calories in calories out...are you sure?

I think one way to look at that is because you have eliminated a source of glucose from your diet.
So your body then uses fat and protein to supply glucose in your system.
So when people ingest those two sources primarily, and stay within their limits......then all the fat is quickly oxidized to support biological functions.....

If you look at people on Paleo I believe, this is what they are doing.
Dropping most of their carbs, and just going fat/protein.

I encourage you to read Lyle McDonald.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

and this one he has some links to other articles he has done, I recommend reading those as well.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html

Ok so its making sense....thank you!

Im just still confused that even when I weigh and measure which im pretty addicted to my scale im losing only when my cards go down and calories are not touched. Hmmmm

You might have an insulin resistance.

The "instant" drop when you lowered your carbs is water.

But keep in mind that "calories out" isn't necessarily constant.
Your body burns fuel (food, fat, usually some muscle while you're losing weight) for energy. Not just energy for exercise, but energy for everything. For sitting, standing, maintaining your body temperature, thinking, repairing injuries, keeping your heart beating. Everything your body does requires energy. That's why you have to eat.
So if you're feeling good, sitting up, moving around, etc, you'll probably be burning more calories than if you're feeling crummy and sluggish. (Unless you're feeling crummy and sluggish because you're sick, in which case your body is expending more energy than usual trying to fight off infection.)

"Calories in, Calories out" is technically completely true. But I keep seeing it repeated as a mantra with a strange assumption that "calories out" is something totally consistent and predictable that doesn't depend on anything besides your body weight and exercise level, and isn't affected by any of the specifics of what you eat. Some people are more quickly and dramatically affected by exactly what/when they're eating than others, too. The human body is not simple.

I understand the whole it's just water thing, but what about people who go "low carb" and they lose like 100 lbs.. is that 100 lbs of "just water" b/c I've seen people who eat high calories but low carbs and lose tons of weight. Although it's not what I am trying to do, the whole "it's just water thing" confuses the heck out of me!

No, they lost the weight because their "low carb diet" had them eating at a calorie deficit. No one is saying you cannot lose weight on a low carb diet, you can lose weight eating pretty much anything as long as you are eating less calories than you are using. We're just saying the initial weight loss seen on a low carb diet (and the weight you are seeing go down when you restrict carbs but keep the same calories) is water weight.

low carb diets result in your body burning glycogen to make up the calorie deficit, glycogen is stored along with water, so you see more scale weight loss on a low carb diet, but you're not burning any more actual fat than if you'd been eating the same number of calories but a higher proportion of them coming from carbs

the body burns and stores fat slowly, big gains and losses on the scale in short amounts of time, the weight is not just from fat.

Also, the water weight losses from low carb diets come back when you start eating carbs again, because your body simply stores them as glycogen, along with water. Water weight gains can seriously mess with your head if you don't know what's going on, so it's a good idea to track progress in actual fat loss through other methods, e.g. skinfold caliers, how your clothes fit, circumference measurements etc. These are more reliable indicators of actual fat loss than scale weight alone.

this i love and bump to read later

You can lose weight on any plan, but no, not everyone believes in the "a calorie is a calorie" when it comes to weight loss. It isn't about whether a "calorie is a calorie" in it's uneaten form; indeed the calories in Twinkies are the same as the calories in chicken breast. However what one's body does with those calorie once ingested can make an enormous difference for many people; the 1000 calories of Twinkies vs a 1000 calories of chicken breast will not result in the same level of weight loss for all.

I know. After many, many years of trial and error I know all too well. I've lost on calorie counting/restricting programs. And I did so as a young, active man. They work.

However I also know that I lost more consistently, eating FAR more food, on a HIGH fat, moderate protein, low carb, HIGH calorie diet. And we're not talking the initial water weight that happens in the first few weeks, we're talking months of consistent, steady weight loss eating more food, and tons of healthy FAT. I know because, after awhile, I decided to start weighing and calorie counting while low carbing. I was eating WAY more calories than during my high carb/low fat calorie counting days, was losing more consistently, and at that time doing so while exercising far less.

Calorie counters who swear the body interacts with calories the same, regardless of the source, will say that this isn't possible. They will try and scream that I could eat a 3000 calories of poptarts and it'll have the same weight loss properties as 3000 calories of spinach and salmon. BS. Complete and utter BS. I've got dieting going back to the damn 7th grade to prove this nonsense completely wrong for my body.

But calories do matter. Lower carb/high fat allows me to eat more food, yes, but it doesn't cancel out the science of the calorie completely. I was maintaining my weight loss on a LCHF diet for a year, eating upwards of 3k Kcals, with a very sedentary life there for quite a bit of that year. But that's all that was happening, maintenance. Even when I added in regular exercise I was staying pretty steady. I'd gain when I started adding in too much sugar, too regularly, go back to strict LCHF, lose, and rinse/repeat this cycle.

Ultimately I decided to complete my eating lifestyle but adding IFing. Worked wonders. Allows me to eat in a way that keeps me satisfied, and feeling amazing, while getting the benefits of calorie restriction without counting a single calorie or weighing anything. And it also keeps the weight loss coming even though I've added back in some serious sugar/high carb splurges a few times a month.

Find what works. If you're doing all the "right" things and you're still struggling to lose, despite what anybody here will tell you, find whatever works for you that keeps you looking good, feeling good, and reaching your personal goals.

They will try and scream that I could eat a 3000 calories of poptarts and it'll have the same weight loss properties as 3000 calories of spinach and salmon.

