Calories vs calories

1235»

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.

    A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?

    The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.

    However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.

    But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.

    I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO? I stated what I see as the truth: If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.

    A calorie is a calorie does not mean that foods are identical and just as good for all purposes, so you still seem to be misunderstanding what the claim is, willfully or not. (I am sorry if it was unkind to accuse you of willful misunderstanding, but I believe people have been really, really clear that NO ONE is saying foods are identical. A calorie is a calorie has nothing to do with a food being a food or nutritional content not also being important.)
    I don't think a average sized woman will gain weight on 1200 calories per day but her health could be affected if the calories are not (usually) from a healthy source, especially if there are any health problems to begin with (or they are on the way to developing health problems).

    Yes, of course I agree, which I why I always recommend that people eat healthy diets (although as we have discussed you and I have different ideas about what a healthy diet is). But again this has nothing, zero, to do with what OP asked or whether "a calorie is a calorie." Well, except, as you yourself said, an average-sized woman won't gain on 1200 calories. She might feel like crap and be unable to sustain the 1200, which are two of many reasons not to eat a poor diet.
    If she was eating more calories, say 1800 per day, then the choice of food could very well make a difference in her weight. I'm losing weight (about 2lbs / week) with a diet that is usually between 1300 and 2000 calories per day by avoiding foods that are not healthy for me. I know I do not lose (any substantial) weight when my caloric intake is around those numbers, and I am eating pizza and buns. At 1200 calories, I would lose weight (if I could maintain that long enough).

    I am skeptical of this. I think the evidence is that people with IR simply tend to overeat if they eat too many carbs, since they aren't satiated. But I am sure there can be differences on the margins--I know there is a study that showed that metabolically normal women and IR women did better on different macro breakdowns, although as I recall the differences weren't translated into all that many lbs lost (none of the studies do when compared to what people get just by being consistent with a calorie deficit on MFP, or so it seems to me).

    Anyway, OP didn't ask about what would happen if she had a medical issue, she asked whether you could gain on 1200 lbs of "junk." That you can seems to be a popular misconception and is worth clearing up, even though I certainly would never advise someone that what they eat doesn't matter (and OP seems to realize that also, already).
  • mantium999
    mantium999 Posts: 1,490 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.

    A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?

    The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.

    However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.

    But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.

    I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
    Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?

    How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.

    If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.

    I agree that most everybody will lose weight at 1200 kcal per day though.

    Describe what you think would happen to the additional energy that is not used. It gets used, or it gets stored. Type of foods and macros may change how the body uses the energy (affecting the CO side of the equation), but ultimately what doesn't get used get stored. That is what CICO is, and why CICO is always the answer. CO can vary for a multitude of reasons, but that is no reason to suggest CICO doesn't always happen.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.

    A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?

    The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.

    However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.

    But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.

    I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
    Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?

    How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.

    If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
    How would this work, exactly? From where would the extra energy come? Where would the extra energy go?

    How, exactly, will different types of food or macros cause a weight loss if calories in exceed calories out?
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    edited August 2015
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.

    A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?

    The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.

    However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.

    But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.

    I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
    Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?

    How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.

    If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.

    I agree that most everybody will lose weight at 1200 kcal per day though.


    It seems important to note here that we have no way of determining TDEE without accurately logging food and then seeing the resulting weight loss/gain/maintenance over time; doing this with a low margin for error is actually quite challenging.

    We can *estimate* TDEE based on a this formula or that formula, but that's just using statistical models. It's just educated guesswork.

    So if someone were to say something like, "I ate over my TDEE, and I still lost weight," that is impossible by definition. That person's calculated (read estimated) TDEE was simply off, or their logging was off...or some combination of the two.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.

    A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?

    The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.

    However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.

    But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.

    I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
    Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?

    How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.

    If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
    How would this work, exactly? From where would the extra energy come? Where would the extra energy go?

    How, exactly, will different types of food or macros cause a weight loss if calories in exceed calories out?

    I'm thinking in terms of insulin. If you have a lot of insulin coursing through your system, that can slow weight loss by storing carbs as fat even if they should not be, as is the case with those who are IR. That won't happen if you reduce your insulin levels.
  • coralp123
    coralp123 Posts: 30 Member
    edited August 2015
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Food substances have many properties.

    The calorie measurement is just one of them.

    There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.

    So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.

    It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.

    A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.

    Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.

    Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
    Who says that about food, though? Ever?

    I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?

    It happens all the time

    You do it constantly

    Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.

    Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question


    OP asked whether calories are the only important thing about food? Where?

    I prefer to treat even newbies as if they are not, in fact, completely stupid, and therefore to assume that they know that the nutritional profiles of broccoli and a Ding Dong are not identical. YMMV, I guess.[/
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Food substances have many properties.

    The calorie measurement is just one of them.

    There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.

    So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.

    It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.

    A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.

    Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.

    Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
    Who says that about food, though? Ever?

    I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?

    It happens all the time

    You do it constantly

    Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.

    Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question


    OP asked whether calories are the only important thing about food? Where?

    I prefer to treat even newbies as if they are not, in fact, completely stupid, and therefore to assume that they know that the nutritional profiles of broccoli and a Ding Dong are not identical. YMMV, I guess.



    I don't understand, are you calling me stupid? For asking a question on a motivational/ help forum.
    I've said several time I wasn't asking because I wanted to use my calories on burgers, I was just curious, I have lost 50lb to date eating healthily with the occasional treat, I'm new to calorie counting though so sometimes it's hard to switch my way of thinking from eating healthy foods 95% of the time to basically you can eat what you want within your calorie limit, that said I still wouldn't opt for loads of "burgers" I was just curious.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    EvanKeel wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.

    A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?

    The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.

    However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.

    But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.

    I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
    Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?

    How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.

    If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.

    I agree that most everybody will lose weight at 1200 kcal per day though.


    It seems important to note here that we have no way of determining TDEE without accurately logging food and then seeing the resulting weight loss/gain/maintenance over time; doing this with a low margin for error is actually quite challenging.

    We can *estimate* TDEE based on a this formula or that formula, but that's just using statistical models. It's just educated guesswork.

    So if someone were to say something like, "I ate over my TDEE, and I still lost weight," that is impossible by definition. That person's calculated (read estimated) TDEE was simply off, or their logging was off...or some combination of the two.

    Yes, that could very well be.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    No, she wasn't calling you stupid. Not at all. Please reread.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.

    A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?

    The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.

    However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.

    But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.

    I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
    Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?

    How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.

    If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
    How would this work, exactly? From where would the extra energy come? Where would the extra energy go?

    How, exactly, will different types of food or macros cause a weight loss if calories in exceed calories out?

    I'm thinking in terms of insulin. If you have a lot of insulin coursing through your system, that can slow weight loss by storing carbs as fat even if they should not be, as is the case with those who are IR. That won't happen if you reduce your insulin levels.
    That's a change in CO, isn't it? It doesn't mean they'll lose on a surplus or gain on a deficit does it?
  • coralp123
    coralp123 Posts: 30 Member
    edited August 2015
    Hornsby wrote: »
    No, she wasn't calling you stupid. Not at all. Please reread.

    My bad x
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    coralp123 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    No, she wasn't calling you stupid. Not at all. Please reread.

    My bad x
    :smile:
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.

    A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?

    The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.

    However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.

    But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.

    I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
    Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?

    How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.

    If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
    How would this work, exactly? From where would the extra energy come? Where would the extra energy go?

    How, exactly, will different types of food or macros cause a weight loss if calories in exceed calories out?

    I'm thinking in terms of insulin. If you have a lot of insulin coursing through your system, that can slow weight loss by storing carbs as fat even if they should not be, as is the case with those who are IR. That won't happen if you reduce your insulin levels.
    That's a change in CO, isn't it? It doesn't mean they'll lose on a surplus or gain on a deficit does it?

    It could. CI CO is not an exact thing.

    I'm eating between 1300 and 2000 calories per day. Most days are close to 1500 and I'm on a vLCHF diet where most days are below 30 g of carbs. I started this way of eating roughly 6 weeks ago when I weighed about 185 and now I weigh about 170; I'd like to weigh 140-150. That's over 2.5 lbs lost per week, but let's just say two pounds per week to account for water lost.

    My TDEE was, or is, calculated somewhere between 1800 and 2200, depending on whether I say I am mildly active 1-3 times per week, which I usually am not, or whether I refer to my start weight or current weight. Let's say my TDEE was, and still is, 2200, and say I average 1500 cal/day. 2200-1500= 700 calorie deficit. Over the last 42 days that's a deficit of 29400 calories. Divide that by the 3500 calories to lose a pound and that is 8.4lbs, and this is assuming my TDEE (for an overweight 41 year old, prediabetic, 5'8" woman who has been very inactive due to hip and knee arthritis - for exercise I walked for about 7 hours in the last month and a half) is still 2200.

    I've lost about 15lbs though, which is close to double that.

    When I was drinking colas I would skip lunch to account for it. When I had a bag of candy, I would often skip dinner. Last year, while on mild steroids and when my prediabetes showed itself, I gained 20lbs. That's almost an extra 200 calories per day above my TDEE. I don't think I overate to that extent (I obviously did eat too much) but it is possible. I think the main problem was the foods I overate with. My body stored those sugars and carbs to fat very readily.

    So I agree that CI<CO is the main thing for losing weight, but I do think the types of calories involved will affect it by making you gain or lose at a slightly different rate.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    edited August 2015
    No, it is an exact thing. It literally cannot mean what you think it might mean. Literally impossible.

    Whether we can precisely measure intake and output of a person or not doesn't change this fact. We may not be able to predict where a falling leave will land, but that doesn't mean it is, or can be, violating the laws of physics.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited August 2015
    coralp123 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Food substances have many properties.

    The calorie measurement is just one of them.

    There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.

    So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.

    It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.

    A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.

    Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.

    Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
    Who says that about food, though? Ever?

    I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?

    It happens all the time

    You do it constantly

    Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.

    Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question


    OP asked whether calories are the only important thing about food? Where?

    I prefer to treat even newbies as if they are not, in fact, completely stupid, and therefore to assume that they know that the nutritional profiles of broccoli and a Ding Dong are not identical. YMMV, I guess.[/
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Food substances have many properties.

    The calorie measurement is just one of them.

    There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.

    So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.

    It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.

    A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.

    Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.

    Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
    Who says that about food, though? Ever?

    I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?

    It happens all the time

    You do it constantly

    Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.

    Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question


    OP asked whether calories are the only important thing about food? Where?

    I prefer to treat even newbies as if they are not, in fact, completely stupid, and therefore to assume that they know that the nutritional profiles of broccoli and a Ding Dong are not identical. YMMV, I guess.



    I don't understand, are you calling me stupid? For asking a question on a motivational/ help forum.

    No, not at all. I said I was assuming you were NOT stupid, and therefore that you did not need to be told that you shouldn't eat an unhealthy diet.
    I've said several time I wasn't asking because I wanted to use my calories on burgers, I was just curious

    Yes, that's why I thought those who were telling you not to do that were missing the point.

    I don't get why burgers are a bad thing to use calories on, though--lean ground beef doesn't even have that many calories, and although I usually do eat it without the bun you can include the bun as the starch part of the meal, have some vegetables on the side, and it's basically like any other healthy dinner, IMO.

    And if you know a restaurant with an excellent high cal burger, that might be worth incorporating on occasion too, although to my mind the difference from the home-cooked burger really isn't worth the extra calories.

    (And sorry for the digression here; I just have an incurable need to defend foods that are often stereotyped as "junk" when I wouldn't call them that.)
    I have lost 50lb to date eating healthily with the occasional treat, I'm new to calorie counting though so sometimes it's hard to switch my way of thinking from eating healthy foods 95% of the time to basically you can eat what you want within your calorie limit, that said I still wouldn't opt for loads of "burgers" I was just curious.

    Makes total sense. And great job on the loss!
  • mantium999
    mantium999 Posts: 1,490 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.

    A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?

    The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.

    However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.

    But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.

    I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
    Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?

    How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.

    If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
    How would this work, exactly? From where would the extra energy come? Where would the extra energy go?

    How, exactly, will different types of food or macros cause a weight loss if calories in exceed calories out?

    I'm thinking in terms of insulin. If you have a lot of insulin coursing through your system, that can slow weight loss by storing carbs as fat even if they should not be, as is the case with those who are IR. That won't happen if you reduce your insulin levels.
    That's a change in CO, isn't it? It doesn't mean they'll lose on a surplus or gain on a deficit does it?

    It could. CI CO is not an exact thing.

    I'm eating between 1300 and 2000 calories per day. Most days are close to 1500 and I'm on a vLCHF diet where most days are below 30 g of carbs. I started this way of eating roughly 6 weeks ago when I weighed about 185 and now I weigh about 170; I'd like to weigh 140-150. That's over 2.5 lbs lost per week, but let's just say two pounds per week to account for water lost.

    My TDEE was, or is, calculated somewhere between 1800 and 2200, depending on whether I say I am mildly active 1-3 times per week, which I usually am not, or whether I refer to my start weight or current weight. Let's say my TDEE was, and still is, 2200, and say I average 1500 cal/day. 2200-1500= 700 calorie deficit. Over the last 42 days that's a deficit of 29400 calories. Divide that by the 3500 calories to lose a pound and that is 8.4lbs, and this is assuming my TDEE (for an overweight 41 year old, prediabetic, 5'8" woman who has been very inactive due to hip and knee arthritis - for exercise I walked for about 7 hours in the last month and a half) is still 2200.

    I've lost about 15lbs though, which is close to double that.

    When I was drinking colas I would skip lunch to account for it. When I had a bag of candy, I would often skip dinner. Last year, while on mild steroids and when my prediabetes showed itself, I gained 20lbs. That's almost an extra 200 calories per day above my TDEE. I don't think I overate to that extent (I obviously did eat too much) but it is possible. I think the main problem was the foods I overate with. My body stored those sugars and carbs to fat very readily.

    So I agree that CI<CO is the main thing for losing weight, but I do think the types of calories involved will affect it by making you gain or lose at a slightly different rate.

    CI<CO is the ONLY thing. What you keep describing is potential implications to CO. An abnormal CO (insulin issues for example) simply changes the CO side of the equation. So, while individuals can have varying COs, it in no way means that CICO isn't the solution. It only means that your CO can be different from my CO, but for either of us to lose weight our respective CIs must be less than our COs. Stating that CICO is not an exact thing is false. Figuring out one's individual CICO is variable, but still exact. It just needs to be figured out.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited August 2015
    No, it is an exact thing. It literally cannot mean what you think it might mean. Literally impossible.

    Whether we can precisely measure intake and output of a person or not doesn't change this fact. We may not be able to predict where a falling leave will land, but that doesn't mean it is, or can be, violating the laws of physics.

    Either you believe I am wrong or I am not making my thoughts clear enough...I'm guessing you just think I'm wrong.

    So you are saying that you believe that the type of calorie (carb vs fat vs protein) has absolutely no effect on how those calories are used. If I, for one month, I ate 1500 calories per day of mostly carbs or 1500 of mostly fats, it would have absolutely no bearing on how much weight I lost or at what rate I lost that weight?

    This isn't physics, it's biology.
  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    At the high school I went to, we took physics as freshmen because they felt that all of the other sciences built upon it. You can't divorce them. It isn't "either or"; it's "and both."

    Also, you have a medical condition, which complicates some things and where the biology aspect comes to play with the physics.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    No, it is an exact thing. It literally cannot mean what you think it might mean. Literally impossible.

    Whether we can precisely measure intake and output of a person or not doesn't change this fact. We may not be able to predict where a falling leave will land, but that doesn't mean it is, or can be, violating the laws of physics.

    Either you believe I am wrong or I am not making my thoughts clear enough...I'm guessing you just think I'm wrong.

    So you are saying that you believe that the type of calorie (carb vs fat vs protein) has absolutely no effect on how those calories are used. If I, for one month, I ate 1500 calories per day of mostly carbs or 1500 of mostly fats, it would have absolutely no bearing on how much weight I lost or at what rate I lost that weight?

    This isn't physics, it's biology.
    In the absence of a medical condition which affected your ability to utilize those calories, you'd lose (presuming TDEE > 1500) the same amount of weight, subject to normal fluctuations that you'd see even if you ate exactly the same things in two different months. Now, if you ate fewer carbs you might have less water weight, but that's transient and not the result of the body's storing fat.

    If you had a medical condition that affected your ability to use those calories, CICO would still apply, but CO would be different between the two months because your body isn't fully utilizing the CI of one of those macros.

    If you're saying that someone can eat less than TDEE and gain non-water weight or more than TDEE and lose it, I think you're wrong. If that's not what you're saying, then I am misunderstanding what you're saying.