What a wonderful topic, I have learned so much here, and Jay I understand what you mean about sitting on the couch eating, bee there done that, now I am eating less and walking more.
Kira, I am going to cut down a few trees and get the larger picture, eat healthier and don't sweat the small stuff.
There is evidence that some mammals may have two types of fat cells. One of the fat cell types stores energy for quick release and the other (brown fat cells) are part of a "long gone" hibernation cycle. This was discovered in bears who eat during the summer, store energy and then can sleep for months with only infrequent awakenings for urination and drinking water. They store energy in their brown fat cells. Scientists do not know if this occurs in humans. At the very least our bodies evolved to operate around feast and famine. Our ancestors would eat when food was available and then use the energy stored as fat when food supplies dwindle. Over our evolutionary history, those individuals who could most efficiently use the energy in food had a survival advantage. The problem for must of us is modern food availability. We live in a world where food seasonal cycles have been modified. We don't have to expend large amounts of energy to hunt and gather our food, we must visit the market. Adding to the problem is our energy expenditure. Most of use work in an office or sit in front of a computer screen all day and actually "do" very little physical work. To make the situation worse, we go out to lunch and have 1,200 calories of high fat, high sodium, and high sugar food. This causes our insulin levels to go nuts all afternoon and by dinner time we are hungry again.
I know that there are individuals who have metabolic problems, but most of use put on weight because we ate too much and we didn't burn the calories off. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. It happened one French fry, one pizza, one ice cream, and one margarita at a time. Our eating became part of our normal socialization. It was fun to go out to eat with friends because it stimulated us physically and emotionally and it comforted us.
So here we are with out fat butts and big guts looking for ways to solve our weight problems. We all want a quick and magic solution. We want a pill, we want a new diet, we want a new exercise, we want someone to give us the new and improved wisdom to get rid of our weight. But it really is as simple as getting rid of storied energy. If you eat too many calories your body will not use your storied energy. To lose weight you have to intake less energy and metabolize more energy expenditure. How you chose to modify your diet is a personal decision, but most diets work by reducing the total amount of calories you eat. It's hard to omit carbohydrates and not also reduce calories. If you're adding up points, someone figured out how many calories it takes to make up that point system. Whatever diet system you use, its going to take time, motivation and determination. And even when you lose the weight, you still have to keep it off.
As we all travel our own weight loss journey, it is important to remember that we are trying to break patterns that took us lifetimes to establish. Giving up food is like giving up a friend. Losing weight is very possible, but we must remember that dieting is not only difficult physically, its extremely difficult emotionally. So maybe the questions we all need to address are what role does food play in our lives? What were the triggers that caused us to overeat in first place? Why did we make the food choices we made in the first place?
Overall, for me it is calories in / calories out for weight loss.
But for my overall health, happiness, athletic performance, and emotional/physical well-being, I've discovered that I do MUCH better eating whole, natural, unprocessed food rather than heavily-processed convenience food of equal calories.
IMHO, the source of the calories IN has no bearing on the issue (barring disease processes, such as diabetes). You CAN lose weight on 3 chocolate bars a day. And if you eat one apple a day over your maintenance caloric intake, you WILL gain weight.
There is no doubt that you will feel FULLER and your diet will provide you with essential vitamins and nutrients your body needs to function properly if your diet is controlled and balanced. But in terms of simple weight loss, the source of the calories does not matter.
There is no doubt that one metabolizes simple sugars differently from protein. But you also metabolize protein differently from complex carbohydrates. And complex carbohydrates differently from essential fats. And essential fats from protein. This is simply a factor of biological digestive processes -- different processes are activated for different food components.
It comes down to personal choice with respect to dietary intake. If you like the Zone, go for it! If you like Atkins, go for it! If WW is your thing, go for it! Because they will ALL work, regardless of the source of the calories IN because they all work through some form of calorie restriction. And 100 calories over your daily maintenance values WILL result in weight gain, whether those calories are in the form of an apple or a 100 calorie pack of Oreos.
The general biological rule (barring disease processes of course) is that if you EAT more than you USE, you WILL GAIN WEIGHT. And if you eat LESS than you USE you will LOSE WEIGHT. The only variable that seems to be at work in this process involves the SPEED and PREDICTABILITY at which you lose weight. Your metabolic rates may vary from year to year, with age, daily activity, season, and so on. But I don't think one has to be overly concerned about the accuracy of BMR and the accuracy of output in a weight loss phase IF one keeps in mind that, for example, if you weight 244lbs and eat 1400 calories a day plus do 30 minutes of exercise a day, the weight will come off. Perhaps not as fast as you would like, and not in a linear fashion, but it WILL come off.
