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?
ABSOLUTELY AGREE!
This is why I prefer a fasting type program--forces my body for a set period of time to use JUST MY FAT STORES. If I find I am hungry going to bed, I wake up NOT HUNGRY. it always amazes me. I love fast-5. Something about the empty stomach makes me feel powerful. In control of my hunger.
The high protein on an atkins diet reduces your hunger significantly..it really all boils down to less calories a day.
For me, it is easiest to achieve this by not eating until a certain time. then having a cut off time. I used to pack away 2500 cs/ day easily. I just loved to eat. I used to think I should weigh at least 300 lbs by the way I ate. Now, on this plan...I have to STRUGGLE to eat 1400 cs some days. I don't stress eat anymore because there is no room for it.
it really is about what method is MOST comfortable to you to create a running deficit.
I once kept an actual log... 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've proven that FOR YOU, that the source of the calories doesn't seem to matter. My logs proved otherwise for me.
And that I think is the real point, there is evidence (and even quite a bit of research support) that not everyone does lose equally well on identical caloric levels of different carbohydrate levels. For the studies that find no difference, I've often wondered about the age, weights, and general physical condition and body build of the research subjects. If the research subjects chosen were very similar to each other, it could explain why no difference was found. Often research subjects are drawn from a similar pool of volunteers (college students for example).
I know that when I was younger I didn't notice that calorie restriction wasn't the whole or only answer. I also had never experienced restricting calories and seeing little or no loss. As I've gotten older and had more health issues, I've found my metabolism to be much less predictable.
People may not lose equally well, but they WILL lose IF they are 100% OP and IF they are being ruthlessly honest about their intake. One can log as much as one likes, and really analyze what one is doing and see that different things have different effects and experiment, but IF one has a significant amount of weight to lose like I did at 244 lbs and is on 1400 calories a day and is walking for 30 minutes a day ONE WILL LOSE WEIGHT. If one isn't, one may need investigation for something like pituitary tumors (such as Cushings' syndrome) or other disease processes (thyroid disorders, for example). In the absence of disease processes, the balance between calories IN and calories OUT will determine a personal body weight. IF you want to lose weight, restrict your calories and exercise more. IF you want to gain weight, increase your caloric intake.
The biological fact is there, no matter how you slice it. I'm not making this up! It is what it is. IF you expend more energy than you take in, the difference is made up from your stored energy which is body fat primarily. And no amount of analysis will change this fact. You may choose to go about restricting your intake in whatever manner you choose -- low carb, no carb, intermittent fasting, whole foods, calorie counting, weight watchers, South Beach, Medifast, whatever works for you or fits your lifestyle --but it HAS to be done because weight just won't magically "fall off". IMHO, the key is just realizing that one will NEVER be able to identify all the causative factors or the physicial or psychological intricacies involved. The key is simply accepting the fact that in order to lose weight, one HAS to make sure that the balance between calories in vs out is favorable to weight loss.
And perhaps knowing all the answers just isn't important in the long run. Perhaps just saying "My plan isn't PERFECT and I don't have all the answers, but I'm JUST going to GO FOR IT" is what is needed. I know my energies are better directed towards meal planning, grocery shopping, and food preparation because that is where I get my results than they were for years when I was trying to figure out the "real" reasons why I didn't lose weight. The results of my YEARS of personal research were actually quite simple: I gotta eat less and move more. I don't think one needs all the answers to be successful -- one just needs to, well, get on with it and get the job done.
I'm absolutely certain that there are food choices that I make that aren't perfect, and that some things I choose to do are not as helpful as other things I could choose to do. And I'm sure that this is why I am a weight loss turtle. But SO WHAT??? At the end of the day, my weight is coming off, I'm happy, healthy, have a balanced diet, I get to go out for dinners with DH, I don't feel deprived, and my plan is WORKING for ME. And my path isn't for everyone. Others have great results with eliminating sugar from their diet. I think that is AMAZING and wonderful, because they are DEDICATED to getting the weight off and feel that by eliminating a food that is troublesome for them, they can achieve their goals. Their path is great for them. Others have amazing results with Calorie Counting -- their path works for THEM. But the consistant theme is that these paths are WORKING because they are restricting calories and increasing their exercise. They are on productive paths because they've accepted the basic biological fact that it is a balance between calories in and out.
For me this is the "forest" so to speak -- I want the weight off, so I need to eat less and move more. I have a productive path that is leading to my goal. The rest of the info is simply "trees". And I've spent enough time looking at the trees -- I HAVE to accept the fact that the FOREST is what is important. For me, the time and energy I spent in analysis became simply a distraction and wasted energy -- a way to rationalize my current weight and "inability" to lose what I wanted to lose. Only when I put aside the "trees" and focussed on the overall FOREST was I successful. Only when I accepted the basic biological fact of weight loss and put aside all the rest of the stuff was I able to focus on the task at hand and lose the weight.
So, it IS just that simple: the balance between calories IN and calories OUT will determine your overall body weight. How you choose to decrease your intake and increase your output is your own personal path and is valid for YOU.
i agree. I meant to put somewhere in my post just because the log proved the deficit of 3500 cs = 1lb theory worked for me--doesn't necessarily mean it will for all.
...but that is the only argument that I am making - that people may not lose equally well on 1500 calories of some foods in comparison to 1500 calories of other foods.
My only point in this discussion has been that a calorie is not a calorie in the sense that 1500 calories of high carb food may result in different loss than 1500 calories of lower carb choices for many people. The amount of difference may be due to a large number of individual variables, but the difference exists for many people, and telling those folks that a calorie is a calorie is tantamount to calling them all liars. For some people the source of the calories is just as important.
If you're happy with your rate of loss, then certainly don't worry about it (which I've said repeatedly), but if you're finding that you're restricting calories severely and the weight isn't moving much, or even if you're finding it harder to restrict calories eating high carb because of increased hunger, then explore other options. Not only medical diagnoses, but different proportions of macros, because sometimes it can make a difference.
I guess this is where we have to respectfully disagree and move on, because IMHO, it IS simply calories in vs calories out. We all metabolize foods pretty much the same way. Biological processes are what they are. Carbs are predictably metabolized in the same way between individuals, as are proteins, fats, fiber, and so on. The Krebs Cycle doesn't vary -- it is what it is. No human is so unique that they don't follow the rules of human biology, and even in disease processes, their biological issues are predictable within their disease processes. If you take in too much energy and don't use it, it gets stored. If you take in too little energy, your body takes it from your energy stores.
Experimentation to maximize a rate of weight loss falls under the category of "trees". The act of cutting intake and increasing output to lose the weight falls under the category of "forest". Which was the OPs question -- is weight loss a matter of calories in vs out...
Kira
I really love all of your viewpoints and differences in thought. I am beginning with my own calorie deficit experiment. Today, being my birthday, I will have movie popcorn(no butter) and cake later (no icecream)...I will fit it in and I worked out already. The rest of my day is going to be healthy, meaningful eating with protein and veggies and carbs....and so it begins!!!!! At this point, I'm not sure speed will make me happier then enjoying my life and to stop obsessing about all the little things......I will be honest about my caloric intake and eat lovely, healthy, delicious food but I want to enjoy my life....to be continued.
Kira - The discussion is on if it is really calories in v. calories out for weight loss, or maintenance I imagine. For the last month I've eaten at below my maintenance level of calories - I've averaged 1800 calories consumed per day and I log absolutely everything, down to the 1 pretzel or two froot loops I pick up out of habit. Some of the days these calories have been from stereotypically 'bad' food choices. - ice cream, some candy, popcorn at the movies, that kind of thing. Other days I have been great with my protein, etc. But, even with those foods my average is I have burned an average of 2700 calories per week in exercise according to my HRM. Today I weigh exactly the same thing as I did on 6/22. Which is within the same five pound range that I have weighed for almost a year, with similar levels of exercise and eating at the same maintenance range with more 'bad' food choices thrown in than when I was losing weight.
If it is only calories in v. calories out with no consideration for the foods we eat, why do I weigh exactly the same today? I have a deficit of almost 12,000 calories over the four weeks.
ETA - not that I disagree with the basic 'calories in/calories out' principle - it is absolutely true. I also agree that some people are impacted by the foods that they choose as well.
Last edited by Shannon in ATL; 07-20-2009 at 01:46 PM.
I'm talking specifically about weight loss. During a maintenance phase, I believe that there are certain biological responses that may kick in, that allow individuals to maintain weight while eating fewer calories than usual. Hence the restrictive diet people, who eat 30% fewer calories than their maintenance levels and more or less maintain their weight. Usually this is attributed to a decrease in BMR during off hours so that their bodies conserve energy when no demands are made on it. And it seems to me that over time, those on long term calorie restriction will gradually lose weight until a balance is re-established. Which is why those on this type of diet in the long term are quite, quite slender. It takes time, but I believe it DOES happen. It may also account for weight loss plateaus, which are temporary in nature, during a weight loss process. But if you keep at it, you won't maintain, say, 250lbs on 1200 calories a day forever. So I suspect that if you keep up your routine for, say, a year, you WILL see some weight come off, even in you are at a maintenance level, until you reach a balance. And if you severely restrict your calories as anorexics do, you will eventually die. Again, a result of calories in vs calories out.
And in a maintenance phase, one is trying to find the exact teeter-totter balance between calories in vs calories out, where you are in stasis, the nitty gritty and the details become much more important. I think it might be easier in the weight loss phase because it is quite simple to just get that teeter-totter over to one side. But finding the perfect balance, where you know what goes IN, your personal BMR, the effects of exercise and so on, would be quite difficult. I can tell you, I'm going to find that part of my journey quite challenging! But I can hardly wait to get there!!!
I was only addressing the OPs question about losing weight (is it as simple as calories in vs calories out) and if you have lots to lose, as I did, I believe that it is this simple, and just an observation that the more I obsesses about the minor details during the weight loss phase, the less I was able to focus on losing the weight. And there appears to be an almost inverse relationship between the degree to which one obsesses about the little things and the amount of weight actually lost. Not politically correct to say, I'm sure, but just a personal observation, because I used to be there. And amongst all of my friends in my similar situation, this type of inverse relationship almost always holds true, too.
I think the calorie differential may be a "tree," but it may be a much larger tree for some people. It actually is possible for someone who has quite a lot of weight to lose, to have difficulty losing on a high-carb diet. On 1800 calories of high carb, I lose less than 1 lb a week - usually much less. On 1800 calories of very low carb, I lose 5 to 6 (but the carb level has to be much lower than I think is healthy, as I also feel a bit dizzy and light headed).
That's more than a small, insignificant difference, it's a pretty big tree. So my solution has been to try to find a compromise, and I'm having such difficulty doing so that I'm rethinking my hesitancy to follow a stricter low carb diet, because I lose consistently on a low carb diet, and do not on a high carb diet (and even sticking religiously to it, find myself unbearably hungry).
It should in theory be impossible for me to maintain my current weight on 2200 calories, but on high-carb food choices, it's happening. I even considered the possibility that I was eating in my sleep and started looking for unexplainable food disappearance. So unless I was driving to McDonald's and hiding the evidence before driving home (all while asleep - and there was no unexplained money absences either), my body has been doing the impossible.
It's a pretty big "tree" when my metabolism shuts down that thoroughly. If it were a matter of losing 2.0 lbs per week on low carb, verses losing 1.5 lbs on high carb - heck if it were a matter of losing 1 lb, vs 1/2 a lb, I wouldn't worry about the difference either. But we're talking about my metabolism slowing by a much more significant factor.
If given the choice between eating 1800 calories and eating 900 calories, I don't think it's a "tree" to choose 1800.
the more I obsesses about the minor details during the weight loss phase, the less I was able to focus on losing the weight. And there appears to be an almost inverse relationship between the degree to which one obsesses about the little things and the amount of weight actually lost. Not politically correct to say, I'm sure, but just a personal observation, because I used to be there. And amongst all of my friends in my similar situation, this type of inverse relationship almost always holds true, too.
Kira
Okay...yes, I certainly see this as a factor. I think that it needs to be said that losing weight is a mental game as well.
Last edited by kmac1196; 07-20-2009 at 05:23 PM.
Reason: spelling
re:
