It’s not just about calories
lukejoycePT
Posts: 182 Member
Hello all. I just wanted to share something with you.
I used to post on these forums a lot and I would always say it’s not as simple as calories in VS calories out. I’d have lots of people saying that it is that simple.
So during lockdown (after a long strength bulk) I decided to do a cutting experiment. I would only track my calories and only worry about meeting my calorie goal and eating enough protein (around 120grams a day)
I would eat anything or drink anything I liked but tracked it perfectly. I would have a whisky a night, I’d eat chocolate or other foods that I would normally class as “treats” saved for my cheat days.
And you wanna know what I discovered.
It makes a difference. A big one. Especially the alcohol.
I didn’t gain weight, but I didn’t lose anything either
However, As soon as I cut out the junk and drink and ate at the same calories I started dropping again.
Ive tracked my weight daily since March. I’ve now lost over 10lbs and would have lost way more if I had cut out the cheat foods sooner.
Discuss?
I used to post on these forums a lot and I would always say it’s not as simple as calories in VS calories out. I’d have lots of people saying that it is that simple.
So during lockdown (after a long strength bulk) I decided to do a cutting experiment. I would only track my calories and only worry about meeting my calorie goal and eating enough protein (around 120grams a day)
I would eat anything or drink anything I liked but tracked it perfectly. I would have a whisky a night, I’d eat chocolate or other foods that I would normally class as “treats” saved for my cheat days.
And you wanna know what I discovered.
It makes a difference. A big one. Especially the alcohol.
I didn’t gain weight, but I didn’t lose anything either
However, As soon as I cut out the junk and drink and ate at the same calories I started dropping again.
Ive tracked my weight daily since March. I’ve now lost over 10lbs and would have lost way more if I had cut out the cheat foods sooner.
Discuss?
11
Replies
-
Either you’re not weighing, measuring and logging everything that you eat and drink, or you’re a medical anomaly. 🤷🏻♀️23
-
You didn't tell us for how long you tried this 'treat-laden' cut?
And were your macros different with and without treats? And the same number of calories in both cases?
And how do you know 'especially the alcohol' made a difference, did you have a period with treats and alcohol and a period with treats but without alcohol?
Without further info, I would guess it's to do with water retention.14 -
missysippy930 wrote: »Either you’re not weighing, measuring and logging everything that you eat and drink, or you’re a medical anomaly. 🤷🏻♀️
I weighed all my food and drink. I logged everything correctly.6 -
You didn't tell us for how long you tried this 'treat-laden' cut?
And were your macros different with and without treats? And the same number of calories in both cases?
And how do you know 'especially the alcohol' made a difference, did you have a period with treats and alcohol and a period with treats but without alcohol?
Without further info, I would guess it's to do with water retention.
I did the treats part for a few months. Calories were the same. Macros were similar but obviously alcohol is empty carb calories
Yes I had a period with no alcohol and treats of two weeks. It made a definite difference.
I thought about the water retention but I also took measurements 3 x a week. I know all about the woosh effect. However, I was seeing the water retention happen over the course of the week in weight fluctuations but at the end of the week my totals would be the same. Normally this would be lower, normally 1lbs lower.0 -
in terms of weight loss? eh, idk, my personal experience : last year I went through a month or two of drinking too much/eating almost nothing but junk after a very traumatic breakup and lost quite a bit of weight for someone with my stats (was still tracking and trying to eat *something* and thought I was eating above "minimum" in terms of kcal just that it was usually granola bars and microwave meals followed by a few glasses of wine - not my proudest moments). However, I also felt like complete poop.
Same kcal while not drinking alcohol and eating more "proper" food - I feel much better, I have more energy, I sleep better, it's easier to exercise. This is just me tho7 -
You say nothing about your activity.8
-
Totally agree! I replaced processed bars with eggs or apples (same calories) as snacks and started losing.2
-
Am I meant to take this seriously? You are attempting to invalidate CICO with a home spun experiment in which you have no way to properly measure CO? Alcohol is a depressant. The most likely answer is your TDEE dropped.