And sometimes I think we all take this weight loss business too, well, SERIOUSLY. We spend alot of time analyzing what we are eating and doing to DEATH. We obsess about stuff which may be not particularly useful. We can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak. And if you just keep that "forest" in mind -- if you reduce your calories and increase your exercise --, and stop worrying so much about the "trees" -- optimal food combinations, timing, number of meals, grams of protein, temperature of water, BMR, and so on -- things WILL work out just fine and your life will be SO much easier. My motto -- Keep it SIMPLE. Make a few (JUST a FEW) weight loss rules that make sense for you, and relax about the rest. I personally don't have the time to do much else!!!
JMHO
Kira
Awesome post. My views are very similar and I've voiced them several times here and I've been ridiculed by many. Glad to know there are some other people out there who agree with me.
IMHO, the source of the calories IN has no bearing on the issue (barring disease processes, such as diabetes). You CAN lose weight on 3 chocolate bars a day. And if you eat one apple a day over your maintenance caloric intake, you WILL gain weight.
I'll agree with this as well, with an added thing to consider - you're absolutely right that no matter what you're eating, 1500 calories in is 1500 calories, period....if your calories out are more, you'll lose weight, and if your calories out are less, you'll gain weight. But what people tend to ignore is the OUT of the equation...it's not like this number is static. In addition to varying based on your activity during the day, it also varies based on what you eat. If you're not fueling your body well (protein, vitamins and minerals, etc), that does have a (scientifically proven) effect on the calories out half.
I can give 2 examples of this. The first has to do with fiber digestion. Fibrous foods take a little more energy for your body to digest, so you burn more calories on days when you eat more fibrous foods than on days when you eat processed low fiber junk. The second example is caffeine - caffeine has a boosting effect on resting metabolic rate - you burn more calories if you had a cup of regular coffee than if you had decaf. There are compounds that effect the rate at which your body burns found in foods. And this is just talking immediate impact...not considering the muscle loss that can result from insufficient protein intake and a myriad of other nutritional deficiencies that can result in muscle loss, which of course, ultimately lowers your calories out as well.
So yes, if you eat 1200 calories of Snickers bars, and you burn 1500 calories that day, you'll be at a 300 calorie deficit, which will result in weight loss over time. But that kind of diet may also, over time, reduce the calories you burn so it's harder to create a deficit. I think choosing healthy foods, most of the time, helps to keep metabolic fires burning so you don't experience so much of that slowdown, which is why I eat a healthy diet (plus, it just makes you feel good).
Well, I think you've brought up the issue of "negative calorie foods" -- a theory that was popular for some time, where it was believed that because of the high fiber content, you had to use more energy to digest them than they inherently had. Celery was a primary example of this. As was watermelon. And there are diets based around this concept, and an equal amount of controversy about them.
You may have heard that some foods, because they are difficult to digest, will make you lose weight. Dubbed "negative-calorie foods," citrus fruits and celery have both basked in this flattering light in fad diets over the years. The problem is that it's not true. The calories your body burns in fueling the digestive cycle are minuscule compared with the calories in the food itself. Although chewing celery might seem like a strenuous activity, it burns about the same amount of calories as watching grass grow.
I personally err on the side of caution -- a calorie IN is important, and the calories to digest the food are for my purposes negligible. There is no doubt that these foods are more filling due to the fiber content and lower in calories than Oreo cookies, but IMHO they all add up. There are no "free foods", unfortunately. I know that WW considers non-starchy veggies as 0 point foods, but I tell ya, even though you have to eat alot of salad, the calories will still add up. Which is why I believe that most calorie counters still count the calories in the salad, celery, aparagus, and apples that they eat (apples are on alot of negative-food lists! Which means that you can eat as many as you want without gaining weight! If this theory is correct! I personally count my apples as 1 WW point...If I ate 20 a day, I know I'd gain weight...and there was an episode of a weight loss show called "X-Weighted" up here in Canada where a woman who was trying to lose weight ate an ENTIRE bag of apples on her 2 hour commute to work every day: her intake was 1200 calories as a SNACK, but according to the negative calorie theory, it shouldn't have had any impact. But it did...)
And the example of caffeine is actually a side-effect of what is essentially an isolatable drug compound. You can have caffeine without the coffee, and you can supplement with caffeine. So it isn't really the intake of the "food" or coffee in this instance, per se, it is the drug component of that food. Chocolate has some caffeine in it too, but I don't think that the effect of the caffiene in it negates its caloric content nor modifies it to any measurable extent. I don't believe there are many other foods without isolatable drug compounds, other than specific herbal remedies, that have this effect. I know that it has been claimed that increasing your dairy intake results in more fat loss, but alot of the studies out there have been funded by Dairy Boards!!! So believe at one's own risk!!! Others feel that dairy intake is responsible for increased body mass, so who really knows?
But, everyone DOES have a different path which is what makes this forum so awesomely interesting!
I am really appreciating all of this intelligent input from people...real people who had success losing weight. Not diet gurus or authors or nutritionists who have NO clue about losing and keeping weight off!! So much more valuble to me. Thank you. I like this thread and would love anyone else who has comments to continue to contribute.
Oooh, sorry if I wasn't clear - definitely not talking about negative calorie foods, nor saying that the calorie impact is as significant as, say, going for a run. Only saying that, if you eat over time a variety of foods that are high in fiber, and those are only slightly harder to digest, that collective impact adds up more than insignificant additional burn. But absolutely no foods are negative calorie or don't "count"...sorry if that's what my post implied, as it's absolutely untrue!
I was talking more about the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF, also known as Dietarily Induced Thermogenesis (DIT)), which is basically what your body burns per unit of intake to digest/process/use the calories you eat. For example, when digesting protein, you use a LOT more calories to either use as energy or store as fat than you do when you digest a simple carb. Protein just takes more of a bodily effort to get into usable forms than fat or carbohydrate. How much energy foods burn as part of this process also varies significantly based on whether you're using those calories immediately for energy or whether you're storing those calories (fat that is consumed and must be immediately converted to fuel for activity is harder to process than if that fat just is getting stored in fat cells). Some people estimate that up to 30% of calories eaten of protein are used in making that protein available for the body's use.
But even protein, which is the macronutrient with the highest comparative burn per unit, burns no more than a third (and some estimates say a lot lower) of it's calorie content through digestion...which confirms, as Kira pointed out, that there's no such thing as a "free lunch". No food has negative calories, period. But some foods do burn more to digest than others.
I have to agree that I believe it is as simple as calories in versus calories out.
I to believe That most diets do work if you strictly adhere to them. I've had success with south beach and with Atkins. however It doesn't work for me long term... I needed something less restrictive that is the great part about calorie counting nothing is truly out... it's like having a bank account. It's best to spend you calories wisely on a huge salad or for the same amount you can have cake and ice cream. but that works for special occasions like next week I'll be attending a wedding. I know I'll want a slice of cake. and that is ok because I will fit it in my "budget" and I'm pretty sure I will still loose that week. it all boils down to burning more then your taking in.
and I think the bottom line for most diets is even with low carb or low fat you automatically be taking in less calories..
for example I am only counting calories however I am now natuallry eating less fat and less carbs. because... I get brands that have the least amount of calories typically these will also be lower in carbs, sodium and fat... it's about balance finding the healthiest versions of things. not cutting out the foods you love but twisting them and finding a way to make them healthier. or simply having smaller portions of those foods.
There are completely different metabolic pathways used by your cells to extract energy from the various food types (carbohydrates, fats, and proteins). The easiest energy conversion for our cells is found in carbohydrates, especially simple sugars like glucose and sucrose. Honey for example has already been digested by the bees and goes instantly into our bloodstreams. Some carbohydrates can't be digested at all - fiber. The hardest and most time consuming energy extraction is with proteins. This would explain why diets high in protein leave us less hungry for longer periods of time. So it does make a difference the kind of calories we eat and rate of weight loss. If you consume 3000 calories of steak, your body has to spend a lot of time and energy to extract the energy from the steak. If you eat 3000 calories of Krispy Kreme donuts, they will literally melt into you bloodstream as glucose.
I too am going to agree with the whole concept of yes, calories count.
Where I feel the difference in myself as far as dieting goes and what I actually eat, if the better the food, the better I feel. I think many of us will agree with that.
