Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS"

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

  • Originally posted by Kingofturtles View Post
    1) University of Florida researcher J.W. Krieger analyzed 87 studies and found that those people who ate SANE calories lost an average of 12 more pounds of body fat compared to those who ate an equal quantity of lower quality calories.
    C.M. Young at Cornell University split people into three groups, each eating 1,800 calories per day, but at different levels of quality. The highest-quality group lost 86.5% more body fat than the lowest-quality group.
    In the Annals of Internal Medicine, F.L. Benoît compared a reduced-calorie low-quality diet to a reduced-calorie high-quality diet. After ten days the high-quality diet burned twice as much body fat.
    Additional studies by researchers U. Rabast (1978,1981), P. Greene (2003), N.H. Baba (1999), A. Golay (1996), M.E. Lean (1997), C.M. Young (1971), and D.K. Layman (2003) all show that people who ate higher-quality calories lost an average of 22% more weight than those who ate the exact same quantity of lower-quality calories.

    If it is just CICO why do individuals lose more weight on different diets that have the same calories?
    I actually do have an eye to my calories, as I have found as a 46 year old woman I need to or I dont lose weight.
    I think I have messed myself up with all the years of fad diets etc
    Last edited by annedawso; 08-02-2012, 03:52 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by annedawso View Post
      If it is just CICO why do individuals lose more weight on different diets that have the same calories?
      I actually do have an eye to my calories, as I have found as a 46 year old woman I need to or I dont lose weight.
      I think I have messed myself up with all the years of fad diets etc
      I think a big reason that low carb and primal work so well is the fix damaged metabolisms. They fix insulin and leptin resistance thus increasing the CO side of the equation.

      Comment


      • I don't trust you. And I never said eat whatever you want. That's the last thing I'd suggest. Eat real food. I don't want to hear about the 3 months you gave up starvation dieting and binged on bad food. I want to see you go an entire year eating real, whole foods. No vegetable oils, no refined sugar, no grains. Just meat, vegetables, fruits, tubers, nuts and saturated animal-based oils in the quantity your hunger desires. I bet you've never done that.
        I did this from February last year with 2 periods of Ultimate Diet between eating paleo/primal. Look, I just don't get it why you think that everyone but me over-estimate their calories and overeats, while I, by whatever reason, is the only one who is supposed to chronically under-eat. I did a CW for a bit when I lost my post-preg weight, but I have never had under 1000 calories not then, not even on the Ultimate diet (I think I managed a grand total of 2 days on like 900 calories) - following your advice, heh. When I was on CW, I continuously over-shoot 1,400 cals a day target (about 150 cals above my BMR at the time). Meaning that I... wait a minute! Ate to satisfy my hunger, not to comply to caloric goals!

        I gave up fasting because I don't want to go hungry, and I have been counting calories for short stretches this year. I almost never can hit target calories I set out for myself, because I eat more than I wanted. I cook with healthy oils only, eat copious amounts of protein, and do not eat grains, with a rare, rare exception, like when I was sick in Moscow and bread was the ONLY thing I could keep down. AFter 5 days of not being able to keep anything down, and on vacations... I would consider it an excusable measure.

        I am 5'6 and 1/2", sit all day except for an hour or so in the gym and a bit of walking, maybe a sprint a week and if I can a bit more cardio... and I am almost 40 y.o. Why the heck my maintenance of 1,600 calories (and a modest deficit of 100-300 cals a day) is a sign of 'damaged' anything? It's good 300-400 cals above BMR, which is what my activities would burn, more or less. I over-shoot my maintenance pretty much every weekend, just like every latest book, from 4 Hours Body to Ultimate Diet to everyone else out there is suggesting.

        All my lifts, when I compared them to the Strength chart from Crossfit actually put me in the pretty much right before competition grade for % of my body weight, so seeing I am old and not athletic (and has never been), not ideally built for lifting... it is more likely that I have reached my athletic ceiling, and will just not improve much from here. Average lifts for an average woman. I have no energy problems. I have not had sugar episode until I had that candy thing. My binging was related to my trying hard to adhere to the IF, again, following your advice. You are the big one for feasting and starving, not me. I prefer just eating the same amount or thereabouts, without inducing long-term hunger and then the feeling over being over-fed. High and lows induce binging in me. I have still to learn to stop at satisfied vs full, because I would like (as an average, normal, geneticlaly correct person) to go all the way to full. I also (just like every average person) tend to want the thing sthat are appealing to me, namely fruit, but I have family history and a diagnosis of blood sugar problems and I feel better without eating it, so I want to cut the fruit out. How's that unreasonable?

        I am very much like BestBetter, and a gazillion of other (in my case middle-aged) women who cannot shift below the average body fat about which a number of books and articles were written.

        Basically, what it boils down to is that I am too healthy to be pretty, with high appetite and fat percentage that sits on my frame in the post child-bearing fat pattern (hips and thighs, wider waist after child-bearing than before). Advising me to grow fat in attempt to get thin is incorrect because that sets me up for a traumatic experience and another unnecessary weight gain re-inflating the fat cells I have since my trying to get pregnant weight gain. It will lead to increased cellulite, hard few month gaining weight and then even harder months trying to lose weight. The more times a person does the fat to thin switch, the fatter s/he becomes, body composition wise. Particularly in a middle-aged woman whose body wants to store fat, and in a quantity higher than I carry now, particularly for an endomorph like me.

        I am not willing to risk adding more fat based on the hypothesis that I am exceptional; I am rather willing to continue to try to maintain slight deficit with an occasional overfeed, based on the hypothesis that I am just like everyone else. Or, more like every other women in her 40'ies, which means a propensity to storing fat, needing far less calories than an 18 y.o male and having to balance the fitness and macros in such a way that the appetite is not over-inflated artificially.

        In other words, I am in agreement with absolutely everyone about making sure you eat appropriate calories to lose weight from good foods and customizing macros to optimize personal satiation mechanism.

        1) Why is chicken breast in the perceived "bad calorie" section of that example?
        Not bad, it is contrasting low fat - no trans-fat, higher 'good' grains CW way vs high fat - not-grain carbs Primal way.
        Last edited by Leida; 08-02-2012, 05:53 AM.
        My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
        When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
          I'm not saying that this COULDN'T be good advice for some people, but i am an example of how this absolutely does not work (for me). I've had YEARS of eating just about whatever I wanted, and while I never got over 125, I also never been able to lose the extra fat no matter what kind of restriction I tried, caloric or macro.

          The only way I've ever been able to lose fat is by eating VERY low fat (as in 5-10 grams per day, usually) and low carb (which was also very low calorie). This results in the top half of me looking emaciated, while the bottom half is still chubby. My body would probably rather die than give up that stubborn fat, and no amount of overeating is going to change that.

          I think we just have to face that some people are meant to be thin and lean (like SBhike's sister) and some of us are not, no matter what we do or eat. This doesn't mean we still shouldn't strive to eat healthy, but no amount of food/diet manipulation will ever result in looking good for the lucky winners in this group.
          and just how tall are you? 125 is hardly something that would be considered grossly overweight. If you can eat whatever you want and maintain at 125 that seems like a good thing. You also sound pear shaped, which would explain why you look emaciated up top and still look "fat'. I am an hourglass and the twins and "assets" are the last places for weight to come out of.

          At 125 I would had tiny waist, flat abs but was still boobabious and bootylicious..lol, I am now 10-15 lbs away from that but still have a flat stomach. So body shape also determines where you store fat but at 125 lbs, I would hardly complain.

          Comment


          • And that is how everyone differs. I am 5'6 and 1/2". I weighed this morning at 125.8 lbs, still suffering consequences of my last overeating spree. I normally weigh in ~ 120-122 lbs range. I am heavy lifting, so I have large quad, I build up really good hamstring lately, so my leg is balanced except for a huge buldge on the top outer thigh. I also building up deltoid and trap, so I do not look emaciated up top no more, but not ideal yet, because my thighs make me look fat.

            My BF% shows up as 19% or so on the WW scale, so I am probably like 22-25% right now.

            Unfortunately, after pregnancy and childbirth, my waistline is a mess. I have a muffin top that I have never-ever had before I gained weight trying to conceive (I was 125 back then, and went to 135 lbs on the old wive's advice). Also, whenever I eat, my belly now does not stay flat like before, it rolls out making me look like I am pg again (and my daughter is almost 6 yo!), because of the stretching the baby did. Which looks great on a pg woman, but makes me look simply fat. My belly flattens out at below 120 lbs, looking slightly plump at 118 lbs. I am now able to basically tell my weight by how far my stomach protrudes. When I was at 114 lbs during the low of UD, water and glycogen depleted, I actually got the 'shrunken' skin look for the first time ever in my life.

            So my ideal look should be about 116 lbs, basically just slightly above the lowest 'healthy' BMI reading. A lot of women look just great at about 130 lbs. Not me.
            Last edited by Leida; 08-02-2012, 06:48 AM.
            My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
            When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
              I don't disagree that for SOME people, weight loss is really just about calorie restriction. Especially for the men.