28 -
And what ingredients in those processed bars (or 'treats' in general) would be the 'culprits' then?5
-
Perhaps certain foods and alcohol causes you to feel more relaxed or sluggish and your workout performance and daily activity suffers, causing less calories burned? Otherwise if that were the case we could have people who are not able keep on weight some junk and they would not starve or could survive on less. Or bodybuilders trying to maintain their size on 5000 calories some alcohol and junk and they would be able to maintain on less calories and not have to eat that much food. So unfortunately it doesn't seem to work that way, would be nice for me though! I would love to maintain on less (I am an expensive and time consuming mouth to feed lol) and I eat junk and have wine all the time and I continue to lose weight. I hate feeling too full so the calorie dense treats do the trick, they are fast and easy to eat. For example I try to make my lunch something balanced and high in calories and nutrition, if I skip it or replace it with a meal shake, even a few days a week, I find my weight is on a downward trend because I just can't make up those calories elsewhere.
If you are getting proper protein and fibre and nutrition and have the calories for it, nothing wrong with some fun foods and alcohol in moderation.
9 -
An experiment of one does not science make.33
-
So during your experiment, you only tracked your calories but somehow your macros were the same during both periods? That seems . . . unlikely.
Either way, I'm not sure how convincing a two-week single person experiment is.
I'm sorry you find it impossible to lose weight while having a whiskey, but many people manage to do it. Earlier this year I shed about 8 pounds to reach a racing weight that I prefer and I had no problem including beer, wine, or a whiskey while I was doing it. So . . .11 -
Alcohol makes me retain water, and that water weight shows up on the scale. It takes 4-5 days for that water weight to drop off.
So...on-going water weight that dropped off when you dropped the alcohol is gonna be my guess.17 -
The change in diet mentioned by the OP (esp the whiskey), probably did slow his loss - in that he probably felt significantly more sluggish (particularly after the whiskey if he was no longer used to it)(he may have also not felt very well - somewhat upset stomach- if a sudden diet change) and his activity level (both neat and exercise) likely dropped quite a bit. .. but due to calories out shifting downward.2
-
The change in diet mentioned by the OP (esp the whiskey), probably did slow his loss - in that he probably felt significantly more sluggish (particularly after the whiskey if he was no longer used to it)(he may have also not felt very well - somewhat upset stomach- if a sudden diet change) and his activity level (both neat and exercise) likely dropped quite a bit. .. but due to calories out shifting downward.
Yes, if someone goes from a closely monitored diet to "I would eat anything or drink anything I liked," it's not at all surprising that it might result in some digestive/energy changes.
I think it's important to note that there are very few people who are advocating that we should eat and drink whatever we like and ignore nutrients. The point is that calories are what matter for weight control, but that we can't ignore the impact meeting our nutritional needs has on our energy and wellbeing. It's just that you don't have to restrict yourself to "eating clean" (or whatever you want to call it) in order to have the benefits associated with meeting your nutritional needs.9 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »Either you’re not weighing, measuring and logging everything that you eat and drink, or you’re a medical anomaly. 🤷🏻♀️
I weighed all my food and drink. I logged everything correctly.
OK, so alcohol affects your personal progress, and that's fine. Personal experience can be useful to others.
I've gone through periods of drinking daily, and no drinking, while logging carefully, and against a backdrop of the same basic eating style. As long as I accounted for the alcohol calories, it made no observable difference in my weight-management results. (This included periods of days to a week or so drinking more than one drink daily, which is seriously not a good health strategy for someone my size/age, so I'm not talking about a teaspoon of white wine, nor am I talking blind drunk daily. I consume alcohol somewhat regularly in general - few days a week - but full periods of daily (over) use are not lengthy, just for clarity.)
Some people seem to be like you, some seem to be like me. Cool.
I can't give personal comparative anecdata on treats vs. no treats, because I always eat treats when I feel like it, as long as I've already checked my nutritional boxes, and have calories left (or am willing to go over goal for some reason).
