Calories in vs. Calories out??

I don't think there has been anything discovered in nutrition and metabolism that disproves the first law of thermodynamics. If you are losing weight then you must be eating fewer calories than you expending and if you are gaining weight then you must be eating more calories than you are expending.

What might not be true, though, is that in/out are independent of each other. If they were independent then if you chose to eat less or exercise more then you would be guaranteed to loose weight (or at least stop gaining it so fast).

What I think the various pieces of research show when they say it is not as simple as in/out is that there can be a link; that you body may make economies that mean as your calorie intake falls so does the number of calories used. This isn't necessarily reflected in the amount of energy used in deliberate exercise, i.e. workouts, but in things that are happening in the background. A previous time I was dieting I found my finger and toes nails had become thin so clearly my body was saving some energy (and maybe specific nutrients) by not making such thick nails. There may be similar things happening elsewhere in the body.

I also don't doubt that the "brute force" approach of "just restricting calories" can work if you have the willpower to be permanently hungry - for each economy your body makes you could always restrict your intake still further until you start losing weight again. That doesn't make it the best approach, though.

In another post of mime I link a New Scientist article which suggests that our appetite will guide us to the right amount of each of the macro nutrients if we have free choice but if the food we eat is rather limited we tend to eat the right amount of protein whether that results in too much or too little of the others. When you've hit your calorie goal but are still hungry that's probably because you have eaten too little protein.

Assuming this is true, and there was some research behind it, that means if you increase the proportion of protein in your diet you will tend to feel satisfied having eaten fewer calories than before. Processed food tends to be deficient in protein (because it's the most expensive ingredient) so if that's a high proportion of your diet then you will end up either eating too much of the other macros (carbs and fat) to get the protein or be hungry from not having had the protein.

Some of my favorite easy protein sources are processed, like low fat cottage cheese or plain greek yogurt. (I don't much care for protein powder, but that's another obvious one.)

I've definitely lost weight as expected eating junk all day long. No, it's not healthy, but calories in- calories out works. Just the other day I was looking back at my diary from the last time I was at a much lower weight, which was a few years ago now. I was appalled. I was eating 1200 calories per day, but there were literally 4-5 days per week when it was 1200 calories worth of chips, candy, and other pure junk. And I lost about 25 pounds and made it to a healthy BMI that way.

Obviously part of the reason this isn't sustainable is that it's not satiating long term. The other part is that eating like that isn't being in a "healthy mindset" even if calories are being counted. I've found over the years that mindset piece is important for me. It's why I get my steps in every single day even though walking doesn't burn that many calories- I'm not going to spend tons of time walking and then sit down and stuff my face. The walking keeps me in the right mindset to improve my eating as well. When I was already letting myself eat pure junk all day long, it wasn't much of a leap to then switch to eating a bit more, then stop counting all together, etc.

This time around I've switched my weight loss goal to only 1 pound per week so that I get more calories per day. I have at least one sweet or salty treat every day, and sometimes both, but nothing like replacing full meals with chips and candy. This is in addition to eating a more balanced lunch and dinner and making sure I have some sort of fruit and vegetable every day (baby steps).

Weight loss is created by a calorie deficit and one can do that with any style of eating.

This doesn't mean that an individual will find all styles of eating equally satiating at a given calorie level. I know from experience that I feel better when I have higher volume meals with higher fiber and at least moderate fat. I feel fuller so it's easier for me to stick to my calorie goal and I also tend to move more during the day (which increase the number of calories that I use). I can eat the same number of calories in meals that I find less satiating, but at the cost of feeling full and energetic, so it is something I don't do that often.

But at the end of the day, your body needs energy to function. You can get that energy from KitKats, you can get that energy from broccoli.