I've been around here for a long time and read a lot of forum posts and threads and as far as I can tell, I never read where anyone made that statement. Ever. I'd check my reading comprehension if I were you.

They will try and scream that I could eat a 3000 calories of poptarts and it'll have the same weight loss properties as 3000 calories of spinach and salmon.

No one ever, ever, ever says that. It's nutrients that matter, and it doesn't matter what foods those nutrients come from. 3000 calories of Pop-Tarts will not have enough protein, nor will it have proper quantities of many vitamins or minerals. Of course, spinach and salmon alone won't have proper amounts of many vitamins and minerals either, but that's a different story.

People with insulin issues are the people with insulin-issue weight gain...

That's backwards - people with weight-gain issues end up with insulin issues. You don't fix the weight issue by working on insulin, you fix the insulin issue by fixing the weight problem.

ding, ding! We have a winner!!

People with insulin issues are the people with insulin-issue weight gain...

That's backwards - people with weight-gain issues end up with insulin issues. You don't fix the weight issue by working on insulin, you fix the insulin issue by fixing the weight problem.

What?

Yes, excess weight can create insulin issues, but there are many many people who are BORN with insulin issues. I have had hypoglycemia basically all of my life, but I've only been overweight for last 3 years, and my weight gain was not enough to increase my insulin issues to the point of full-blown diabetes or even the clinical definition of "pre diabetes". Type 1 diabetics have a constant battle with insulin that has exactly jack to do with weight. However, insulin issues fall into the category of "medical issues", and every poster I have seen who says a calorie is a calorie gives the caveat of medical exceptions.

All I'm really trying to emphasize is that the caveat of medical exceptions probably includes more folks than know it. The diagnosis of PCOS usually takes longer than it should, etc. More folks are going towards diabetes than know it. That sort of thing. It's not going to hurt to watch the high glycemic carbs, so that's always nice to know. There's not exactly a lot of risk involved if someone wants to try it

I thought it was pretty accepted science that insulin sensitivity issues can change the metabolism of many (not all) carbs enough to cause weight gain? Is it not, really?

I'm sure there's a spectrum of opinions, Dr Jason Fung has series of videos that walk through this in a logical manner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0

The two camps appear to me to be:-

Hormone controlled: high carbs = high insulin = drives fat into adipose tissue hence need to eat more to supply calorie burn while storing fat.

Calorie controlled: people eat too much relative to their calorie burn (for some reason) and then the excess is stored as fat.

The key difference seems to be that in the first case the people do what their bodies dictate - ie eat because hormones tell them too - and in the second case its greed and sloth with overeating relative to exercise and bodily needs.

People with insulin issues are the people with insulin-issue weight gain...

That's backwards - people with weight-gain issues end up with insulin issues. You don't fix the weight issue by working on insulin, you fix the insulin issue by fixing the weight problem.

ding, ding! We have a winner!!

It probably sounds backwards because you think one or the other is true as if they were mutually exclusive.

OK, instead of giving another source that folks may or may not use for discussion, let me ask a simple question that isn't covered by genetics or being fat to start with. How about in normal-weight PCOS subjects? Where did the insulin sensitivity come from?

Or normal weight diabetics, of course, for that matter, although I can see that a genetic argument works better there, definitely.

Did you miss the part where I replied stating "Or genetic predisposition"? These folks are the exception not the rule. There are not many. There are some. Weight and specifically body fat % is the single most determinant factor in cases of insulin resistance in non genetically individuals. You are attempting to major in the minor. That is probably a discussion for another thread.

All I'm really trying to emphasize is that the caveat of medical exceptions probably includes more folks than know it.

Indeed. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/11/2427.long found that "The prevalence of insulin resistance in obese adolescents was 52.1% (95% CI 44.5–59.8)." and "Weight status was by far the most important determinant of insulin resistance, accounting for 29.1% of the variance in HOMA-IR." - so from that we can see that insulin issues are at least a 50/50 possibility in the young obese.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/12/3320 shows between 25 and 50% of adults with normal glucose metabolism to be insulin resistant.

Using data from the nurses helath study McAuley found that "A total of 75 (42%) people in our sample met the criteria for insulin resistance." http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/3/460.full

So when overweight and obese people ask for help perhaps the advice should cover those with insulin resistance issues, rather than simply providing caveats that dismiss potentially half the recipients.

Excellent research citing. The quotes are so nice; I shouldn't be so lazy myself

It's a good discussion, y'all. I'm not ignoring the other posts and appreciate the discussion. My responses would just be re-covering what has already been discussed or cited, so I think we're good.

Edit: To be clear, maybe I need to overtly point out that PCOS isn't known to be genetic as far as I'm aware. But it is a medical condition (one of the most common gynecological conditions), so it just falls under that caveat. I agree with those who pointed that out.

All I'm really trying to emphasize is that the caveat of medical exceptions probably includes more folks than know it. The diagnosis of PCOS usually takes longer than it should, etc. More folks are going towards diabetes than know it. That sort of thing. It's not going to hurt to watch the high glycemic carbs, so that's always nice to know. There's not exactly a lot of risk involved if someone wants to try it

Actually, for most Type 2 diabetics, lowering their carbs doesn't mean eating on a "low carb" diet in the way we think of. My husband has a pretty severe case of T2, and his diet aims for under 150 carbs, which is only about 37 less than his MFP account initially told him not considering the diabetes. It is not nearly as severe as Atkins or South Beach. So, while I agree that there is nothing wrong with limiting certain types of carbs, that is not really the same thing as going on a specifically designed and marketed
low carb diet.

This content has been removed.