Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

I do believe #1 although I haven't found the right number for myself and I know I am not alone...

Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat.

Eating more carbohydrate makes you burn more carbohydrate, which for a given level of activity / energy expenditure must mean burning less fat, shirley ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737902/ "In moderately active adult females, ingestion of a single Low Carb meal resulted in greater lipid oxidation at rest and during exercise as compared to a single Low Fat meal. "

I'm talking about fat loss on the aggregate, not on an instantaneous level, because the aggregate is what's important anyway. When you burn more carbohydrates, your rate of fat oxidation is decreased because you are getting energy from the carbs. There's also really no need for the name calling, my name is not Shirley...

I think it was just a typo and silly auto correct put 'shirley' instead of 'surely'

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

― Neil deGrasse Tyson

YESSSS

In. Interested.

Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat.

Eating more carbohydrate makes you burn more carbohydrate, which for a given level of activity / energy expenditure must mean burning less fat, shirley ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737902/ "In moderately active adult females, ingestion of a single Low Carb meal resulted in greater lipid oxidation at rest and during exercise as compared to a single Low Fat meal. "

I'm talking about fat loss on the aggregate, not on an instantaneous level, because the aggregate is what's important anyway. When you burn more carbohydrates, your rate of fat oxidation is decreased because you are getting energy from the carbs. There's also really no need for the name calling, my name is not Shirley...

I think it was just a typo and silly auto correct put 'shirley' instead of 'surely'

No and the science shows that blood sugar (and thus carbs) affects how you lose and gain fat.

Yet you're never going to store energy that you haven't consumed.

Avoiding a particular macronutrient will not cause you to burn more fat, or store less fat.

Eating more carbohydrate makes you burn more carbohydrate, which for a given level of activity / energy expenditure must mean burning less fat, shirley ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737902/ "In moderately active adult females, ingestion of a single Low Carb meal resulted in greater lipid oxidation at rest and during exercise as compared to a single Low Fat meal. "

Yes, not all calories are created equal.

I do believe in cals in and out, but our body doesn't respond always like a calculator. Even if you were for 2-3 weeks at a 3500 cal deficit each week, which would by calculation equal to 2-3 lbs weight loss, your scale may have not budged at all. But then out of the sudden you dropp 3-4lbs at once. Some explained the phenomena here and the science behind it and I don't go deeper in detail, because they did explain it better then I ever could.
Weight loss is not a mathematical quation. Different factors in our body, process and functions are part of the weight loss process. Thinking and seeing/hearing from long term results, a calorie deficit will lead sooner or later to a weight reduction.
As others have stated, it is as well important to continue or start an exercise program to protect and improve skeletal muscles and lean muscle mass. It may stall weight loss for some time as well, but will in the long run support the weight loss.

Muscle degenerate after 5 days already. So, if you take a vacation and break from your work out routine longer then 5 days, the degeneration process already started. It may not impact you that much if you just 2-3 days over that time frame, but if you vacate your workouts for a month or longer it definitely has a huge impact on your muscles performance and weight loss success. it also means after a long break in your work out routine, one is more prone to injuries.

Oh goody, it's this argument again, and all the derp that goes with it.

Pretty much. I'm seriously entertained

A couple questions. I used the search function but some of the info may be outdated - not sure.

#1) Do YOU believe in strictly calories in - calories out? As in, you could eat all of your calories in pure table sugar, and although its incredibly unhealthy, you would lose weight if you're in a caloric defecit? If so, is there ever a situation where a caloric deficit would NOT lead to weight loss?

Absolutely. I believe in it, because it is true. There is never a time when a person would be in a caloric deficit that they aren't losing weight. In situations where people have severely under-active thyroids or other medical problems, they may have to eat a very small amount of food to create a deficit, but a deficit is a deficit. If you don't provide your body with enough fuel to sustain it's current weight, it will convert store fat into energy instead. Every. Single. Time. This is why I've been losing weight while eating more junk food than I did when I was fat.

#2) Ever since I introduced weight lifting (bench press, squat, dead lift, shoulders) 3 weeks ago, my weight loss has screeched to a snails pace (1 pound or less per week while being in a 2.5 pound caloric deficit). It is common knowledge that you don't build muscle while in a caloric defect. Am I holding onto water in the muscles for nearly 3 weeks now? As soon as I get my hands on a tape measure large enough I'll start measuring.

When you introduce a new exercise regime, especially lifting, your body stores a whole load of water to assist in the repair of muscle. As your body gets used to its new activities, it will adapt and you will see weight loss. 3 weeks is not a long time to say that your weight loss has slowed. Weight loss is not linear, there are many variables such as storage of water weight, miscalculations in activity level, variation in calories in foods, etc. The weight is still coming off. Have you been taking measurements? Monthly measurements are a better assessment of progress than a scale IMO; though, I use both methods to track my own progress.