SleepMoveEatRepeat wrote: »

Hi guys!
I've always thought that "a calories was a calorie" but, the longer I live the more I start breaking this belief. I mean, before I moved in with my husband things were SO DIFFERENT for me, weight wise.
It was easy for me to control what I ate. I know my weaknesses... I have a sweet tooth as well as love to eat chips. So what I did I do when I lived alone? Didn't buy sweets and chips. Period. I mainly ate whole foods back then with the exception of veggie burgers.

But now...

My husband eats everything and, besides eating whatever he wants, he doesn't really care for sweets. He can literally eat 1 bar of KitKat and put the rest in the pantry. I am not exaggerating! And he buys all different types of chips because he likes eating some of it with his lunch. (Me, on the other hand, have to eat the entire bag of chips to feel satisfied).

So what have I been doing for the last 1.5 years? Strictly counting calories, weighing my foods, counting every sip I give of whatever, over-estimating the calories, and basically starving myself because those processed foods don't as much "food" per calorie. Because "calories in vs. calories out", right? That's what have always made sense to me! That's what I've always believed!... Well, until it stopped working.

I still workout the exact se amount I did before, if not more, and.... my weight slowly goes UP! I measured myself yesterday because I thought "seriously, I MUST have at least lost some inches!". But no I basically gained 0.5 inch around my body.

I'M SO DONE WITH THIS!

You know when you just don't know what else to do and just want to throw the towel? 😥

I've been reading a book called. "How Not To Diet", by Michael Greger... Holy cow. Without even knowing, I've just realized that before I moved in with my husband I was eating almost the exact way the book suggests: all the stuff we already know: staying away from refined sugars, refined grains, and also the way to combine foods, etc, etc, etc. I had no idea before, of what I was doing. To me it was just calories in and calories out. But this book explains with science and clinical studies, backing their conclusion, what happens in our bodies when we do and don't do those things and why we lose or gain weight depending on WHAT we eat.

I opened my mouth so wide when I got to parts of that book that I think I got TMJ. Lol. It's like... THAT'S FREAKING IT!

Anyway... I am really hoping that's the case. I'm gonna have to be super freaking strong negating and ignoring the foods that my husband buys, to focus on my journey.

Is anyone else strugfling to lose the last 10ish pounds? If so, please add me so that we can hold each other accountable! I would love to have more friends with common goals as mine.

Taking a deep breath here with some awesome brand new hope growing inside of me!

That's it. Now it's a patience game.

Yeah, I gained @ 30 pounds when I moved in with my OH

He had a pint of ice cream last OVER A YEAR!

I feel completely different after eating @ 300 calories of ice cream vs @ 300 calories of fruit, veggie, protein powder, etc. smoothie.

NovusDies wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

SleepMoveEatRepeat wrote: »

Hi guys!
I've always thought that "a calories was a calorie" but, the longer I live the more I start breaking this belief. I mean, before I moved in with my husband things were SO DIFFERENT for me, weight wise.
It was easy for me to control what I ate. I know my weaknesses... I have a sweet tooth as well as love to eat chips. So what I did I do when I lived alone? Didn't buy sweets and chips. Period. I mainly ate whole foods back then with the exception of veggie burgers.

But now...

My husband eats everything and, besides eating whatever he wants, he doesn't really care for sweets. He can literally eat 1 bar of KitKat and put the rest in the pantry. I am not exaggerating! And he buys all different types of chips because he likes eating some of it with his lunch. (Me, on the other hand, have to eat the entire bag of chips to feel satisfied).

So what have I been doing for the last 1.5 years? Strictly counting calories, weighing my foods, counting every sip I give of whatever, over-estimating the calories, and basically starving myself because those processed foods don't as much "food" per calorie. Because "calories in vs. calories out", right? That's what have always made sense to me! That's what I've always believed!... Well, until it stopped working.

I still workout the exact se amount I did before, if not more, and.... my weight slowly goes UP! I measured myself yesterday because I thought "seriously, I MUST have at least lost some inches!". But no I basically gained 0.5 inch around my body.

I'M SO DONE WITH THIS!