              However, I STRONLY disagree that people with depressed metabolisms are an exception, and i don't know where the 2% came from, but if CICO was as clear-cut for 98% of the population, this thread wouldn't exist.

              If calorie restriction didn't lead to depressed metabolisms, then Lyle McDonald would not need to be pushing calorie-cycling diets. The fact that our bodies automatically reduce the CO part when we reduce the CI part means that fat loss is not something we are designed to do happily, our bodies will fight it, and we have to resort to trickery to prevent this from happening.

              In fact, if CICO was so simple for 98% of people, millions of diet books on the market wouldn't exist, low-carb probably would never have become such a huge deal, because all people would have to do is cut back on calories and viola! Fat loss. We all know it doesn't happen this way for MANY people, and that's why some people have decided that CICO is bunk. Instead of saying 'Get with the program, all 98% of you, just cut your damn calories!' i think we should focus on why calorie restriction DOESN'T work for so many people, and what we can do to fix the CO part, since that's what's gumming up the works.

              BTW, isn't it past your bedtime?
              Your logic and subsequent deduction is cruxed on so many faulty and flawed assumptions that I do not have the time to even enumerate.

              But no...just no.
              But

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Lawyerchick12 View Post
                I kind of agree and disagree with some points you made. Unless there IS sound data to suggest the whole reverse dieting, I call hog wash on it as well because like you, I tried the whole increase your calories to level off your metabolism and like you, I continuously gained weight.
                There is sound data on it. Reverse dieting is something used in clinical recovery for anorexics. There are plenty of people (men and women) who haven successfully restored metabolic function this way. The problem is that if you don't do it slowly and stick with it for longer than a few weeks, it won't work. You will see the scale go up initially but it does go back down. There have been cases of people who start reverse dieting and gain 10lbs in a few weeks by increasing their calories by a few hundred calories but a few months later are eating almost 1000 calories more (this of course depends on what the intake was they started at) and are losing or maintaining.

                I am a 5'4" woman. I was "maintaining" on 1700 calories at 130lbs while exercising over 7hrs a week. I stopped exercising and started reverse dieting. At one point my weight was nearing 140lbs, but I kept at it. My weight has returned to 130lbs and I know maintain on 2300 calories and don't exercise at all.

                Originally posted by paleo-bunny View Post
                I have to agree with this. You've clearly forced your metabolism into a downwards spiral through conventional calorie counting, Leida.

                That is not primal.
                Agreed. Lieda, your posts are painful to read. You need to stop dieting and worry about your weigh and calories and all that crap and just live your life for a while(preferably longer that a week or two).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Glockin Grok View Post
                  I think a big reason that low carb and primal work so well is the fix damaged metabolisms. They fix insulin and leptin resistance thus increasing the CO side of the equation.
                  I disagree with this. I never had insulin resistance, and my metabolism has not improved at all after a year of paleo low fat/higher fat eating. My body temperature is still way too low, and after switching to paleo, my already lowish blood pressure is actually now officially too low and causes me problems.

                  I think that the main reason people have success with paleo/primal (aside from the general health benefits of eliminating processed junk) is that eating high protein supports muscle growth, and good quality saturated fat keeps blood sugar relatively stable; therefore people usually aren't super hungry a couple hours after eating and don't need to snack all day long in response to low blood sugar hunger.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Lawyerchick12 View Post
                    and just how tall are you? 125 is hardly something that would be considered grossly overweight. If you can eat whatever you want and maintain at 125 that seems like a good thing. You also sound pear shaped, which would explain why you look emaciated up top and still look "fat'. I am an hourglass and the twins and "assets" are the last places for weight to come out of.

                    At 125 I would had tiny waist, flat abs but was still boobabious and bootylicious..lol, I am now 10-15 lbs away from that but still have a flat stomach. So body shape also determines where you store fat but at 125 lbs, I would hardly complain.
                    I'm 5'4. See, the thing is that on paper, 125 sounds pretty awesome, and for someone with your type of body, it probably is. However, I am pear-shaped, and the excess fat isn't where it should be; it's ALL in my stomach and thighs. So if you saw me in a bathing suit, even though I'm now around 116, I actually seem to be something more like 135-140 because of the disproportiate way the fat is arranged. If i had something that was close to a flat stomach, the scale could say 150 and I'd be fine with it, those numbers don't mean anything.