I'd expect a scale-weight impact from a significant reduction in protein (because of TEF differences), and maybe a little difference from variations in physical weight of food in transit to waste, fiber level, sodium level, absolute average carb intake (because of water balance needs), and possibly - small numbers based on some very slim science here - from simpler/highly processed (so higher/easier bioavailability) intake vs. more complex/"whole" foods intake.lukejoycePT wrote: »You didn't tell us for how long you tried this 'treat-laden' cut?
And were your macros different with and without treats? And the same number of calories in both cases?
And how do you know 'especially the alcohol' made a difference, did you have a period with treats and alcohol and a period with treats but without alcohol?
Without further info, I would guess it's to do with water retention.
I did the treats part for a few months. Calories were the same. Macros were similar but obviously alcohol is empty carb calories
Yes I had a period with no alcohol and treats of two weeks. It made a definite difference.
I thought about the water retention but I also took measurements 3 x a week. I know all about the woosh effect. However, I was seeing the water retention happen over the course of the week in weight fluctuations but at the end of the week my totals would be the same. Normally this would be lower, normally 1lbs lower.
To the bolded, no, strictly speaking, it's not.
Alcohol is empty alcohol calories. In some ways, it behaves like a 4th macro: Alcohol has calories, but it's neither carbs, fats, nor protein. (It's not a macro, i.e., macronutrient, because it's not a nutrient, of course.) It has roughly 7 calories per gram (as contrasted with roughly 4 calories per gram for carbs or protein, and 9 calories per gram for fats).
Of course, some beverages - thinking of things like beer and wine here - have a mix of carbs and alcohol contributing to their calorie total. Whiskey's calories are from alcohol. Aside from trace flavoring kinds of stuff, it's alcohol and water. Mixed drinks, of course, may have any combination of alcohol, fats, protein and carbs.
Frankly, your saying that "obviously alcohol is empty carb calories" gives me pause, when I consider how to evaluate your n=1 science experiment . . . which is not the same thing as saying I doubt your personal experience.15 -
I do think there is some truth in this. Processed foods (broadly defined) have a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect.8
-
gallicinvasion wrote: »You say nothing about your activity.
Activity was the same throughout. If anything I am training a little less now.
Those above who want to throw the science card out there or even suggest I just ate crap and didn’t log correctly. That isn’t the case. I logged correctly, I have cut and bulked many times. I weigh my food. I scan everything and double check. I food prep and have go to meals that I make regularly and have done for years.
I drink on weekends. Always have and still lost 1lbs a week but for some reason having one drink a night stalled my fat loss.
I’m not trying to say that calories aren’t the most important because I agree they are. But I’m saying, from my experience, what I eat and drink makes a difference at how fast I lose body fat.
And the guy above talking about alcohol being a 4th macro is talking nonsense. It’s essentially carbs that’s it. You can’t have alcohol without sugar. It’s empty because it doesn’t do anything for your body other than create An inflammatory Response.
Also when I said my macros were the same I mean in rough terms as in I kept my carbs below 150grams ate high protein and the rest are fats. But if we are saying that calories in vs calories out are the only factor which a lot of people on here preach then macros wouldn’t matter. I could eat just donuts and still get a six pack.1 -
Pure alcohol is actually the fourth macro. It is worth about 7 cals per gram.
According to the UDSA entry for 80 proof vodka:
0g fat, 0g protein and 0g carbs (sugar).
11 -
I have lost 90+ pounds eating basically tons of junk food over a little more than a year. I've lost 2 lbs on my 2 week vacation eating out. If your experience is science then so is mine, yet they're directly contradictory. So now what?
Additionally:
The first and longest stall in weight loss I had was after getting drunk on New Year's, the first time I'd been drinking in a year. Some limited, half assed testing since has shown the same results, my scale weight stalls out when I drink high proof alcohol.
But I've still been losing inches, which is a far more reliable indicator of fat loss than scale weight anyway.
So I've concluded that actually it's 100% just CICO. Your "experiment" is flawed on so many levels it's hardly worth discussing anyway. But alcohol causes some intense water retention, at least in my case and probably yours, and therefore seems to be the most obvious flaw.16 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »
... could eat just donuts and still get a six pack.gallicinvasion wrote: »You say nothing about your activity.
Of course not. You need adequate protein for six packs, plus some other stuff you won't get from pastry. You could get a flat stomach though. If you could handle how hungry a donut only diet would leave you for long enough anyway. Most can't.
I refer you to the Twinkie Diet as evidence. Google it, dude lost 30-something pounds just eating twinkies and a small amount of scurvy-preventing green beans.
9 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »gallicinvasion wrote: »You say nothing about your activity.
Activity was the same throughout. If anything I am training a little less now.
Those above who want to throw the science card out there or even suggest I just ate crap and didn’t log correctly. That isn’t the case. I logged correctly, I have cut and bulked many times. I weigh my food. I scan everything and double check. I food prep and have go to meals that I make regularly and have done for years.
I drink on weekends. Always have and still lost 1lbs a week but for some reason having one drink a night stalled my fat loss.
I’m not trying to say that calories aren’t the most important because I agree they are. But I’m saying, from my experience, what I eat and drink makes a difference at how fast I lose body fat.
And the guy above talking about alcohol being a 4th macro is talking nonsense. It’s essentially carbs that’s it. You can’t have alcohol without sugar. It’s empty because it doesn’t do anything for your body other than create An inflammatory Response.
Also when I said my macros were the same I mean in rough terms as in I kept my carbs below 150grams ate high protein and the rest are fats. But if we are saying that calories in vs calories out are the only factor which a lot of people on here preach then macros wouldn’t matter. I could eat just donuts and still get a six pack.
No, it's really, really not carbs. And some sources actually call it the fourth macro. (I wouldn't, because, as I said, it's not a nutrient. Technically, it's a poison, more or less - one that can be metabolized, within certain limits, and whose effects humans (and some other critters) enjoy.)
Sardelsa has helpfully provided the USDA info for vodka: Calories, but zero carbs, zero sugar, zero fat, zero protein.
And BTW, I'm not a guy. I'm a 64 year old woman, thank you very much. (I assume you decided otherwise based on my profile pic, or something. That's just funny. Yes, it's me, at age 60.)25 -
And when it comes to donuts and 6-packs, I think it's useful to consider this guy, who used to post here. He records his entire intake, for quite a long period of time, here (with a somewhat recent profile photo, and other progress photos along the way, plus his Insta ID if you need more photos):
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=141807961&p=822484731#post822484731
To the orthodox, his diet was pretty horrifying. Heck, to me it's pretty horrifying.
He also has a before picture here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/43824947#Comment_43824947
Individual results may vary, and all that.
10 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »gallicinvasion wrote: »You say nothing about your activity.
And the guy above talking about alcohol being a 4th macro is talking nonsense. It’s essentially carbs that’s it. You can’t have alcohol without sugar.
So without even addressing all the other nonsense in your post, this point you are absolutely dead wrong about. You are right, you can't have alcohol without sugar. But the alcohol becomes alcohol because the sugar gets fermented. Duh! Then it is no longer sugar!! This stuff is really Jr. High science class stuff.
"The guy" you are referring to is a woman as it says in her name. Unless you know some guys that go by the name Ann?
Besides that, your n=1 little experiment doesn't prove anything except your subjective perception of your own experience. If it makes you feel better to believe it, fine. But is doesn't disprove accepted science in anyone's mind but your own.17 -
pancakerunner wrote: »I do think there is some truth in this. Processed foods (broadly defined) have a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect.
For those disagreeing — my question is: what part of this idea/concept are disagreeing with??3 -
pancakerunner wrote: »pancakerunner wrote: »I do think there is some truth in this. Processed foods (broadly defined) have a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect.
For those disagreeing — my question is: what part of this idea/concept are disagreeing with??
There is no real evidence of this and all food is processed in some way or another. It is an overly broad statement that is not really supportable.19 -
pancakerunner wrote: »pancakerunner wrote: »I do think there is some truth in this. Processed foods (broadly defined) have a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect.
For those disagreeing — my question is: what part of this idea/concept are disagreeing with??
