Calories in vs. Calories out? Not that easy!!

Options
2»

Replies

  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    Saw this on Jamie Eason's Facebook page this morning and couldn't agree more!!
    "The most annoying thing I hear is when people attempt to simplify nutrition with the phrase, 'It's as simple as, calories in versus calories out!' NO IT'S NOT!!! You cannot eat cheesecake all day and just because its under your daily calorie requirement, be in shape! That's rubbish! Macros matter!!"
    Too bad Jamie Eason is wrong and probably lacks a basic concept of nutrition.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    I think you fellas are missing the point. It doesn't say anything about weight loss in my original post. It says "be in shape." There's a HUGE difference in the two, as I'm sure you already know.
    How do define "be in shape" then?

    You can eat cheesecake all day, moderate calories, and exercise. Your blood sugar levels will be fine, cholesterol fine, weight fine.

    Is that "in shape" to you? How do you define "be in shape"?
  • newbeautifulme
    newbeautifulme Posts: 112
    Options
    Our grandparents had it right - you are what you eat! If you want to eat junk all day, you aren't going to be healthy. Our body runs on what we feed it. You may see short gains, as seen with the guy losing weight on the Twinkie diet, but 10 years of eating like that can't be good.
  • TK421NotAtPost
    TK421NotAtPost Posts: 512 Member
    Options
    I think you fellas are missing the point. It doesn't say anything about weight loss in my original post. It says "be in shape." There's a HUGE difference in the two, as I'm sure you already know.


    AMEN sista!!!!

    Has any one heard of the twinkie diet. Where a professor ate 2 twinkies a day and then ate a meal at dinner to show his students that you can lose weight with any kind of calorie restriction. It worked and he lost weight, but he felt like crap!!! He lost the weight but was not HEALTHY!!!!! So, yes to lose weight it can be simplified to calories in vs. calories out; however, to be healthy and fit the equation is much more complex! :wink:

    Actually, from CNN:

    "For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

    His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

    But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

    Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    Thanks for posting that. It pretty much confirms what study after study has shown.... weight loss is generally accompanied by an improvement in health markers.
  • Janet39
    Janet39 Posts: 280 Member
    Options
    It's amazing how many people try to discredit the energy balance equation by saying idiotic things like "can't each cheesecake all day and be in shape". Well, no $ h i t Ms. Eason! And the fact that macros do matter isn't exactly an earthshattering comment either.

    Energy balance equation does in fact, take into account many factors including hormonal responses, thermic effect of food & activity, resting metabolic rate, etc.

    Hence, most people who know what they are talking about recommend setting protein levels first (usually quite high)...and then fill in carb and fats levels according to their varying levels of activity and carb sensitivity.

    I like this post.

    Thanks TK421NotAtPost

    I also like this post, I have been overweight all my life, and am only now learning the lessons that matter:smile:
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,239 Member
    Options
    Saw this on Jamie Eason's Facebook page this morning and couldn't agree more!!
    "The most annoying thing I hear is when people attempt to simplify nutrition with the phrase, 'It's as simple as, calories in versus calories out!' NO IT'S NOT!!! You cannot eat cheesecake all day and just because its under your daily calorie requirement, be in shape! That's rubbish! Macros matter!!"

    Losing weight yes, body composition of an athlete no.

    Ditto. If a person just wants to lose weight, it is purely calories in and calories out. If they want to resculpt their body it get a little more complicated. Just doing the calories in/out thing will give you a skinner version of what you are now.
  • TK421NotAtPost
    TK421NotAtPost Posts: 512 Member
    Options
    mynameisuntz, according to Jamie Eason, Michael Phelps is out of shape... after all, he eats pizza, fried egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, fried onions, french toast topped with powdered sugar, chocolate chip pancakes, ...etc...etc.... :laugh: :laugh:
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    mynameisuntz, according to Jamie Eason, Michael Phelps is out of shape... after all, he eats pizza, fried egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, fried onions, french toast topped with powdered sugar, chocolate chip pancakes, ...etc...etc.... :laugh: :laugh:
    Exactly!

    People are rather ignorant when it comes to body composition. Is she really trying to tell me that our bodies will look at the molecular structures of glucose from cheesecake different from how it sees the glucose in a strawberry? Our bodies don't care where the glucose came from when it comes to body composition: glucose is glucose.

    The fact that she's trying to act like our bodies are smart enough to differentiate between two molecular structures that are EXACTLY THE SAME is absurd.
  • ladybug2020
    ladybug2020 Posts: 83 Member
    Options
    bump

Categories