                    Comment


                    • Word for word, BestBetter! Wow, are you my mysteriously lost twin sister????
                      My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
                      When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lawyerchick12 View Post
                        Your logic and subsequent deduction is cruxed on so many faulty and flawed assumptions that I do not have the time to even enumerate.

                        But no...just no.
                        But
                        You can disagree with whatever you like, and if you have a reasonable argument or at least some proof, i'm all ears. This style of refuting someone's statement though is useless and pretty lame. It doesn't further any discussion, so why bother?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                          Nah, even the grain pushers admit that low carb is a faster weight loss action given equal number of calories, than is high carb/low fat.

                          I'd truly like to see how what some of the young men in this thread would look like if they had to eat only 1200 cal/day to maintain a healthy weight.

                          I'm also wondering if the 2% is a real number or is it being used for hyperbole.
                          That is not true. There is absolutely, positively no metabolic advantage to a low-carb diet. The only reason why low-carbers think this is because fat and protein keeps you fuller longer, so they aren't snacking and naturally eating a whole lot less calories. In every single controlled study ever done where meals were prepared for the people, low-carbers lost the exact same weight as the other groups. Example:

                          Ketogenic Low-Carbohydrate Diets have no Metabolic Advantage over Nonketogenic Low-carbohydrate diets | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

                          If you are having better success eating low-carb, it's solely because it better controls your hunger and keeps your hand out of the snack drawer. The "grain pushers" do not admit this because it's not true. You made that up.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kingofturtles View Post
                            1) Why is chicken breast in the perceived "bad calorie" section of that example?
                            It's not. I just used it as an example because it's very low fat. Chicken breast is the CW-wonder meat.

                            Originally posted by Kingofturtles View Post
                            2) More good news: Study after study confirm that we can achieve what Mark calls “effortless weight loss” by eating more of these SANE Primal foods. For example, in all of the studies that follow, everyone ate the exact same quantity of calories, but one group’s calories were of much higher quality (aka more Primal, more SANE):
                            That's all well and good, but there are no details of the "study."

                            1.) Were the meals prepared for the candidates? Or were they just trusted to adhere to an 1,800 calorie diet where they had to track their own calories? Studies show that most people don't accurately measure their food intake.

                            2.) Of course high quality whole foods are going to have a satiety advantage over processed foods that instantize in our bodies and leave us hungry an hour later. But that doesn't mean those calories make you fatter. Were the people fed poor quality calories snacking between meals while the people that were fed high quality calories were not?

                            3.) What is the macronutrient breakdown of the meals? If one group is fed a low protein diet and the other a high protein diet, the differences in body composition are going to be astounding. A high protein diet on a caloric deficit is going to yield much greater weight loss from adipose tissue versus a low protein diet. There is no reference to macros at all. Macros must be held exactly same same or this study is completely discredited.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • I'm 5'4. See, the thing is that on paper, 125 sounds pretty awesome, and for someone with your type of body, it probably is. However, I am pear-shaped, and the excess fat isn't where it should be; it's ALL in my stomach and thighs. So if you saw me in a bathing suit, even though I'm now around 116, I actually seem to be something more like 135-140 because of the disproportiate way the fat is arranged. If i had something that was close to a flat stomach, the scale could say 150 and I'd be fine with it, those numbers don't mean anything.
                              Don't attack me for this.... but have you considered Lipo? I feel like - you weigh 116.... you can't spot lose fat on your thighs and tummy.

                              I mean, I have a lot to lose, but if I was at a healthy weight and struggling to get the last fat off, I'd consider just getting it sucked out, lol. I hate to say it, but your body is probably just going to hang onto that fat until it has no choice. Women weren't meant to be lean, and mother nature can be a bitch about fat distribution (I have freakishly flabby arms- seriously- nice hourglass, I'll take the powerful legs that mean big thighs but I have seen slimmer arms on 300lb women and it ain't muscle.

                              http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
                              Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NDF View Post
                                I am a 5'4" woman. I was "maintaining" on 1700 calories at 130lbs while exercising over 7hrs a week. I stopped exercising and started reverse dieting. At one point my weight was nearing 140lbs, but I kept at it. My weight has returned to 130lbs and I know maintain on 2300 calories and don't exercise at all.
                                This is what I'm trying to do as well. I'm eating a lot more food than I used to and I have gained about 7 lbs. Some of it is clearly fat as my solid 4 pack as faded into a poor 2 pack (I'm guessing I've added 1-2% bodyfat), but my lifts have gone up through the roof and my clothes mostly fit the same. I'm just going to keep eating and not tracking and see where it takes me for the foreseeable future. The summer's almost over anyway, so I really don't care.
                                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X