#3) If Insulin stores fat, how do we lose weight while eating carbs and sugars (even in a caloric deficit) while insulin levels are elevated?

Just because one of the functions of insulin is to store fat, doesn't mean you will gain weight from eating carbohydrates. It also doesn't mean that ALL calories from ALL macronutrients don't store as fat. An excess amount of calories from protein or fat will also be stored as fat on your body unless you are actively using muscle, in which case you will also gain weight in the form of muscle. Your body is good at conserving calories for later use; this is what it was designed to do to ensure our survival. If your body is in a caloric deficit, you will be using your own fat as fuel. This will not be replaced by ANY of the foods that you eat because you will also be using the calories in the foods that you eat for fuel. You cannot store fat while in a deficit; you use the fat while you are in a deficit.

1. Yes. Calories in vs calories out is definitely how it works, but remember that metabolism can vary based on a number of factors- this will affect the 'calories out' part of the equation. These factors include current health, stress, hormones and nourishment.

2. Strength training depletes glycogen stores in muscles. To compensate, your body begins to store MORE glycogen in the muscles. For every glycogen molecule you store, you store three water molecules. These all weigh something, hence reducing your 'weight' loss, even though it is healthier for your muscles. You will still be burning fat and getting smaller, but that won't be reflected as much in the scales.

3. Insulin is a vital hormone- ask anyone with diabetes! We give insulin a bad rap because we exploit is with our high GI foods. Insulin effectively tries to keep our blood sugar level regulated, so if we eat high GI foods, we cause a big spike, requiring insulin to drastically pack all that sugar wherever it will fit- namely in fat cells (as well as in muscle as glycogen stores). If we are eating low-med GI foods, we are absorbing sugars from foods at a much more regulated level, reducing blood sugar spikes and therefore NOT NEEDING as much insulin. Therefore these absorbed sugars/carbs are not packed into fat cells, but rather are used for energy.

PS- exercise counters this somewhat, as when we exercise, we deplete the glycogen stores in our muscles, so when we do get insulin packing sugar away, it will replenish the glycogen stores --> meaning less sugar stored as fat

Whether or not one believes in calories in vs calories out is completely irrelevant. If you jump off a tall building, the universe doesn't care whether or not your believe in gravity. You will splat into the ground no matter what you believe. The same is true about the energy equation and thermodynamics. It's not a theory, it's a scientific law. One's individual belief in the law does not matter.

As far as insulin goes, you will never completely rid yourself of insulin spikes. Protein spikes insulin so even if you go completely low/no carb, you will still have insulin spikes. If it was impossible to lose weight if insulin spikes occur, then it would impossible to lose weight. You can never completely halt insulin spiking from occurring. Insulin spikes do not last forever. The simply fact is that if your burn 3000 calories in a day and only eat 2500 then the extra 500 calories must come from somewhere. Energy does not come out of thin air. This is a very unscientific explanation of a very scientific process. For a great article on why insulin is not the enemy read this: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

I'm talking about fat loss on the aggregate, not on an instantaneous level, because the aggregate is what's important anyway.

Yep, over a week there isn't enough glycogen reserve to handle a big discrepancy. For some hours after eating a large amount of carbs the oxidation of fat is suppressed so if fat burning is the goal that may not be the best idea. The same calories eaten as fat don't do that. Hence there is more to it than just calories, as the body responds differently to different sources of calories.

I don't think the human body has the faintest notion of the somewhat arbitrary concept of energy but the balances of fat, protein and carbohydrate are honoured under the control of hormones etc. If you come along afterwards with your notebook and calculator you can probably make the calories taken in match the calories you can find coming out.

Fat oxidation is not suppressed for hours after eating carbs. It's not that long of a period of time. Also, in the absence of carbs, protein can cause just as much of an insulin spike. So operating under the belief that insulin spikes prevent weight loss, one would need to eat no carbs and no protein to lose weight. This simply is not the case. Calories in vs calories out always trumps any short term changes in fat oxidation. If you eat 500 less calories then you burn for several weeks/months, the body MUST make up for the energy discrepancy. It will do this by burning stored fuel.

To JaneiR36:
I am not saying that it doesn't work at all. The weight loss in a period of 2-3 days may be lost water weight, but not actual fat loss. Since you even explained it some other threats, that a deficit of 3500 cals is needed to loose 1lbs of fat.

What I was trying to express is; even we don't see immediate results, it doesn't mean there is no change happen in our bodies, as well as every body reacts to changes different - some faster, some slower.

Yes, with considered food consumption the scale may budge a pound or two, but as I learned on some of this threat it could be even up to 5lbs flucation, but is it really a "weight/fat" loss?

So, I just want to say; see over a period of time, i.e. 2-3 weeks your average weight. During that time frame one should see a downward dentency. Fast results may only be temporary.

That's all....