Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calories in/Calories out-what do we replace it with?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dboxing View Post
    Yes…except that you can’t gain weight without calories. And, if you expend more calories over time than you taken in, your mass will be reduced. Therefore, calories have a lot to do with bodyweight.
    I've been changing my tune on this whole issue recently as I'm seeing more evidence that calories have very little to do with weight gain in healthy people who have a properly functioning endocrine system. The n=1 answer is I'm eating about 500-700 more calories per day now that I'm eating Paleo/Primal, yet I've dropped 25Lbs of belly fat and kept it off for over a year and I actually exercise a lot less now (almost no exercise in the past 5 months because we just had a baby).

    That shouldn't be humanly possible if cals in/cals out is the foundation for weight management.

    Just because we need "more" calories to gain weight, doesn't mean we will automatically get fat by taking in more calories per day. I'm not one to point people to GCBC, say read it, and consider that the end of the discussion... however the chapter about paradoxes discusses this, and if nothing else its very interesting. Some sedentary people increase their intake to from 2,000 to 10,000 cals/day and only gain 1Lbs, while others gain 30Lbs.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by AndreaReina View Post
      Unless you are severely sick (on death's door) you will not excrete significant amounts of caloric matter (sugar, protein, fat) in urine, feces, any other waste product.
      TMI WARNING

      On death's door? I think not - I have a gluten intolerance and a lactose intolerance and I had chronic diarrhea for years, which led to vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and I was supporting a weight of 140 lbs on around 3000 calories a day, with very sedentary activity. Honestly, nearly half of my food value was going in the toilet, and you could see it was undigested.

      I eat maybe half of that now. It is far easier than you think to eat food and not digest it. All I need to do is drink a glass of milk and I am right there again.
      Karin

      A joyful heart is good medicine

      He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot

      Mmmmm. Real food is good.

      My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread29685.html

      Comment


      • #18
        replace CICO with nutrition in nutrition used.... meaning, it is DIFFERENT for everyone. some people have different needs, diseases, different everything. some people are pale with white eyes and albino....some people tan like a mother f*cker....some people need more vita d, more zinc, more omega 3....

        when you figure out your nutrition needs in your body starts trusting and realizing your nutrition uses within your body...metabolism speeds up, stuff regulates

        the problem is when people think of CICO they are on an adventure to see how much they can possibly eat, or how much changing they can do to be 'able' to eat more...this misses the ENTIRE point of nutrition. thinking this way is...sick, wrong, unhealthy...and as stephen put recently, your using food as an automatic reward stimulant, again totally wrong.3


        this concept annoys me to no end its so flippin ridiculous
        Get on my Level
        http://malpaz.wordpress.com/

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by AndreaReina View Post
          In a deranged metabolism the body resists weight loss for any number of reasons (toxicity, malnutrition, pathogens, etc) and will actively reduce the metabolic rate. This is why sufferers of hypothyroid have a lower body temperature, feel sluggish, etc (same calories in, less calories out).
          if your suffering these ails you surely are not providing your body with the nutriton it needs, end of story
          Get on my Level
          http://malpaz.wordpress.com/

          Comment


          • #20
            To all those posting here who say they are eating more than they used to but not gaining and/or losing weight – YOU ARE STILL EXPENDING MORE ENERGY (or otherwise removing mass) THAN YOU TAKE IN. JUST AS YOU CANNOT GAIN MASS WITHOUT ADDING MASS, YOU CANNOT LOSE MASS WITHOUT TAKING AWAY MASS. Sorry for the shouting but this is silly. The logical conclusion of your position is that you could manipulate hormones and starvation wouldn’t happen.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by marcadav View Post
              I'm well aware there are worse things than thyroid disease as I live with some of those things. And, because of the things I live with, I have never been into self pity.

              I am someone who knows, from experience, that you can eat 1000 calories a day, put 5-10 miles a day on the treadmill, run after 3 kids (including twins) maintain 1/3 of an acre, etc and still gain weight. My proof-- after getting adequately treated, I now eat at least 1600 calories/day, put less time-at a slower pace-on the treadmill, no longer run after the kids, and the 1/3 acre yard was sold 3 years ago, yet I've lost 60+ pounds.
              Sounds great! It means more mass leaves (calories burned or lost) your body than comes in.

              Comment


              • #22
                I think about this a lot.

                I do feel that it is calories in/calories out....

                I am leaning that the issue is how the "out" happens. I know with pharmacokinetics of drug metabolism you can have two phenotypically similar people but due to a mutation in CYP 219 one person will be a regular metabolizer and one will be a poor metabolizer. Meaning if I gave 1 advil to both people the normal metabolizer will react as predicted and the level of advil in their blood will follow the expect pattern of going up, stabilizing and then slowly leaving.... the poor metabolizer will have blood levels where the plateau portion is significantly longer before the body starts to clear it.

                Like Boston and NYC can both have the same number of cars enter at the same time but due to the way they’re structured all those cars will come out at different rates and different ways.

                Tie the concept into the hormones that surround fat retention/insulin release etc.... and you can see how the same amount of calories could be just a blip for one person, but another, say with thyroid disease, it would be significant intake because of how the body processes it.

                I don't even think that it means someone is all that broken, just different. I do think it means they'll (and I include myself here) will have a much harder/longer road to the same results AND that you'll never know what will work for each person to get to their personal goals because although we all have the same basic plumbing that can "generally" respond... the actual intricacies of that response is as individual as a fingerprint.

                That's why I was drawn to PB... "Blueprint" is simply how to build something right? Like we might all want a house, but perhaps some of us will want 3 bedrooms and a study, while others will want 4 bedrooms and perhaps a third will want 2 bedrooms and a huge loft space.

                I like coming here and reading about all the different thoughts and struggles. It is helping me experiment and come to know how my body will respond as I apply the PB for who *I* am and what fits in my overall lifestyle

                Comment


                • #23
                  It's easy to measure the 'calories in', almost impossible to measure the 'calories out'. Your Basal Metabolic Rate can change from day to day, and everyone is different, so no one will ever come up with a definitive weightloss method that will work for everybody. I would love to have a meter that measured the exact number of calories I burn through the day. I think the whole deal is that one day you can eat 2500 calories and burn 2500 calories but the next day eat the exact same thing, do the exact same physical exertion, and only burn 2000 calories (or 3000).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by dboxing View Post
                    To all those posting here who say they are eating more than they used to but not gaining and/or losing weight – YOU ARE STILL EXPENDING MORE ENERGY (or otherwise removing mass) THAN YOU TAKE IN. JUST AS YOU CANNOT GAIN MASS WITHOUT ADDING MASS, YOU CANNOT LOSE MASS WITHOUT TAKING AWAY MASS. Sorry for the shouting but this is silly. The logical conclusion of your position is that you could manipulate hormones and starvation wouldn’t happen.
                    Now this is becoming semantics. I'm not suggesting that my body is some magic box from which calories go in but they never come out regardless of quantity, I'm suggesting that the ideas about measuring calories eaten and calculating how many you burn on the treadmill is almost complete garbage.

                    If I'm eating more now but maintaining weight, then yes, something is happening to the extra calories because they're obviously not being stored as fat. However, the fact that plenty of people, including me, are eating more but not gaining weight shows that weight gain is not directly related to calories in.

                    I don't even know from where your "logical conclusion" came, but it wasn't from me, and it wasn't from a place of logic.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      It occurred to me before I made the OP that calories in/calories out lacks a specific definition. This is pretty clear already because it means different things to different people.

                      I'm not going to suggest a definition yet, but I would say that my understanding of it is that weight is directly calculated based on energy in (calories) minus energy expended (basal metabolism to keep you alive + energy used in activity).

                      Here's why I know that is false-

                      Let's do a thought experiment, like the E=MCsquared relativity guy used to do.

                      Say you have a large number of identical twins, and they are selected because their weight matches, and their health is pretty much the same.

                      Now for each of the identical twins, one eats Primal, and the other eats crap every day, but they eat the same number of calories. The one that eats crap drinks a lot of sugar soda, twinkies, pasta, bread, and stops at McDonald's every day. They do exactly the same amount of activity as pairs, running, sports, whatever.

                      Continue this for years.

                      At the end, will they weigh the same?

                      Of course not! They ate the same number of calories, expended the same energy, but no way in hell will their weight be identical. It's impossible.

                      That to me proves calories in/calories out is false.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by barryman9000 View Post
                        Now this is becoming semantics. I'm not suggesting that my body is some magic box from which calories go in but they never come out regardless of quantity, I'm suggesting that the ideas about measuring calories eaten and calculating how many you burn on the treadmill is almost complete garbage.

                        If I'm eating more now but maintaining weight, then yes, something is happening to the extra calories because they're obviously not being stored as fat. However, the fact that plenty of people, including me, are eating more but not gaining weight shows that weight gain is not directly related to calories in.

                        I don't even know from where your "logical conclusion" came, but it wasn't from me, and it wasn't from a place of logic.
                        Look at it differently. When metabolically screwed up and eating less, metabolism was very low, may have even put weight on. When started eating more and looking at nutrition more closely, metabolism ramped up so able to eat more and maintain weight rather than gain. It all adds up.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DFH View Post
                          Say you have a large number of identical twins, and they are selected because their weight matches, and their health is pretty much the same.

                          Now for each of the identical twins, one eats Primal, and the other eats crap every day, but they eat the same number of calories. The one that eats crap drinks a lot of sugar soda, twinkies, pasta, bread, and stops at McDonald's every day. They do exactly the same amount of activity as pairs, running, sports, whatever.

                          Continue this for years.

                          At the end, will they weigh the same?

                          Of course not! They ate the same number of calories, expended the same energy, but no way in hell will their weight be identical. It's impossible.

                          That to me proves calories in/calories out is false.
                          CICO still determines whether weight was gained or lost in the most direct sense. But you're correct in your understanding that what you eat determines how the whole CICO process works in your body. This is why the primal-person in your thought experiment gets lean while the garbage-eater gains weight. One person's diet promotes health (and a properly functioning metabolism) while the other diet wrecks it.

                          On the healthy diet, the properly functioning body ingests calories and processes/uses them appropriately. On the garbage food diet the body is all screwed up (think leptin resistance, insulin resistance, etc), so the calories ingested aren't processed/used ideally.

                          CICO is still determining weight loss/gain in both cases. The primal person's "calories out process" just works better/correctly.



                          I'd still rather just say that what you eat determines how CICO will "happen" in your body.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Not exactly. If the twins do not have the same weight at the end of the experiment, CICO is invalid. That is my point.

                            CICO says (my understanding anyway) is that calories are THE ONLY number you need. We can agree that this is impossible, because the content of the diet mattered to the different twins.

                            Weight Watchers held to CICO until just recently and they admitted it was a mistake!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              What you eat does determine how CICO will happen in your body but mostly only in the beginning when your metabolism ramps up because of the nutritious, healthful foods. After a while metabolism may settle back down a bit and you don't see the same weight loss as you did in the beginning. Calories do matter.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by marcadav View Post
                                You, obviously, have had no experience with thyroid disease.
                                +infinity
                                Optimum Health powered by Actualized Self-Knowledge.

                                Predator not Prey
                                Paleo Ketogenic Lifestyle

                                CW 315 | SW 506
                                Current Jeans 46 | Starting Jeans 66


                                Contact me: quelsen@gmail.com

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X