I didn't disagree I didn't even see your comment until now. But what do you mean by negative effects? Do you experience these when you have processed foods yourself? Or are the symptoms invisible and undetectable only to be seen later in life or when someone is in old age? I am just trying to figure it out since processed foods have been a blessing for me personally, without them I would probably be sad and very underweight.8 -
I continue to be shocked and surprised by the MFP community here that stubbornly defends eating whatever, whenever so long as you are caloric deficit for weight loss.
As though the number going down on a scale is the goal and holy grail.
I refuse to be intimidated by the disagree button.... Twinkie diet... As though that's good advice for someone wanting to have a healthy body. You want to be fit, you want to be healthy. You simply must fuel that goal. No one puts crap gas in a car to go racing. No one feeds fruit loops to a race horse. This concept of, it doesn't matter so long as it's within my calorie count is just an excuse for not making good choices.
People should make their own choices on what is fit and what fit isn't. If Fit to you means you need to be strict then great. If Fit to you means you can enjoy a cheeseburger and fries and milkshake, Great. Just stop telling people that the value of a calorie is equal. Value is the sum of what you're eating and nutritionally dense is not the same thing as a calorie.2 -
I continue to be shocked and surprised by the MFP community here that stubbornly defends eating whatever, whenever so long as you are caloric deficit for weight loss.
As though the number going down on a scale is the goal and holy grail.
I refuse to be intimidated by the disagree button.... Twinkie diet... As though that's good advice for someone wanting to have a healthy body. You want to be fit, you want to be healthy. You simply must fuel that goal. No one puts crap gas in a car to go racing. No one feeds fruit loops to a race horse. This concept of, it doesn't matter so long as it's within my calorie count is just an excuse for not making good choices.
People should make their own choices on what is fit and what fit isn't. If Fit to you means you need to be strict then great. If Fit to you means you can enjoy a cheeseburger and fries and milkshake, Great. Just stop telling people that the value of a calorie is equal. Value is the sum of what you're eating and nutritionally dense is not the same thing as a calorie.
This is where the context of an overall diet, over time comes into play. Nobody is recommending the twinkie diet. But, if you read about it, he also ate a few fruits and veggies and some protein. He lost weight but also, his blood markers improved. He made his point.
But I don't think that is really the point in this discussion. Literally no one advocates for a nutritionally void diet. And the value of a calorie is the same, no matter what the food is. The value of that food, nutritionally. can be vary wildly. So, to use your example above, the cheeseburger, fries and milkshake, what would be wrong with that in the context of an overall healthy nutrient dense diet, at the appropriate calorie level for that individual? It is a mistake to conflate calories with nutrition and the vast majority of people here know that.
And BTW, plug those items into the diary and see for your self. The macros for that meal aren't bad. Especially if there is some lettuce, tomato and maybe onion on the burger and the portion sizes are appropriate. While there may be some few people out there who might eat like that everyday, very few people do. It is really a strawman argument like most mono diet arguments are.19 -
pancakerunner wrote: »pancakerunner wrote: »I do think there is some truth in this. Processed foods (broadly defined) have a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect.
For those disagreeing — my question is: what part of this idea/concept are disagreeing with??
You can't generalize about "processed foods" as they are incredibly varied.
I just got a delivery of wild Alaskan fish (salmon, cod, and halibut). It's frozen, it's from far away, it's therefore technically processed.
Also, even if I were to focus more on what I think you mean by "processed foods" (and ignore the fact that the main processed foods I eat are things like canned or dried beans, dried pasta, canned tomatoes, cottage cheese, and feta -- none of which have a "negative metabolic, hormonal, or inflammatory effect" that I've ever noticed, I don't see it.
This week I ordered Indian food from a local place I want to support (and plus I felt like Indian food). High cal, and high fat, sure. Carbs depend on the amount of rice and I usually don't eat that much rice because I'm not that into rice. Does the food -- unquestionably processed -- have some negative effect vs. me making the same dishes at home (and then only the rice being processed, unless dried spices make something processed).? No, indeed.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions