Is it really calories in vs. calories out?
 

I mean, really, is it? Some of you are extremely successful at losing weight and maintaining via calorie counting. But, the same is true about all diets, right? I lost a significant amount of weight in 2005 and managed to keep it off until 2007 then put it back on. I lost it on Fat flush plan which has principals based in liver stressors and the such. It is very healthy. No sugar, wheat, gluten, yeast, or salt or dairy. But everything else goes. Anyway, the weight flew off but it's so restrictive that it was hard to maintain. But, it's the only time I've lost that much weight and stopped having my migraine headaches. As soon as I started to add back wheat and gluten...bam...headaches. So now, I started back on FF on the 8th of July. I'm down 7 lbs and bloating is gone, eyes are clear with no dark circles and not a headache since. But...I struggle with boredem with food. Also, my husband and I have very little time together and like to spend maybe once a month, staying up late, having a glass of wine or 2 and a snack or 2. It's not often but he and I both look forward to it. Anyway....do any of you think that it really is as basic as calorie in vs. calorie out? Or , could it really be more about the liver being able to metabolize fat more efficiently without all the other stressors. Just really want to hear others opinions. Thanks in advance.

I think for some people it is that simple (at least where weight, not always health is concerned. 1200 calories of snickers bars isn't a good idea for anyone), and for others it may be a bit more complicated.

I find that for me, where the calories come from do matter, and I think it's because some food choices affect both the calorie in and calorie out part of my equation.

High carbohydrate, especially processed foods increase my appetite and being hungrier, I find it more difficult to stick to a low calorie plan. I believe it also affects the out part of the equation, in that following my food diaries, I lose more on 1800 calories of low carb vs 1800 calories of high carb (so my guess is that changes how my body processes calories).

I do notice energy level and activity differences also. On too low carb of a diet, I'm prone to headaches and lightheadedness. Exercise is difficult, because I feel like I'll throw up or pass out. On too high carb, I also notice a drop in energy level, and find it almost as difficult to be active. There seems to be a window of maximum potential for both weight loss and energy/exercise.

I do best on an exchange plan that limits, but does not eliminate carbohydrates. I know that I lose faster on very low carb, but I think the trade-offs aren't worth it.

My personal suggestion is to go with the least restrictive plan that works for you.

For me, any plan that had me cutting out anything would not be sustainable and therefore would not "work". For me, cals in/cals out works. And what keeps me most full is eating more fat and protein and fewer carbs.

I eat 60-70 grams of fat per day, 70-80 g. of protein and around 140-175 g. of carbs (that's from looking at my Sparkpeople numbers this week.)

And bodies need salt.

I come from the "it is that simple" crew. Eat less, exercise more. Eat fewer units of energy, burn those units and thensome=weight loss.
I've lost on Atkins in the past, and I remember someone pointing out to me the number of calories I was eating on Atkins. It was about 1200 per day. So even though I wasn't eating the refined sugar, flour and carbs, I was eating my calories with "whole" foods.

Hang on...got to step off my soap box :)

It totally is that simple!

I personally chose to make my calories count. I'd much rather spend my calories on something that will fuel my body than on something that'll make me feel like crap for the rest of the day. But in my experience it really doesn't matter what I eat. If I keep my calories within my daily range the weight comes of. If I don't, they don't. There's not much more to it than that :). Occasionally I'll switch things up and do a week of Low Carb or whatever. It keeps it interesting, if nothing else.

It's a life change not a diet. If I want cake, I'll have cake... I just budget for it!

Best of luck to you!

I believe that, for most people, the reason most formal diet plans work is that they reduce calories. Some people are exceptions, but for most people, it's calorie reduction.

The difference between diet plans, IMO, is more related to how easy they are to stick with. South Beach, for example, cuts refined carbs to reduce further cravings for those carbs, which makes that plan easier to follow for some. Other plans make it easy to stick to a calorie level by eliminating foods or food groups.

But YMMV...if you only lose weight on a certain plan, that may be what works for you. So if you've got something that works, stick with it!

Yep weight loss and diet is a simple equation
calories eaten - calories burned = +/- net calories = weight gain / loss.
Its really that simple and people who tell you otherwise have no clue what they are talking about.

I get so confused when I hear *we have to eat to lose*, then I hear *eat less, exercise more*. Just can't wrap my brain around the 2 statements and figure it out.
If someone isn't losing weight, its suggested they UP their calories.

because if you are eating a very low amount of calories your body will hold on to it for as long as possible. (your body stores up thinking that you wont be getting very much food for a while so it is reserving what it can)

Mathematically yes you will eventually lose weight on a very low calorie diet, eventually, but not until after you could make yourself sick, your weight loss will more come from muscle mass than fat mass, and you could cause serious PERMANENT damage to your heart muscle, your brain, and other organs. I am a recovering anorexic, I know about VLCD from first hand experience. I caused myself permanent and serious health problems. We say up your calories when they are too low because we don't want to see anyone get sick.

Thanks, all! It is an ongoing debate, yes? I really value your opinions. I lost 76 pounds in 7 months (a couple of vacations thrown in, too) on fat flush. It works for me. Whether it's calorie defecit or liver efficiency, it worked. Mostly it's easy to follow and I'm really not hungry but occasionally, I want something. And I know that i need to fit those in order to stay the course. I need to be clear on what's a special occasion and what isn't. I'm far too forgiving. The other problem was I never really saw myself thin. I wore 8's and saw myself in 20's still. I don't know if time would've helped or not. I want the chance to see again. I have all these clothes I can't wear. Some days I want it more then others. Some days I'm happy being fat (sort of). When I look at my thin pics (if you want to see them go to picture trail, username kmac1196) I don't really see me. I mean they could be anyone, and I'm trying to use them as inspirational pictures but it's as good as using an unkown magazine pic. Ah, well....lots of mental work to do. I appreciate all your thoughts and for letting me whine.

