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


Kira