You know when you just don't know what else to do and just want to throw the towel? 😥

I've been reading a book called. "How Not To Diet", by Michael Greger... Holy cow. Without even knowing, I've just realized that before I moved in with my husband I was eating almost the exact way the book suggests: all the stuff we already know: staying away from refined sugars, refined grains, and also the way to combine foods, etc, etc, etc. I had no idea before, of what I was doing. To me it was just calories in and calories out. But this book explains with science and clinical studies, backing their conclusion, what happens in our bodies when we do and don't do those things and why we lose or gain weight depending on WHAT we eat.

I opened my mouth so wide when I got to parts of that book that I think I got TMJ. Lol. It's like... THAT'S FREAKING IT!

Anyway... I am really hoping that's the case. I'm gonna have to be super freaking strong negating and ignoring the foods that my husband buys, to focus on my journey.

Is anyone else strugfling to lose the last 10ish pounds? If so, please add me so that we can hold each other accountable! I would love to have more friends with common goals as mine.

Taking a deep breath here with some awesome brand new hope growing inside of me!

That's it. Now it's a patience game.

Yeah, I gained @ 30 pounds when I moved in with my OH

He had a pint of ice cream last OVER A YEAR!

I feel completely different after eating @ 300 calories of ice cream vs @ 300 calories of fruit, veggie, protein powder, etc. smoothie.

I would never reach for 300 calories of ice cream to control my hunger because it would not do that very well for the calories spent. However, once my hunger is controlled from other eating I would not hesitate to eat the ice cream. Yesterday I ate ice cream even though I didn't really want it because I had a bunch of exercise calories that needed to be filled.

Yes, exactly this. If I were to skip lunch and have the same cals of ice cream, I am likely to be hungrier than normal before dinner (although that doesn't mean I would overeat at dinner or snack before dinner -- that would be related to other mental things). For example, it's a family tradition to have pie for breakfast the day after Thanksgiving (and sometimes the Saturday too), and yet when I was focusing on weight loss and on a roll, I ate a reasonable-sized piece and did not overeat for the day. In years when I was already in an "I can eat what I want" mode, then sure, I might be more likely to have a high calorie day on such days. And back when I was someone who had "good days" or "bad days," having the pie might make me decide it was a bad day and go on in with high cal foods, because I'd have to be good again tomorrow (or whenever).

When I was losing 90 lbs, I ate a very nutrient-dense and filling diet (as I still do), and one thing that helped me was eliminating snacking. But quite often -- especially on days with a reasonable amount of exercise cals, and activity in general, and ONLY if it fit within my cals -- I would have about 200 cals of good-quality ice cream (or gelato) after dinner (sometimes 250 if I had the cals). This did not make me feel bad at all, it did not remove the satiating effects of my dinner or make me hungry when I hadn't been, it did not lead me to eating more that evening (I understood it was my final food of the day) nor the next day, and it did not undermine the fact I'd eaten my usual diet with plenty of protein, 10+ servings of veg, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, etc.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with what I did as a strategy for me, and I don't think there's a trade off between eating a good diet and eating some ice cream (or whatever) for most people.

Caloric deficient is what you need to do the first 80%. If your GW is your ideal weight, lowish bodyfat, lean and strong then the last 10 lbs will likely take something different.

An increase in protein, better quality carbs maybe a missing nutrient. Also a balanced and varied routine. Our bodies like equilibriums. We adjust and accommodate to our surroundings, external influences and what we eat and do. Many times the last 10 lbs takes a bit of an unconventional approach.

Not sure I would stop tracking completely but perhaps a little less accurate... By now you should have some sense of what a good breakfast lunch and supper look like. Also you should have some idea how much ice cream is too much.

This si good training for when you transition to maintenance as well.

SleepMoveEatRepeat wrote: »

@NovusDies so you eat your exercised calories? Doesn't that show down weight loss?

it depends on which method you are using - if you are going by MFP's guided setup, choose an activity level that is accurate to your daily routine NOT INCLUDING purposeful exercise, then yes, you are expected to eat back your exercise calories. This is called the NEAT method.

If you are using the TDEE method, that is an all encompassing number that does include regular, purposeful exercise, so in this case, you'd set up 1 number and aim for it and would not include purposeful exercise because that's already built into the TDEE calculation.

I personally prefer to use the NEAT method because while I aim for purposeful exercise daily, it's not a rigid set routine and I get more some days than others, and some days I'm more active than others. So I prefer the NEAT method and add back any extra calories earned through deliberate exercise or activity outside my norm.

Look at it this way: if you are moving more, you are burning more calories to fuel that extra activity. If you want to maintain a certain weight loss rate that is safe and sensible for your stats, then if you increase calories out, you'll need to increase calories in to maintain the balance that you are shooting for, whether its to maintain or lose at a certain rate.


Calories In versus Calories Out is absolutely the only way to lose weight because this is not a diet but a mathematical formula based upon the physical mechanics of the human body. The thing that you need to get is that the human body is a dynamic system that is constantly changing throughout the day and no two humans are exactly the same in how their system operates - there is a range. Now there are limits on that range; two people with the exact same stats might differ some in their metabolic needs, but it's not going to be to the tune of thousands of calories, either. However, the formulas used to derive the numbers for CICO are based upon statistical averages for the average population; with the body constantly shifting in response to its environment, there is no way to get an exact precise number for any individual at all times because those needs are constantly changing - but those changes will be within a certain range, and that IS application to all people at all times; so you aren't really shooting for an exact number but an acceptable average that reflects the range that your body operates within.

Getting to a good average number that works for your body will result in success. The way to do that is have a starting point by using the generic formulas for TDEE or NEAT, then use the data gained over a few weeks to adjust that number up or down for your own unique system until you achieve the loss rate you desire.


I think where all this "a calorie isn't just a calorie" and "some calories have a different response from the body than others" is all being confused with what the body actually does with a calorie and what the body needs nutritionally. A calorie IS just a calorie - its a unit of energy, meanings its fuel and nothing more. However, what is ACCOMPANYING that calorie matters for satiation and performance, meaning that the quality of the medium that is providing that fuel is very important for efficient use of that calorie. If you aren't giving your body enough vitamins, minerals, etc that it needs to repair itself and function, its going to stimulate you to get those needs through hunger signals. That stimulus for more nutrition may result in you eating more calories because instead of eating foods rich in nutrients, you are eating foods that have less - thus you need more to meet the same nutrition.

It's not that a calorie isn't a calorie since a calorie is nothing more than a unit of energy, just like a gram is unit of mass measurement and it doesn't matter what you are weighing; 1g of grapes is 1g just like 1g of chocolate chips is 1g, but that there is a whole host of things that come into play in determining how much we eat, from our body's daily differentials to the nutritional content of our foods versus what our bodies need, to our own mental drives, desires, pleasures, etc. So while the formulation is sound science, like all things in the real world, its not easy to implement!

pridesabtch wrote: »

A little experiment I an working on for in June. I'm checking the math. I am comparing my actual weight loss to my projected weight loss. Measuring my TDEE on my Garmin, taking my intake from MFP. Calculating a deficit. Assuming 2000 cal per pound. Projected loss is 5.7 pounds, actual loss is 5.9 pounds.

Do you mean a deficit of 2000kcal is needed to lose a pound? I've always heard it's 3500 kcal per lb.

Thanks for the clarification.. Serves me right listening to others instead of doing the research. Anyway, it raised a red flag, and I found a huge discrepancy in the numbers.

heybales wrote: »

pridesabtch wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.. Serves me right listening to others instead of doing the research. Anyway, it raised a red flag, and I found a huge discrepancy in the numbers.

You found Garmin's correct field for TDEE alright, since they don't use that term, and have several flakey figures starting with RMR?

What tracker do you prefer for getting your TDEE?