Let's try to see the difference. If someone is eating 3,000+ calories a day while sitting on their a** in front of the TV, computer, etc., then "eat less, exercise more" is exactly what they need to do. They are overeating and storing more fat by the minute.

OTOH, if someone is working out 6 days a week and eating at a low calorie level given their size, age, and activity, AND they are not losing weight, then "we have to eat to lose" is what they need to hear. They are undereating and hanging on to everything they've got.

Does this help?

Jay

But those 2 things aren't being said to the same person, as noted above.

The problem with reducing weight loss to an equation is that many people forget that the calories out, the calorie expenditure is a black box. You cannot determine (except within a metabolic chamber) the calories out part of the equation.

By reviewing weeks of health log entries, logging my weight, food intake, exercise, and even sleep and hunger levels, I found that I lose more weight on 1800 calories of lower carb whole-food dieting than on 1800 calories of a higher carb and higher refined carb diet, and 1800 calories of lower carb eating feels like two or three times as much food as the 1800 calories of high carb eating (I'm satisfied with less, and feel less animal-crazy-starved).

The way some people use calories in / calories out - that shouldn't be possible. I "should" be able to eat "whatever I want," and as long as the calorie level is the same, I should lose exactly the same amount of weight.

But that would only be true, if calories out remained constant, and it doesn't for several reasons.

Again, by monitoring my log, I can see that I need less sleep on a lower carb diet, and feel less fatigued. One thing I didn't monitor in my health journal was my non-exercise activity. I bought a new pedometer the other day, and wear it all day. I have started logging my mileage, each day. But I suspect that when I'm eating my ideal lower carb, but high veggie diet, that I put more miles on, just in normal activity than when I'm eating high carb.

I think the problem with thinking of the human body as a calorimeter/furnace is that the fuel can change the speed at which the calorimeter/furnace burns.
500 calories of broccoli does not act in the body like 500 calories of fat and sugar.

You can use the calories in/ calories out, as long as you realize that the calories in can affect the calories out.

Another minor, but confusing issue is that of dietary fiber. Humans cannot digest cellulose (dietary fiber), so it has no calories "to us," but cows and other grass and tree eating animals can. Oddly, nutrition labels don't always subtract the calories in fiber from foods, because it is technically a carbohydrate that has calories (you can burn hay in a furnace, but if you eat hay it will come out the other side, calories intact).

With the SAD (standard american diet) there's not a whole lot of fiber to worry about the calorie differential, but it is a small part of the calorie in/ calorie out equation that needs to be understood.

The burn more, is the most difficult part of the equation. Food calories are relatively easy to monitor (and even the fiber accounted for), it's the burn more that isn't always perfectly simple. If your response to a lower calorie diet is for your body to start taking subtle "short cuts" to burn less, will you be able to notice it? My guess is "usually not," because even though I logged my energy level, my hours of sleep, even my mood - I didn't realize until I analyzed my journal that I saw all the little things that were slowing down my furnace when I ate higher carb, especially processed carb foods.

I do think that when I was much younger, there was less of a discrepancy. I didn't keep any journals then, so I can't say for sure - but I do remember believing and feeling my diet results reflected that calorie restriction, no matter the method, worked pretty much similarly. I don't remember ever feeling that I had cut calories and wasn't losing. When I look at what has changed, firstly is insulin resistance and borderline low thyroid (both scientifically determined to reduce metabolic {furnace} efficiency).


So yes, metabolism can be reduced to the mathematic equation, calories in/calories out - but the calories out is not finite or easily determined. It isn't a constant at all, but a function affected by many variables, including the source of the calories in.

I think that calories in/calories out is very important. I think that paying attention to calories, regardless of type, will also really help maintain a loss. It doesn't set you up for an un-maintainable lifestyle that the very restrictive diets (very low carb, no sugar, very low calorie) can set you up for.

However, I think that where the calories come from is super important in overall health state and can influence the pace of the loss in most people. For myself, when the carbs start to get very high, my weight loss slows. I aim for balance and sustainability while tracking my calories in/out. It does help, that I get way more bang for my buck (bigger portions, longer satiety etc) with healthier foods so I tend to gravitate that way. It's much more satisfying to eat a big bowl of white chicken chili than to have a tiny lean cuisine, for example.

To sum it up, for me, the type of calories do matter, but it's very important to pay attention to calories in/out.

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

:hug:
Kira

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?

Not sure where I fall in this line of thinking, but I've enjoyed reading everyone's perspective.

Thanks to everyone who added their thoughts.

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.

I really love all this talk! Thanks for everyone's input!

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.

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.

Time Magazine sums up current thinking about this topic quite succinctly:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...896346,00.html
In particular:

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.

A balanced assessment is given here:
http://www.healthstatus.com/health_b...calorie-foods/
and
http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight...ood-myths.aspx

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!

Kira

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.

Here's a great journal article that talks about DIT and how what is in your "calories in" can affect your "calories out" through food digestion:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/5

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.

Good post there, Kiramira :carrot:

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 :p 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).

being the experimenter that I am.

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.

re:
 

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.

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.

JMHO

Kira

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.

I agree at 1400 cs MOST people will lose weight!

...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...
:hug:
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.

:bday2::celebrate::bday2you::hb::woo::gift: :balloons:

Happy Birthday!!!

:hug:

Kira

Hee heehee.....thank you!!

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.