If I eat cookies, I will crave cookies, and then end up eating half a box, and then be too hungry at dinner to only eat a small salad to compensate for the wasted calories.
So.....no boxes of cookies for me.
As far as my concern for my macros, I do focus on increasing my protein, as a higher protein, lower carb diet does make me feel more content. So I'm aiming for 100g or more a day. The more protein I eat, I naturally eat less carbs, and I'm not talking low carbs, just lower carbs. I eat a lot a fat and don't worry about it.
Until my bodyfat is so low that manipulation of my diet is in order, I'm not worrying about it.
Just wearing my GoWear Fit has made a big change in my head over all this.
Calories counting is a much different concept than all calories are equal. Unfortuanately it is the latter that is often incorrectly assumed by the "calories in/calories out philosophy.
If you are losing weight well, and aren't plagued by severe hunger by restricting calories (as long as you're diet isn't so skewed it could cause other health problems), there probably isn't reason to do any more (dietarily, I'm leaving exercise completely out of the equation). However, if you have hunger issues, or find that restricting calories isn't yeilding reasonable weight loss, or find yourself constantly fatigued - it's time to consider tweaking, and I would recommend starting with a food journal (and perhaps even a health journal also, if you have any health issues you'd like to determine whether there's a dietary component).
As tiresome as detailed food/health journals can be, I would strongly encourage anyone not feeling their best or not losing well to keep one - meticulous in details and accuracy.
I didn't even start mine as a weight loss project. I was having severe and debilitating health problems and weird symptoms and going from doctor to doctor and test to test trying to get a diagnosis (ultimately I got several, but still the biggest component isn't fully identified. I have autoimmune disease, probably of the connective tissue because it eroded cartilage in my nose, but it hasn't done enough organ damage to warrant a diagnosis, which the majority of autoimmune diseases are diagnosed by).
I was more surprised than anyone could be that lower carb dieting allowed me to eat more calories, with less hunger and lose more weight than on the same number of high-carbohydrate diet calories. Some of the weight loss is obviously excess water. If I am retaining water, it's generally because I ate more carbohydrates than I know is my ideal. Refined carbohydrates and even excess whole grain and healthy carbohydrates also aggravate my health issues. Part of my autoimmune disease is a very nasty, and disgusting looking and painful sebborrheic dermatitis. I've found a combination of only two things that can prevent flares, zinc (dandruff) shampoo and keeping my carbohydrates to a moderate level (I've recently read a theory that grains, especially gluten grains, not necessarily carbs aggravate autoimmune disease - since I never differentiated in my food log, it has made me consider going back to the detailed logs and experimenting with a grain-free diet).
I am not saying that calories don't count, or that everyone processes carbohydrates like my body appears to. But there's a relatively easy way to find out - document your eating, water, sleeping, activity, moods, hunger, health symtoms (maybe even body temperature).
A very interesting effect I found in my logs was that carbohydrates seem to affect my body temperature. On lower carb eating, my body temperature tends to be much closer to average (closer to 98.6, and on a very low carb diet sometimes even over). For years, I thought that I just had a low normal body temperature (often under 97 degrees), now it seems that low carb eating actually "turns up my furnace," as body temp is one indicator of metabolism.
I do think that just "eating less and moving more," is sufficient for most dieters - but I don't have any proof of that, it's just a gut feeling. The truth is we don't know how many people have health or genetic issues that make losing weight more complicated than calorie counting - but it's a good place to start, and if you never have to go further than that, hallelujah.
If I didn't think calories were important, my chosen food plan wouldn't have been an exchange plan which restricts calories as well as carbohydrate-rich foods. I just don't think calories are the only issue for many (if not most).
I once kept an actual log. I had my BMR as my goal caloric intake.
I then logged all activity using an online calculator. As well as all exercise on top of activity. (I usually eat healthy--just was eating way too much)
I had a column for goal calories. actual calories. expenditure. exercise. and then I had a running deficit for the total plan. I used the deficit to calculate the weight loss expected at 3500/lb. I also logged the actual weight loss.
It was always VERY CLOSE. So I really do believe it is about creating a deficit and all the PLANS are a way of finding the MOST comfortable way for you to create that.
You will not look very nourished on 1200 calories of snickers bars or just veggies for that matter. I think any plan should always include vitamins and supplements so you can always feel your best.
that manipulation of my diet is in order, I'm not worrying about it.
