Calories in calories out

Yes maybe people who were never around you didn't know about all your hobbies like cheer? Sorry I know the people I have lived with in the past or were friends with.

You must have been reaaaalllly close to these people and spent an awful lot of time with them to know everything they ate.

I bet they carried you around like



and you shared a bed like



and you showered together and kept a careful log of all the foods she ate and possibly on trips you guys were like

hmm you people act like you have never lived with family lol..These pictures were pretty lame

OOOOOHHHH! Guys, that's it! That's it! This is family, so she feels defensive.

What? This is that stupid thing you people do where you pretend to be cute and just post random stupid picture because you think its funny? You know what I think is funny? The fact that the chit chat forum looks like eharmony, how pathetic is this site?

To be honest, yes! I do think this is funny. That Spiderman GIF cracked me up. Your denial is laughable, to be honest--can't even be mad when people can't face scientific facts. I've never been on eHarmony so I wouldn't know what the forums look like, sorry.

For the longest time I would have argued this very point. I would have said, "But I don't eat much," and bring up the fact that people who eat more than me weigh less. The truth was I didn't think I ate that much. Because of stress, I didn't eat more than one small meal a day. However, I was a snacker. I even referred to it as 'nibbling.' It wasn't until I really got honest with myself and counted the calories from all of my snacks that I realized I was overweight because of the way I had been eating.

I spent around 10 years struggling with my weight and blaming anything and everything on my problems. When I finally accepted that it was all about the decisions I made for myself, I was able to start getting that problem under control.

Have I seen people that seem like they can eat anything and not gain a pound? Absolutely, but the simple truth is that I have no idea of what they are really eating and doing. Besides, even in they are somehow inexplicably 'lucky,' it doesn't change how things work for me. There are medical conditions that can impact weight loss. I personally have to account for calories I never eat, but the simplistic idea of calories in/calories certainly has proven true for me.

How does this work when we have all known a 300 pound person who eats healthy and works an active job but still cant lose ? Like for example I have a friend who is an overweight nurse, she does zumba, eats salads and has a very active job (always on her feet) yet she is still large and has been since a child. Yet I have another friend whos a stay at home mom, 28 years old, eats nothing but fast food and is like 110 soaking wet. So if we accept the fact that there are super skinny girls who cant eat whatever they want and not gain a pound why cant the reverse be true? Why cant someone eat healthy, have a deficit and NOT lose? If a skinny girl can eat 4000 calories a day of fast food with out the calories in calories out applying why does it always 100% apply to overweight people? The bigger people I know that are 300 pounds dont eat ANYWHERE near 3000 plus calories a day like the internet says it takes for them to maintain that weight....

This is what is referred to as a straw man argument (Aunt Sally for those in the UK). If the basis of your argument is a fallacy to start with, how can any debate after be anything less than drivel.

We do not accept the fact that there are super skinny girls that can eat whatever they want unless whatever they want just happens to be always within their caloric limit for maintaining weight. The 300 lb man and overweight nurse are eating more calories than what needs to be eaten to maintain a healthy weight.

They are eating too much. Trying to prove otherwise (medical conditions excluded) is just creating an excuse of eating at a surplus. Those sorts of excuses only help people give up instead of trying to actually solve the problem of being overweight.

You dont have to accept what I have already seen and know as fact. That is not the point of this topic. This does happen, calories in calories out is not 100% a 300 pound person can easily not eat to much, NOT hide what they are eating and still not lose weight. Just like a girl can be 110 pounds and eat tons of crap and not gain. I have plenty of thin friends who dont work out, eat tons of crap and dont gain. Actually, my step sister drinks like 2200 calories plus of beer a day, sits on her computer playing slots and cards, never leaves her house and weighs 125 pounds at like 5'10. She cant even gain weight if she tried, so yes this does happen everyday all around us.

The real problem, is how when someone isn't seeing results people on these bored automatically tell them its all THEIR fault, they MUST being doing something wrong. They dont consider they could be doing everything right and that it just doesn't work for some people? Like it has been stated if your metabolism is damaged you might have to eat a lower deficit then suggested through these websites.

You're thinking of it backwards in my opinion. Rather than thinking that there are people who are in an energy deficit and not losing weight, I would think of it that they are not losing weight and therefore they are not in an energy deficit. Change in body mass (excluding fluids) indicates overall state of energy balance.

Additionally, for perspective sake, I use a food scale and I measure and track things to the best of my ability. Even with these habits in play, there's a fair amount of error in estimation of both energy intake and energy output. The fact that you are claiming to know what someone else consumes for energy intake, unless you're weighing and measuring their food (which you aren't), and logging what they eat (which you aren't) then you're really not determining what their intake is.

Additionally, I think there's merit in the idea that people have varying levels of non exercise activity thermogenesis. You're not strapping an HRM to the "friends you observe" or trying to tightly monitor their energy output, so you can't make much of any conclusions about that either.

In short, while your observations about people being generally junk food eaters or generally "lazy" might be valid, they don't say ANYTHING about a thermodynamic model because you're not doing ANYTHING to account for those variables. You are watching and formulating an opinion that the calorie model must not work because of what you are seeing.

Yet to my knowledge, every time we stick someone in a metabolic ward and tightly control the variables, energy deficits cause a decrease in body mass. Because science.

Unless you go to a doctor anyways to get your real levels checked none of these tdee, bmr crap on these sites is even 100% correct

Even if you DO go to a doctor there are still all kinds of sources of error. They are all estimations. But this doesn't invalidate the thermodynamic model. It makes it more complicated and less linear, but it doesn't make it invalid.

Its not invalid it just doesn't work 100% for everyone

I have yet to see a documented example of it not working when variables are tightly controlled. I'm genuinely interested in cases if anyone has them.

Since the variables are not often tightly controlled when it comes to different people it doesn't really matter if it works on the specific controlled group.

It would matter if you could find examples in a tightly controlled setting where it doesn't work because it would validate your claims.

Well a controlled setting with healthy people isn't reality. You can find anything on the internet saying anything is good. Articles are constantly contradicting each other, so where are your studies?

Hold it, I thought you already decided that anecdotal evidence in circumstances where there's no attempt at actual measurement of calories consumed and calories expended trump "tightly controlled studies" because (if I'm understanding your "reasoning") real people don't live in tightly controlled studies, so why would you care about studies anyway?

I'm peacing out of this thread, guys.

Rawfoodsho, you cannot prove anything because you're trying to substantiate a claim that isn't true.

People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics

People who think they know exactly what their friends eat always make excuses for them instead of puzzling out the obvious fact that they eat more than you think they do.

I mentioned also the fact that I have lived with family, been around them all day and seen what they eat. And yes, people can drink beer, eat crap and stay 110 pounds.

You are not omnipotent. Unless you are weighing all their food and then watching them all day as they eat and making sure that they are not eating anything extra (or anything less in the case of the skinny people), then you can't possibly know.

You mentioned the nurse, you honestly want us to believe that you were around her 24/7? She ate enough to maintain her weight, end of story.

STOP MAKING EXCUSES! You do no one, not your family and not yourself, any good by trying to convince the world that they're fat simply because they breath air.

They ate at a surplus, maybe only a slight surplus of 100 calories a day for years, but enough to keep that weight and not lose it. The skinny girls are light because they only ate at maintenance levels.

And in my case that was a LOT because my maintenance levels while skinny had to support 3 hours of jumping on fridays plus 1 hour of cheer each day plus walking to and from school, plus swimming as recreation, plus bike riding and etc. So when people asked if I did aerobics to stay thin while watching me kill a milkshake, famous star with cheese and fries and I said "no" they might have gotten the mistaken impression that I did "nothing" ate "crap" and still stayed thin. When in actuality I had very high activity levels that very few people saw.

Yes maybe people who were never around you didn't know about all your hobbies like cheer? Sorry I know the people I have lived with in the past or were friends with.

You must have been reaaaalllly close to these people and spent an awful lot of time with them to know everything they ate.

I bet they carried you around like



and you shared a bed like



and you showered together and kept a careful log of all the foods she ate and possibly on trips you guys were like

hmm you people act like you have never lived with family lol..These pictures were pretty lame

OOOOOHHHH! Guys, that's it! That's it! This is family, so she feels defensive.

http://i.minus.com/ibdPhjvOBSHo7f.gif

What? This is that stupid thing you people do where you pretend to be cute and just post random stupid picture because you think its funny? You know what I think is funny? The fact that the chit chat forum looks like eharmony, how pathetic is this site?

So to recap you are angry with...

calories in calories out
thermodynamics
skinny beer guzzling relatives who weigh very little
this website


is that all? Did I miss one?

hmm googles "calories in calories out flawed" is in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts stated that clearly explains why this doesn't apply or work 100% of the time.

As it has been pointed out, if you damage your metabolism you may need a different amount of calories, therefore it doesn't work because you could think you need one amount but you could not be losing because of a damaged metabolism. 100% would be if their were ZERO variables, but since there are tons, its not black and white, the body is not a simple machine, people do not burn the same and it doesn't always work this simply.

Do you not realize that you are agreeing with calories in/out in 1 sentence then disagreeing with it in the next sentence, after posting that calories don't exist?

Oh my G is there a gif for "on the one hand, on the other hand, and on the OTHER other hand"?

That is the world. I know plenty of skinny girls who eat tons of crap and stay 120 pounds. Is that a hard concept to grasp that, that is indeed possible. lol

They eat "crap" but they don't eat tons of it. I have lost 123lb in 15 months, eating ice cream everyday, chips, chocolate bars, etc. Look at my diary, it's open. I eat all that "crap" at work and in front of friends and family and some of them are quite puzzled as to why I'm losing weight. I'm eating ar a deficit and those skinny girls, they are at maintenance, Simple.

This. I'm almost to my goal weight and I did not eliminate "crap." I knew tons of girls in high school that ate more than me, but guess what? They all played sports or were out at night or did tons of other things besides sitting on the computer and complaining how fat they were.

hmm googles "calories in calories out flawed" is in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts stated that clearly explains why this doesn't apply or work 100% of the time.

As it has been pointed out, if you damage your metabolism you may need a different amount of calories, therefore it doesn't work because you could think you need one amount but you could not be losing because of a damaged metabolism. 100% would be if their were ZERO variables, but since there are tons, its not black and white, the body is not a simple machine, people do not burn the same and it doesn't always work this simply.

Do you not realize that you are agreeing with calories in/out in 1 sentence then disagreeing with it in the next sentence, after posting that calories don't exist?

Oh my G is there a gif for "on the one hand, on the other hand, and on the OTHER other hand"?

Mais d'accord!

hmm googles "calories in calories out flawed" is in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts stated that clearly explains why this doesn't apply or work 100% of the time.

As it has been pointed out, if you damage your metabolism you may need a different amount of calories, therefore it doesn't work because you could think you need one amount but you could not be losing because of a damaged metabolism. 100% would be if their were ZERO variables, but since there are tons, its not black and white, the body is not a simple machine, people do not burn the same and it doesn't always work this simply.

Google 'aliens abducted me' and be in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts that clearly explain... oh wait. That would be dumb to think a google search proves anything.

You have no studies. You have provided nothing to prove calories in calories out. It also just has random studies. It has been debunked by scientists. Its all over the internet. You guys cannot prove anything. Your articles are biased. Science doesn't consider all the variables. So that doesn't work.

Do you now believe in alien abduction because of all the articles that have been posted about it?

No?

This would be why we don't believe in your flawed thinking either.

You know what, screw it. OP, you are totally right. Calories in vs calorie out totally isn't right. Your weight is actually determined by Renenet, the ancient Egyptian god of harvest and nourishment. She writes down (in hieroglyphics, with bad handwriting, in cypher) what you will weigh every single day. Whatever you eat has precisely jack squat to do with what you weight. Trying to screw with Renenet's decrees will always fail. Always.



Now that we've made OP feel better about whatever they were on about, let's turn our attention to any lurkers or googlers who may have stumbled upon this thread. Now, silent folks, you may have noticed that pretty much everyone disagrees with the OPs disbelief in calories in vs calories out. Contrary to what some more displeased members of the site would lead you to believe, this isn't because MFP is some cruel hive mind hell bent on making people feel stupid for the lulz. It is because calorie in vs calorie out is the most fundamental point to weight lose, weight maintenance, and weight gain.

Now, you may be wondering about things like hormonal resistances and metabolic rates and whatever it is you kooky kids have come up with with all your sciencings that might affect your weight loss rate. Surely those count, right? Of course they do, dear shy ones, of course they do. However, what they are is a modifier on our core cal in vs cal out equation. Please take note that c in vs c out is always listed as a comparison of variables, not of absolute figures. This is to account for the many, many differences between different people. So when someone tells you it's all about how much you vs how much you burn, they aren't dismissing any metabolic concerns you may have. They are pointing out that those concerns don't change what you have to do to lose, gain, or maintain weight; eat less/ as much/ more than what you use up by existing and doing whatever it is you do. You just may have been hit with a condition or (sadly for you) a set of conditions that results in you needing to eat even less than someone else to lose weight, even of your the same height, weight, gender, age, and activity level.

To determine if this is required of you, if life decided to be a bit mean to you on this, track what you eat. No eyeballing, now. No "forgetting" to write it down, we both know you didn't forget, now did you? Of course not. Keep accurate track of all of that. Now, and this is a bit trickier, but make your best effort, track your activity level. Do this for about a month. Now compare the two. What do the numbers predict will happen? What actually happened? If the numbers said you'd lose more than you did by a significant amount, eat less, or up your activity level. Repeat until the numbers are within about 2% or so of each other. If you had to do this a lot, see a doctor, because you really shouldn't need to do that so much, and that could indicate a medical problem.

Summary of this thread:

Original Post claiming that mutually agreed-upon principles of metabolism accepted by virtually every authority in the world are somehow wrong and that some people can eat a surplus of calories and not gain weight, so it must be conversely true that others can eat a deficit and not lose weight.

Flood of scientifically sound, well-sourced and cited peer-review literature to show the OP's claims are not supported and that an energy balance is the best and most reliable model found to-date. MIllions upon millions of anecdotal and scientific claims to support this.

OP responds to virtually every post with 'I know my belief to be true, you should google it like I have' and "if you don't agree, then you're not smart enough to understand what you googled'

Flooding of evidence that energy balance is irrefutable.

OP shifts argument to attacking the unit of measure 'calorie' and then reverts to the special snowflake theory when no one bites.

Hilarious. Seeing it like this, I feel like we've all been epic'ly trolled.

Yes aliens, vampires, big foot, I believe everything I read on the internet. I even believe all the scientific THEORIES, i hear that are not proven as fact. Just as crazy....

Gravity is a theory. Just sayin'.

You're unconvinced. We get it. You're wrong, but we get it.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages.

Google fu isn't actual research. It's searching for answers you want to hear..........

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

And there is tons of scientific information on why this doesn't work

Can you post some of it? You can start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

tons of things have been posted. Google is your friend. Do the work..I know its hard

You are the one making the claims, not me. The burden of proof is on you, I fear.

If google is your friend consider her your bad friend who holds up a small hand held mirror that provides the incomplete picture and doesn't tell you where to look. You have to then grab that mirror and point it where you want. You can either let her keep it on your face where everything's hunky dory, or take it from her, move it all around your body and notice where the truth might lie and then focus your efforts there. OR get a full length mirror with 2 swivel doors on the side to see all the sides of the situation. This final option will require that you expand your mentality enough to then form a mental image of the problem in it's entirety an then use your own selective prowess to hone in on where work needs to be done.

Insert Standing ovation gif.

Well said.

(Sorry at work on phone so no gif)