What's your view on calories in vs calories out theory?
Replies
-
OP, you eat 11% fat? Seriously? Good luck with that.
Calories do matter, but they are only a small part of the equation. WHAT one eats matters more. The human body is a complex system and, frankly, I find it ridiculous that so many people here not only can't grasp that, but do everything they can to ridicule anyone who suggests the food matters. Hormones regulate metabolism and what we eat affects our hormones. Our body has all kinds of amazing strategies to avoid starvation and disease; to pretend none of that exists and everything is "just calories in and calories out" is totally simplistic and incomplete.
I agree that a person eating a higher fat diet can consume more calories without fat storage than someone eating a carb based diet. However, why would one purposely over-eat when they are fully nourished and satiated on less food? Frankly, I don't know anyone who is consistently ketogenic that over-eats. We just don't NEED to. When one eats nutrient dense food, there is no more interest in over-eating. I supposedly had binge eating disorder. No counselling or low fat/low calorie diet ever helped and just made me sicker so.... BED has disappeared on a high fat diet and I am losing stored fat effortlessly. No willpower required. Yes, I eat at a small deficit with ZERO struggle with hunger or craving. The food matters for ME.0 -
People who bring up "the laws of thermodynamics" are not thinking it through enough.
If I eat "3,000 calories" of... stuff... and do "2,000 calories" of... stuff... I'll gain weight, right? THERMODYNAMICS!
...What if I have diarrhea? Some quantity of the food I put into my mouth will come out the other side without full digestion. So I "ate 3,000 calories" and I "burned 2,000 calories", and I didn't gain weight. How did I not violate the laws of thermodynamics? By putting the other 1,000 calories into the toilet. Obviously, people don't normally have diarrhea, but people *do* normally excrete food that is less-than-100% digested.
Okay, that's gross, let's think about something else. Let's say I eat 2,000 calories, and you eat 2,000 calories. We are the same weight, and we do the same activities. At the end of the experiment, we should both be the same weight, right? We started at the same weight, we ate the same calories, we did the same activities. Calories in, calories out! But we don't weigh the same, even after you account for the toilet. What gives?
...Did you check our body temperatures? Hey, you ended up an ounce lighter than I did, and your body temperature is half a degree higher. Where did that heat come from? It came from your calories. Your body maintained a higher temperature than mine, which required it to burn more calories, which left fewer calories to turn into fat. People have natural variations in body temperatures -- not every is 98.6, all the time, every day. THERMODYNAMICS dictates that the heat has to come from somewhere.
And it's not just the differences in our bodies. Not all foods make their calories equally available. If I drank 500 calories of pure sugar-water, my body would absorb that pretty well and I would get pretty close to 500 calories of energy (or fat) out of that. If I swallowed a condom filled with 500 calories of petroleum jelly, I would get pretty close to 0 calories of energy out of that. There's no violation of thermodynamics, here -- as I said before, the missing calories are in the toilet. Some foods are easy for your body to rapidly digest, others may not be fully digested by the time they end up in the toilet.
Thermodynamics doesn't have a thing to do with it.
this is why people who do not understand science should not comment in threads...0 -
I am sure you are a very smart and special person, but please do not purport to tell me that classical physics cannot answer the question "how long will it take a baseball to reach home plate". Ballistic scientists put men on the moon and snipers hit targets from kilometers away.That statement is at least arguable, if not obviously incorrect
You can understand physics while also understanding that you don't have to bring physics into every conversation. If my mother asks me why I love her, I don't start with the electron bonds in oxytocin.But thermodynamics actually has everything to do with it . . .
I like this. I like it a lot.0 -
That statement is at least arguable, if not obviously incorrect
Interesting, either something is wrong with the web site, or your browser didn't refresh properly. I am assuming that you didn't explicitly try to misquote me . . .0 -
The postings keep going off the rail. The OP brought up a very interesting experiment, where Sam Felton ate 5000 calories of a high fat, low carb diet, tracking weight loss/gain, and before/after pictures...and then he did it again with a 5000 calories of low fat, high carb diet. Both diets were a ridiculous amount of calories - 5000, pretty high. The results were astounding. Almost no gain with high fat, low carb. He looked great in before/after pictures. Major major weight gain with low fat, high carb - and his body looked like crap after low fat, high carb in the before/after pictures.
A calorie is NOT a calorie. Or perhaps better worded is "a calorie is NOT a net calorie". A low fat high sugar yogurt may have the same total calories as a slice of bacon. But the NET calories may be different, after the different biochemical processes take place, and the by-products of the reactions are different too. Just like fuels, gasoline, diesel, propane, heating oil, the combustion mechanism is different, net kJ produced is different, the percent efficiency of combustion is different, and the chemical by products are different.0 -
Agreed. Thermodynamics is about the movement of heat energy. Weight gain/loss is about the body's retaining and getting rid of molecules. The weight on the scale is not the amount of "energy" in your body, it is the amount of mass, composed of molecules. The term "calories" as we use it does not mean energy, it means "a molecule which, when broken down by the body, releases a certain amount of energy which is measured in calories."Thermodynamics doesn't have a thing to do with it.
The mass-equivalent of all the energy you will burn in your entire lifetime is less than one gram. You do not lose weight by 'burning' the molecules, you lose weight when the waste products of that combustion leave your body as you pee, sweat, and exhale.
None of the laws of thermodynamics say anything about molecules entering or leaving a human body. None of them state that such a molecule ingested must be retained, or that it may not leave without being burned.
Calories in, calories out (maybe it should be called molecules in, molecules out) is valid and does work but it has as much to do with the laws of thermodynamics as the law of gravity.*
As far as "quality" of food eaten, there is a large range within which the results are equivalent. If you eat nothing but (one food) then your results will be less than optimal. But as long as you get enough variety to provide the micro and macronutrients your body needs, it's not going to make a difference. The people on here who aren't obsessive clean eaters yet have sixpacks and/or are figure competitors make the point well enough.
*ETA: gravity is part of weight (w = mass * gravity) so it does have something to do with it, but that illustrates the point again that we're not talking about weight loss but mass loss. It's easy when using metaphors like 'weight' and 'calories' to lose sight of what we're actually talking about.0 -
Interesting discussion. Not sure why all the hate for ungeneric. Seems like everyone is saying pretty much the same thing.
As for fat calories not counting as much as carb calories, well, if you believe this 5000 cal guy has discovered some magical previously unknown properties of food, give it a try yourself. That's what science is all about.0 -
Obviously, I disagree. I enjoy theory but I think weight loss (and general health) can be approached as a practical matter with practical principles. A real understanding of body science is a great thing, but there's a reason we pay chemists and scientists for their work: it's something that takes a lot of time, effort, and ability to grasp. People who learn just a little bit and then draw false conclusions *with great confidence* are a pet peeve of mine, and those people have a loud voice in the discussions about weight loss.I think that her point (and mine too) is that one needs to understand the theory in order to be able to understand the system, and to be able to make reasonable assumptions, etc
When YOU say "calories in = calories out", maybe YOU understand that this includes everything from bowel movements to body temperature regulation to the minute differences in digestive efficiency between people. But MOST people do NOT mean that when they say "calories in = calories out". MOST people who say that, believe things like "If you ingest 3,500 calories more than you burn, you will gain exactly 1 pound of weight". You are letting technical correctness get in the way of actual communication. That's what I'm trying to say.0 -
I had a broken quote tag and moved some stuff around to fix it. Did I accidentally change what you said? Sorry if I did.That statement is at least arguable, if not obviously incorrect
Interesting, either something is wrong with the web site, or your browser didn't refresh properly. I am assuming that you didn't explicitly try to misquote me . . .0 -
Just speaking from personal experience, I was a yo-yo dieter because I would restrict myself to only eating certain "healthy" unflavorful foods and eventually fall of the bandwagon and binge my way back to an unhealthy weight. I finally decided to try IIFYM and the whole calorie in vs calorie out theory. I will say that I have had the most success with this, and I never feel deprived so its something I can sustain and make a lifestyle rather than a diet. I also monitor my macros (which I think are equally important) closely as I am trying to build muscle. I definitely believe the in vs out theory and if you want to eat your maintenance calories in McDonald's or cheesecake for example I don't think you would gain weight. Is that a healthy way? Probably not. I try to pick healthier unprocessed food options most of the time, but I eat pasta, bread, chocolate and all kinds of foods in moderation and am able to maintain my weight at a set calorie level.
I did have someone once tell me that you can eat more calories of certain foods because of the way it breaks down in the body. So if you eat a sweet potato vs a bunch of processed crackers the body will expend more energy breaking down the sweet potato which in turn allows you to consume more. Not sure if I agree with this, but I never really looked any further into it. IIFYM works for me and that is what I stick to.0 -
the laws of thermodynamics are not "a theory" that's why they're called the laws of thermodynamics, not the theory of thermodynamics.
but there is confusion on what exactly "calories in v calories out" means, so I'll clarify:
Some people think that when you say "calories in v calories out" works for everyone, without exception, that it means that you can put anyone's numbers in a calorie calculator, subtract a percentage and they'll lose weight on that number. That is *not* what it means. The calorie calculators will not work for everyone........................ but that does not mean that calories in v calories out isn't true for them.....
.....calories out = the total number of calories your body uses (burns), including everything you do and everything your body does to keep itself alive. Calories in = calories from food that your body uses (or from a drip feed, if that's the case). If these two numbers are equal, you will stay the same weigh (NOT including water weight fluctuations). If more is going out than in, then you'll lose weight. If more is going in than out, you'll gain weight (yes both of those don't include water weight fluctuations either). The weight gained or lost in each case could be fat or muscle, that depends on *how* you lose/gain the weight.
So what about people for whom the calorie calculators don't work? Well the above is still true, but they may have a slow metabolism (which could be due to medical issues) which means that the *calories out* side of the equation is lower than it should be, i.e. the body isn't using as many calories as it should be, and it's much harder to eat little enough to be eating less than you burn off. In this case, it's *not* a good idea to simply eat less and less, you need to fix the metabolic issue, i.e. get the body back to burning the right amount of calories for you. In some cases continuing to eat less and less results in the metabolism slowing even more. So in those people it may be the case that "just eat less than you burn" isn't the best advice, but it does not mean that calories in v calories out isn't true for them. It means that the way to make a deficit is to increase the calories out part of the equation, not to eat less (in some cases that may mean medical intervention, e.g. treatment for hypothyroid).
There are other situations where calories in v calories out may appear not to apply, e.g. if someone has a problem that their gut is not absorbing the food. They could be eating 3000 calories a day, burning just 1800 a day, and still losing weight, but the reason for that is that the calories are not actually going in, the body is not absorbing or using them. In situations like these (which are rare but do happen) the person is just pooping out a lot of the calories they eat, instead of absorbing and using them. If they're losing weight given the numbers I said, they may only be absorbing half of what they eat, i.e. 1500 calories a day, which is less than what they're burning (1800 cals/day) and so they lose weight. BTW if this is the situation you need to see a doctor ASAP as this is a serious medical issue, I just used it as an example of when calories in v calories out may appear to not be true.
So anyway, yes calories in v calories out is a) not just a theory and b) really does work for everyone, but there are various factors that mean that actual weight loss (or weight gain) advice is not so straight forward for everyone as simply putting your numbers in a calculator and eating a percentage less than the number it spits out. Even without medical issues, those calculators are based on averages, so you have to just use them as a starting point and adjust your calorie goal based on real world results. (but if your real world results suggest the calculator is waaaay off, that might be indicative of a medical problem)
You, my dear, are a Rock Star!0 -
my two cents..
eat in a calorie deficit that you have found works for you (I.E. pay around with the numbers and find one where you are consistently losing weight), work out, and try to hit your macros and you will have success...0 -
Not sure why all the hate for ungeneric.
As far as I can tell, it's something like this: I am trying to say that bringing jargon into a conversation about weight loss is counterproductive, especially when certain oversimplifications are very deeply ingrained in the public consciousness. (For example: most people don't understand the difference between "calories ingested" and "net calories".)
At least some other people are interpreting my posts as an attack on the very concept of science itself. Some are also implying that I am stupid, because it's the internet and you can't say anything on the internet without someone implying that you're an idiot
0 -
You are letting technical correctness get in the way of actual communication.
Maybe. That's certainly something that I am prone to . . . But I kind of figure that the OP asked the question in a public forum, so I can answer it in my way, you can answer it in yours, and we can discuss it if we like.
I will finish with the following: after (too many?) years of schooling, I think that understanding basic scientific principles, and how they apply, is necessary to really understand, and to be able to manipulate, complex systems like, say, mammals. That's not to say that I enclose myself in a radiation enclosure to measure the radiation coming off my skin every day, because I don't. And of course, if you are one of those blessed with awesome genetics, then you probably don't have to care too much. But I think that fundamental understanding is important, even for those not needing to do academic work, and so I try to engage in these types of discussions whenever it seems reasonable to do so.
Cheers,
N0 -
I'm saying that there's all kinds of things that affect weight loss other than "number of calories ingested" versus "number of calories burned in exercise and at rest". Two different cars that have the same weight can get different mileage on the same amount of gasoline.so you are saying because my body temp is normally 96.7 that my body burns fewer calories than someone whos body temp is 98.6??? just curious. so therefore it will take me longer to lose weight than someone of equal weight and height eating the same deficit?
I don't think it's actually a controversial opinion, though clearly some people here do not like the way I have phrased it! :laugh:0 -
QUOTE: Interesting discussion. Not sure why all the hate for ungeneric. Seems like everyone is saying pretty much the same thing.
Just reading along, but I wondered the same thing.0 -
It's calories in vs. calories out for weight loss.
But when trying to maximize fat loss while minimizing lean tissue losses, the quality of the calories comes into play.
I agree. For simple weight loss "cals in<cals out" is the base. However quality and variety do matter. if you eat all carbs and sugars, you will still be fat(and unhealthy) even though you have attained your weight loss goal.
Proteins, fiber, carbs(complex) and fats are important. So are a multitude of other vitamins and minerals your body needs to function properly.
Quality is just as important as quantity.0 -
Doesn't a "calorie is a calorie" violate the second law of thermodynamics? 0
-
I didn't read anyone's post in this thread. But regarding the question, my view is, too many calories and you'll gain "weight", too few calories and you'll lose "weight". I think the quality of the calories is important, but i think it's mostly about the majority of what you eat, not the entirety of what you eat. There's a difference between going from a big fat person to a small fat person, and going from a big fat person to a less fat person. In other words, there's a big difference between losing weight and losing body fat. Once you figure this out, you will be on the right track. I think it's different for everyone to be honest, based on genetics.0
-
Agreed! You and I clearly disagree on the most productive way to talk about weight loss, so we're arguing about it. I'm okay with that, as long as things don't get personal!You are letting technical correctness get in the way of actual communication.
Maybe. That's certainly something that I am prone to . . . But I kind of figure that the OP asked the question in a public forum, so I can answer it in my way, you can answer it in yours, and we can discuss it if we like.
I guess my rebuttal to this is that it's easy to accidentally make things seem more simple than they are, and to underestimate the extent to which people will run away with a simplified explanation and treat it as gospel. I'm a New Yorker, so the first person that comes to mind is Michael Bloomberg. During the debate about restricting soft drink sizes, he made a lot of pseudoscientific claims rooted in the idea that "conservation of energy" means "all calories ingested become net calories". I think if you're going to bring science into a discussion, you'd better be prepared to give a lot of context and to dispel common misconceptions, because otherwise you're just going to fuel them.But I think that fundamental understanding is important, even for those not needing to do academic work, and so I try to engage in these types of discussions whenever it seems reasonable to do so.0 -
the laws of thermodynamics are not "a theory" that's why they're called the laws of thermodynamics, not the theory of thermodynamics.
but there is confusion on what exactly "calories in v calories out" means, so I'll clarify:
Some people think that when you say "calories in v calories out" works for everyone, without exception, that it means that you can put anyone's numbers in a calorie calculator, subtract a percentage and they'll lose weight on that number. That is *not* what it means. The calorie calculators will not work for everyone........................ but that does not mean that calories in v calories out isn't true for them.....
.....calories out = the total number of calories your body uses (burns), including everything you do and everything your body does to keep itself alive. Calories in = calories from food that your body uses (or from a drip feed, if that's the case). If these two numbers are equal, you will stay the same weigh (NOT including water weight fluctuations). If more is going out than in, then you'll lose weight. If more is going in than out, you'll gain weight (yes both of those don't include water weight fluctuations either). The weight gained or lost in each case could be fat or muscle, that depends on *how* you lose/gain the weight.
So what about people for whom the calorie calculators don't work? Well the above is still true, but they may have a slow metabolism (which could be due to medical issues) which means that the *calories out* side of the equation is lower than it should be, i.e. the body isn't using as many calories as it should be, and it's much harder to eat little enough to be eating less than you burn off. In this case, it's *not* a good idea to simply eat less and less, you need to fix the metabolic issue, i.e. get the body back to burning the right amount of calories for you. In some cases continuing to eat less and less results in the metabolism slowing even more. So in those people it may be the case that "just eat less than you burn" isn't the best advice, but it does not mean that calories in v calories out isn't true for them. It means that the way to make a deficit is to increase the calories out part of the equation, not to eat less (in some cases that may mean medical intervention, e.g. treatment for hypothyroid).
There are other situations where calories in v calories out may appear not to apply, e.g. if someone has a problem that their gut is not absorbing the food. They could be eating 3000 calories a day, burning just 1800 a day, and still losing weight, but the reason for that is that the calories are not actually going in, the body is not absorbing or using them. In situations like these (which are rare but do happen) the person is just pooping out a lot of the calories they eat, instead of absorbing and using them. If they're losing weight given the numbers I said, they may only be absorbing half of what they eat, i.e. 1500 calories a day, which is less than what they're burning (1800 cals/day) and so they lose weight. BTW if this is the situation you need to see a doctor ASAP as this is a serious medical issue, I just used it as an example of when calories in v calories out may appear to not be true.
So anyway, yes calories in v calories out is a) not just a theory and b) really does work for everyone, but there are various factors that mean that actual weight loss (or weight gain) advice is not so straight forward for everyone as simply putting your numbers in a calculator and eating a percentage less than the number it spits out. Even without medical issues, those calculators are based on averages, so you have to just use them as a starting point and adjust your calorie goal based on real world results. (but if your real world results suggest the calculator is waaaay off, that might be indicative of a medical problem)
^This!0 -
Calories are fuel. I mirror what burtnyks said.
I've lost 70 pounds or so. I eat fast food VERY often, several times a week. French fries. Pizza. I meticulously count my calories I put in. I meticulous count my calories burned when I exercise. (Obviously, I can't eat large QUANTITIES of fast food or I would take in way too many calories.)
Weight gain or loss has almost everything to do with excess or shortage of calories based on your body's metabolism. (And, yes, metabolism can vary.) Weight influences your health in MANY ways. Am I healthy? I'm much healthier for being 70 pounds less.
Is it healthy for me to eat fast food? Not necessarily. I would claim, though, that it's better for me to be at 70 pounds less eating fast food than yo-yoing with a *perfection*-based diet that I cannot ever hope to maintain. I still need to tweak my diet, and now that I am comfortable with calories in, calories out, I am better equipped to tweak the types of nutrients I'm taking in.
Rome wasn't built in a day. If you are very overweight, I would concentrate on very, very accurately monitoring your CALORIES in and out. Figure out what your metabolism is due to trial and error. Then, you're good to go. Simple, fact-based, and effective when using MyFitnessPal.0 -
Doesn't a "calorie is a calorie" violate the second law of thermodynamics?
to me the discussion in this thread is more like Newton's third law, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.0 -
I agree that a person eating a higher fat diet can consume more calories without fat storage than someone eating a carb based diet. However, why would one purposely over-eat when they are fully nourished and satiated on less food? Frankly, I don't know anyone who is consistently ketogenic that over-eats. We just don't NEED to. When one eats nutrient dense food, there is no more interest in over-eating. I supposedly had binge eating disorder. No counselling or low fat/low calorie diet ever helped and just made me sicker so.... BED has disappeared on a high fat diet and I am losing stored fat effortlessly. No willpower required. Yes, I eat at a small deficit with ZERO struggle with hunger or craving. The food matters for ME.
Oh hai ignorance, see overfeeding studies, fat makes you fatter than carbs0 -
I've always believed that weight loss or weight gain is based upon the simple fact of calories in vs. calories out.
Someone told me that's nonsense and I should listen to this podcast on iTunes:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/smarter-science-slim-vs.-calorie/id541602331
The Podcast with Sam Feltham: Eating 5000 calories & busting Myths is the episode I am referring to.
People on this podcast believe it's what you eat that matters and it doesn't matter how much of it you are eating.
It almost sounds identical to the Atkins way of thinking.
Someone on the podcast did a test and consumed over 5000 calories for a week of non processed foods full of fat including meats, nuts, and then did another test by consuming over 5000 calories for a week consisting of carbs, processed foods 0% fat yogurt, etc.
The fat laden diet he gained a pound but lost over an inch on his waist, and the 5000 calorie carb laden diet he gained 16 pounds and inches around the middle.
His point was it's not how many calories you eat, it's what you eat. I just can't believe this is true. I know when I diet eating less carbs, my weight loss is faster and I lose water more quickly.
My macros for the week were approximately Fat=11.6%, 27.7% Protein, and 60.6% carbs. My carbs are essentially healthy carbs like fruits and vegetables. Am I eating too many carbs? I'm consistently going over my carb goals.
What are your thoughts on this?
I only have my experience to go by, and for me-I lost over 50lbs eating fast food several times a week, 'diet' foods, frozen dinners, cookie, guzzled diet soda, ate more cookies etc. Ate lots of carbs, sugar, fat, protein-I ate it all lol. I also did no exercise while actively trying to lose weight. For me, it really was about just cutting back on calories.
Now I'm in maintenance-still eat that way (except no 'diet' foods anymore, except diet soda), and I'm maintaining effortlessly as well eating this way. I do exercise now, but in return I can eat over 2,200 calories a day. Go me :laugh:0 -
calories in and calories out
energy in vs energy out
energy in totally in person control
energy out varies--some in control some not due to our bodies medical conditions and state
it is due to energy out variance that people make weight loss complicated at times
building muscle & losing fat ---body composition totally different than this---
this is what i have learnt from mfp0 -
Thanks for answering. Let's say I am eating all of this knowledge up! I think I will look at my macros more closely, try to eat healthy and stay within my calorie range. That's all I can do with my hectic lifestyle.0
-
BTW regarding the guy eating 5000 calories for a week, there are several things wrong with this:I've always believed that weight loss or weight gain is based upon the simple fact of calories in vs. calories out.
Someone told me that's nonsense and I should listen to this podcast on iTunes:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/smarter-science-slim-vs.-calorie/id541602331
The Podcast with Sam Feltham: Eating 5000 calories & busting Myths is the episode I am referring to.
People on this podcast believe it's what you eat that matters and it doesn't matter how much of it you are eating.
It almost sounds identical to the Atkins way of thinking.
Someone on the podcast did a test and consumed over 5000 calories for a week of non processed foods full of fat including meats, nuts, and then did another test by consuming over 5000 calories for a week consisting of carbs, processed foods 0% fat yogurt, etc.
The fat laden diet he gained a pound but lost over an inch on his waist, and the 5000 calorie carb laden diet he gained 16 pounds and inches around the middle.
His point was it's not how many calories you eat, it's what you eat. I just can't believe this is true. I know when I diet eating less carbs, my weight loss is faster and I lose water more quickly.
My macros for the week were approximately Fat=11.6%, 27.7% Protein, and 60.6% carbs. My carbs are essentially healthy carbs like fruits and vegetables. Am I eating too many carbs? I'm consistently going over my carb goals.
What are your thoughts on this?
1- How much of any gain was fat, because when we're talking about 'weight' loss the real goal is fat loss, not losing water or muscle or skeleton or organ tissue or food in your gut. How much of his gain was glycogen, water, or other things that are not fat?
2- It is not realistic to extrapolate from one week. When I go from cutting to bulking, I can gain about 3 pounds within a few days. And going from bulking to cutting I can lose 3 pounds in a few days. But that doesn't just keep happening, because it's not fat.
3- Going from a low sodium diet to a high sodium diet will have you gaining water weight. And vice versa. Again this isn't something that just keeps on going. You don't just keep retaining more and more water until you've got 150 lbs of water weight. Also it isn't fat. When your sodium levels go down you'll drop the water weight.
4- Changing your diet in any way can cause things like bloating or water retention etc. You can't just suddenly change your diet and then attribute any of the things you don't like to the foods you just started eating as if they are permanent.0 -
A lot has to do with regulating hormones,our body's don't want to be carrying around excess fat,we can cut calories massively and will shift some weight but long term their will be trouble ahead rather than getting our body into a state of Homeostasis,the body is a wonderful creation,if it really was as simple as cals in versus cals out why are so many people over weight,I believe it's not that simple
Calories in vs. Calories out is scientifically proven. The hard part is keeping with it for a consistant amount of time and maintaning discipline. However, its also like this: 2 lean chicken breasts total about 300 calories, 40 grams if protien, no carbs, and little fat...wheras a large candy bar has more calories, lots of carbs, and barley any protien.0 -
If his only measure was inches around the middle and weight and not a DEXA scan for bodyfat percentage how could he tell the difference between high water retention and bloating from the excess of carbs and the excess of sodium that is present in all processed foods (seriously, look at the sodium content of anything canned) and actual fat gain?
Answer is he couldn't.
My guess is the difference is when he ate "whole, natural foods" his sodium levels tanked, he dropped water weight as he put on fat and his gut deflated from lack of bloating. When he ate carbs and high-sodium processed foods he retained a ton of extra water making his weight skyrocket (you can easily put on 10 pounds just in water going from low sodium to high sodium diet) and the carbs made him bloated extending his gut.
If he went through all this trouble to do this study and put his body through this I have to ask...why didn't he get a DEXA scan to measure his body composition?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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