Here's the scoop, as I see it

For some of us, it is a calories in vs calories out scenario. Expend more energy than you take in- lose weight.

For others, the above does not work. Or, it may work but only on an insanely low number of calories. For these people, they must watch their carbs to lose weight. There is no magic number; each person is different. How low we need to go in our carb intake probably has to do with genetics, carb sensitivity.. and maybe a metabolic syndrome that emerged with time and a high carb diet. These are the same factors that probably differentiate people who need to low-carb vs people who can just calorie count.

I can understand why it's hard for some people to believe this because if calories in vs calories out were my reality, I'm not sure I would be able to say that for some people it just doesn't work like that.

However, for youself, why not do the calorie thing first? The odds are that you will be able to lose weight this way, and not have to "resort" to low-carbing if you'd prefer not to. Then, once you give that a fighting chance, you can see from your results if any additional changes are required.

All the best to you and GL with whatever plan you decide

We were just talking about this specific topic at the 100 lb club yesterday. If you have a chance take a look at it. I was the one who personally brought up this line that you just mentioned. And I still don't understand it, but of course I don't have to understand it. Perhaps it may be a whole other ball game for those who have gotten to the point of having to lose 100+ lbs.

Whatever the case, I hope you find a plan that you are willing to stick indefinitely to take you to your goals when you want to get there.

Here's the link:
http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/100-...your-head.html

What a great link rockin robin, so many intelligent thoughts over there putting things in perspective. Thanks!

When my youngest was born a friend looked at me and said there is no secret to parenting just whatever works for you and the child (well for me per se more than the child) anyhow that is how I approach this part of my life also whatever works and when it stops workiing try something new. I don't pay one lick of attention to the ads, articles or promotions but I do file it away as useful information.

Whatever works, works for me

"Calories in, calories out," is true for everyone - just not in the way most people mean it.

Calories in, calories out is often misinterpreted to mean that a person will always lose the same amount of weight on a consistent number of calories, regardless of where the calories come from (Snickers bars or lettuce). I do not lose the same amount of weight on 1800 calories of high-carb eating as 1800 calories of low carb eating. I lose better on low-carb, which doesn't prove that calories in, calories out doesn't apply. It only means that carbohydrate content is affecting the equation in some way (it may be the calories in or the calories out part of the equation).

Often, people saying "calories in, calories out," are making assumptions about the equation. One being that calories in can be entirely and precisely controlled, and also that calories out is a constant or can also be precisely controlled. Those assumptions are flawed. You can't decide, for example to maintain your body temperature at a constant 98.6. If your body temperature drops because of what you're eating, you can't "choose" to elevate it back to 98.6.

I don't know all of the reasons that I lose more on 1800 calories of low-carb, than on 1800 calories of high-carb foods, but I do understand some and have suspicions about others. All of them can be applied to calories, in calories out - but I will ever be able to control the calories out part of the equation as well as I can control the calories in.

For one, my body temperature is actually higher on a low-carb diet. It's weird, and I never would have guessed, except that body temperature was one of the things I monitored in my health journal for a while (at my doctor's suggestion - to monitor my temperature, that is, not that it could be affected by my diet). Making the connection between body temp and diet was actually accidental.

My "normal" body temperature is far under 98.6. Usually 96.8, but often it fell under 96 degrees. My average body temp has gone up almost one whole degree.

Then there's fatigue. When I eat low-carb (as long as I don't reduce carbs to Atkins induction level, that causes severe fatigue), I have more energy on fewer calories. When I eat high-carb, I have more pain issues and I fatigue more easily. I'm also hungrier and more food-obsessed. Just the lack in energy means that I burn less.

On high-carb and junk foods, my sleep is affected (also learned through my health journal). When I eat lower-carb, I sleep better, longer, and probably deeper (I remember fewer dreams, and my neurologist says that is actually a sign of deeper sleep). I can't really "choose" how long or how deep I sleep (I'm on disability, so I don't use an alarm clock. I wake up, when I wake up).

Even the calories in part of the equation isn't as static as people often assume. Foods and other variables can affect how completely you digest your food. Although calorie counters count all of the calories in food, not all of those calories are digested. This is why birds and many other animals eat poop or eat things out of the poop - either their own or that of other animals.
Corn and seeds are a perfect (if gross) example. They can leave the body fully or partially intact, and then (if it is available to them) other animals will eat the poo or the corn/seeds out of the poo.

Cats don't digest their food very well, which is why dogs will often eat cat poo - the poo is still full of meat (We learned that icky fact when we had a dog that considered cat poo quite the delicacy).

So who gets the calories, the animal that ate the corn the first time, or the critter that ate it from the poo? One may have gotten most or all of the calories, or they may have split the difference in some way. Your calorie counting book can't tell you how many of the calories you are keeping (digesting) and how much is leaving your body undigested. It's a "worst case scenario" at best.

That doesn't mean calorie counting isn't useful. Or that calories in, calories out is not true. It just means that the equation has hidden variables that we can't know. It doesn't mean that it's "anybody's guess," there are factors that we can discover through experience. An educated guess is possible with enough experimentation.

It's just really important to realize that there are unknown variables in the equation, and that we all aren't operating with the same equation.


Calories in, calories out can be useful, even for low-carb dieters. It's helpful to know that you cannot gain 5 lbs of fat from a 2 ounce candybar (in fact, you can't gain more than 2 ounces - that would violate the laws of physics).

It's helpful to know that exercise burns calories and builds muscle. Muscle burns more calories than fat, so we know that exercise can change the "calories out" part of the equation. Eating too little protein can prevent muscle growth and repair (thus limiting the calorie out boost you could achieve from exercise).

kaplods, that is very insightful, and I am intrigued by your body temperature going up which ulitmately means your metabolism is going up. Body temp is a good indication of thyroid function.

I think I have found my mojo with the exchange system--i'm not uber obsessed about every bite like with calorie counting, and I know pretty much how many calories each exchange has...so i am pretty sure I am taking in a good amount of calories for me--plus with the changing of the exchanges i am unwittingly calorie cycling--which always works for me. I have also been drinking a gallon of water a day. I used to pee alot. I stopped peeing so much. Now I am back to peeing as much as I used to...does that make sense? i'm not sure what is going on there...but I am drinking that water up! if I feel water logged, i eat a pickle or two.

I also carb cycle too. Because there are some days, i substitute starches for milk or meat...i really haven't craved a donut or cake or even a cookie, i crave chocolate and mocha. and i make a smoothie with milk and ice..yum.

i also feel blah on too much junk food/carbs . I have been craving eggs and chicken and good fats.

Thanks for the input everyone, robin, i will have to find that link and read that!

Unless one has a medical issue with certain foods....

for dieting/diet/nutrional purposes....

is it really more difficult than...

calories in ~ calories out....

exercise.....

eating commen sense amounts of fruits/vegetables/dairy/grains/meats and beans?

Regardless of medical issues, weight loss is ALWAYS simply a matter of calories in, calories out. No matter who you are, if you take in more than you need, you will gain weight. If you burn more than you take in, you will lose weight.

It's determining how much you're taking in, and how much you're burning that can complicate the equation (health issues are just one source of complication).

You don't need to understand all of the variables to get started, but if you find that simply cutting calories isn't working the way you expect it to, then you've got to look at the equation more closely. Why isn't the equation working out the way you expect it to?

Initially when I started losing better with low-carb, I assumed that the only reason I was having greater success, was because of the dramatic reduction in hunger/appetite. If that were the only reason, it would have been reason enough. It didn't change the truth of calories in, calories out, it just meant that I was taking in less, because I was less hungry.

When I discovered that I actually lost more weight on low-carb than on high carb even when the calories were the same, that was truly amazing - but it still doesn't change calories in, calories out. It just meant that for some reason when the calories are coming from low-carb sources, something about the equation changed. Maybe, low-carb foods are being digested less efficiently (that is I'm taking in fewer of the calories in the food I'm eating). Or maybe it somehow increases the calories I burn (or some combination of both). I don't know which, and I don't need to know which. I just needed to notice the result and use it. It doesn't change the truth of calories in, calories out.

I'm not convinced that all of these variable differences are a result of specific health issues. Besides which, even of the health issues that doctors agree affect the equation, many (perhaps even most) are difficult or impossible to diagnose.

I know that I have several health issues that are known to suppress metabolism, but calories in, calories out still applies to me. Before, after, or whether I was ever diagnosed, the course of action is the same.

It leaves everyone in the same boat, with the same life raft. You solve your equation by experimentation, and you start with the simplest experiment. If your simple experiment doesn't work, you try something a little more complicated, and you keep experimenting, until you end up with the simplest experiment that is effective.

Portion reduction and/or activity increase is one of the simplest form of the experiment. If it works, it can end there.

If you find it doesn't work, or doesn't work as well as you'd like you have to refine the experiment. Maybe you have to actually have to log and count calories or exchanges or WW points.....

If that doesn't work as well as you'd like, you may have to tweak further...

Ultimately and ideally, you end up with the simplest strategy that works.

Colleen you are the best!

I'm hugely in favour of tweaking as you go! No matter what works for anyone else on the planet ... your successful plan will be yours alone. And it will develope over time.

You, Jendiet, have found something that is working. You don't need to change anything big. If it's working and you are enjoying yourself ... the only thing I recommend (and its more health related than weight wise) is to make sure your food is real. Natural, like it grows.

Thanks Susan, I think that is a huge factor. I am very sensitive to processed foods anyways.