories out, then why do some hit plateaus?
I've worked out - but cardio - & VERY little weights at the moment. maybe 15 mins a week in total0 -
Calories matter. If I was capable of "normal " eating patterns without keeping track like I do, then maybe it wouldn't matter. But I'm not, and it does. Its not the only thing that matters in eating more healthfully, but for losing weight and learning to make better choices, yes. Calories matter. Someone who says they don't doesn't have a complete understanding of how complex the subject of obesity and weight loss can be.0
-
Calories matter. If I was capable of "normal " eating patterns without keeping track like I do, then maybe it wouldn't matter. But I'm not, and it does. Its not the only thing that matters in eating more healthfully, but for losing weight and learning to make better choices, yes. Calories matter. Someone who says they don't doesn't have a complete understanding of how complex the subject of obesity and weight loss can be.
Suggestions for my comment then? Not saying it doesn't matter, I am saying that it's not always that simple.0 -
Calories do indeed matter. I track what I eat. Not just to make sure I'm not going over a certain number, but also to make sure I'm eating ENOUGH. I find sometimes I will under eat if I don't pay attention. I eat full fat products, and lots of them. Saturated fats are perfectly healthy so long as they are from the right sources. I don't eat any of that weird "low fat" or "non fat" stuff. When the fat is removed, sugar and other undesirable stuff is typically added. High fat is satiating, that is true. But eating enough protein is also important. Just eat real food in reasonable quantities and exercise.
See my weight loss ticker? That has worked out pretty well for me.0 -
The guy is speaking from his *kitten*. What does he know? Has he tried calorie counting? You can find a thousand people just on myfitnesspal who will prove to you that calories DO count. You shouldn't just rely on one article. Yes, maybe if you ate only junk food all day, even if it was within your calorie goal, you wouldn't lose weight. But most people do not do that.0
-
If calories don't matter, I don't know how the heck I lost this 50lbs.
Or gained enough calories to tip the scales in the 200lb range. LOL Calories do matter -- eat less lose weight, eat more gain weight.0 -
Also for the "lol'er" if it is just calories in vs. calories out.
Average 200-210 lb. person burns about 3,953 during a marathon.
When training, Michael Phelps (200 lb.) consumes over 12,000 calories per day.
That would mean Phelps would have to run over 3 marathons, or swim laps for .... 20+ hours (according to the Mayo clinic) to burn those calories just to maintain his weight!0 -
Also for the "lol'er" if it is just calories in vs. calories out.
Average 200-210 lb. person burns about 3,953 during a marathon.
When training, Michael Phelps (200 lb.) consumes over 12,000 calories per day.
That would mean Phelps would have to run over 3 marathons, or swim laps for .... 20+ hours (according to the Mayo clinic) to burn those calories just to maintain his weight!
He really doesn't. I'm going to see if I can find the article that quotes him directly unlike the other tabloid magazine that claims he does.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/05/michael-phelps-12000-calorie-diet-just-a-myth/1#.USFi3zkTs4Y0 -
Someone on my Facebook made a post about how they lost weight and I shared some of the differences I've been making in my diet to attain my goals. I ended up talking with someone else on their friends list, which led to this conversation. And note, I do consume full-fat foods on occasion, such as avocados, nuts, etc.
JB: @Sarah: Do your body a favor and switch to full fat. Non-fat is a refined food virtually devoid of nutrition. Here's a good article to consider:
http://behealthynow.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/a-tale-of-two-meals/
Me: Yeah, I know full fat is way better for you, in some cases. (or at least low fat!) I'm just doing this while I'm dieting, to save calories.
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
Me: Well, it's helping me right now. I'm just trying to lose 20 pounds or so and I figure it's better than bingeing on Oreos and fast food. Just trying to get my BMI into the medium-normal category.
JB: That's the thing, calories are meaningless by themselves. It's the food itself that affects the body in a physiological manner. 200 calories of sugar will affect the body differently than 200 calories of fat, since sugar boosts insulin, which causes inflammation, and makes the body store fat. Dietary fat helps the body with insulin resistance, is quite satiating, and medium chain fatty acids burn fat.
Me: Okay, well if I start going out and buying full fat everything that will most likely make me put on weight. Especially if I'm not watching any calories. I'm not trying to dispute you or anything, but I know that if I don't watch it a little I'm prone to overdoing/overeating.
JB: Sarah, your choice is your own, but dietary fat doesn't put fat on you. Half of the point behind a high fat diet is that it is satiating. There is not overeating. Calories themselves are meaningless. It's simply a unit of energy.
This is the program I use for my clients:
http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Fat-Lose-Healthy-Alternative/dp/0452285666
The book is short, cheap, and absolutely one of the best I've read (topped only by Nina Planck's "Real Food: What to Eat and Why")
I'm just not sure I agree with any of it. I've done the whole not counting calories thing, intuitive eating, and ate high fat things, and guess what? I still overate. I'm not sure this guy knows anything about eating disorders and things that can trigger a person to binge that leads to yes, overeating and gaining weight. Calories can be important to some people in being healthy, as long as they're kept in a reasonable amount, during weight loss and maintenance. Yes, fats can be good, but anything in excess most likely will lead to weight gain. I don't know...I just thought what he said was sort of questionable.
Thoughts?
um, no.
Protein, fats, and carbs HAVE CALORIES. They are NOT calories.
Calories are ENERGY.
To lose weight you must burn more energy(calories) than you consume. Doesn't matter how the macro nutrients effect your body, makes no difference to weight loss. Weight loss is about energy deficit. If you don't consume enough energy to maintain your activity, your energy reserves(fat) gets used up and you lose weight.
Has nothing to do with Carbs/fats/protein.
Funny how everyone is some sort of specialist and doesn't know what they're talking about.
Fat does put fat on you. That's a rediculouse claim that it does not. It works through the ASP metabolic path way. Ask this guy "SO if I consume 5,000 calories of fat a day i'd lose weight?" that's just non sense.
if you could, check my diet. I have not lost weight in about 8 days. Drinking at least 2 liters of water a day. If it's as easy as calories in vs. calories out, then why do some hit plateaus?
I've worked out - but cardio - & VERY little weights at the moment. maybe 15 mins a week in total
There are 2 things that can cause a plateau, not eating below your TDEE or caloris to low. If calories are too low this will result in dieters edema it's when the body holds water. Fat and water have roughly the same density, th glycerol molecule in fat can attract water. This means water can literally fill up your fat cells.
Since density of fat and water are very similar, if you lost 10lbs of fat and gained 10lbs o water, you'd look exactly the same. But keep in mind you're losing fat if this happens. So it's still about calories.
A way to combat dieters edema is full fasting like ESE (Fast 24hrs once a week) or eating at maintenance for a little bit.
I do a cheat meal every now and then. So You're saying that it's not really that simple calories in vs. calories out? I have to think about "dieters edema". You're also saying there is a "sweet spot" for your calories in that would produce the highest fat loss?
I thought spiking my calorie intake weekly (just once a week) would be all thats needed. TY, I'll experiment with increasing intake.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions