It's funny... this whole thread exemplifies why I chose not to work in the nutrition industry after collecting my nutrition degree. There is poster after poster, stating outright that the way to lose weight is X. And so many of the X's are different.... When I was a personal trainer people would ask me what they should eat... the most nutrition advise I would ever give was "eat food that looks as close as possible to how it looks in nature."
That was it really... It's very hard for people to take in so much conflicting info that's been gleaned from personal experience and apply it to themselves without getting confused. Especially people who don't know how to read a peer-reviewed journal article.
I think the best approach is probably the self-experimentation route. Unfortunately there isn't one method that works well for everyone... Eat, exercise (and record it). If nothing changes after a few weeks (weight, feeling, sleep, skin, energy, etc), make ONE adjustment, re-evaluate. Repeat.
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1259053][url=http://www.gnolls.org/3460/protein-matters-yet-more-peer-reviewed-evidence-that-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-calorie-to-your-body-part-iv/]Protein Matters: Yet More Peer-Reviewed Evidence That There Is No Such Thing As A “Calorie” To Your Body (Part IV) - GNOLLS.ORG[/url][/QUOTE]
This one is even more interesting.
[url=http://www.gnolls.org/3409/the-calorie-paradox-did-four-rice-chex-make-america-fat-part-ii-of-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-calorie/]The Calorie Paradox: Did Four Rice Chex Make America Fat? (Part II of “There Is No Such Thing As A Calorie”) - GNOLLS.ORG[/url]
I think what some people miss is how low of calories some women need. Some sedentary women may need 1000 calories a day. I can have 1800-2000 but I do Crossfit 5 days a week.
It's easy if you can eat a reasonable amount of calories to restrict but as you get lower, if you can't handle the hard working out, you are looking at not getting to eat very much. It's hard to stay not hungry and not malnourished on 1000 calories a day. Yeah, going from 3000 calories to 2400 calories is not hard and that's still a lot of food. But when you start dropping to 1000 calories that's overall really &^&*^&* hard and worth the time to monkey around with CICO alternatives.
[QUOTE=noodletoy;1258985][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]ummmmmmm......................... i thought cals were cals?[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
The thermogenic effect has more to do with the calories out part though
Everybody naturally assumes the calories in part of the equation is the part that people get wrong. That people who are overweight are just gluttons. But I have experienced the calories out part of the equation becoming warped over time, too. Tell me how many calories I should eat to lose weight if I am exercising 12-14 hours a day non-stop? Doing this, I reached a homeostasis where I was not thin and not losing weight and completely and utterly starving with my stomach growling every minute of the day. The calories out part was totally broken for me. Other people around me doing the same thing as me were emaciated. Why not me? It certainly wasn't because I was stronger than them and carrying more food. I consistently ate half a pound to a pound less of (dried) food per day as what is recommended for this kind of activity.
[QUOTE=sbhikes;1259129]This one is even more interesting.
[url=http://www.gnolls.org/3409/the-calorie-paradox-did-four-rice-chex-make-america-fat-part-ii-of-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-calorie/]The Calorie Paradox: Did Four Rice Chex Make America Fat? (Part II of “There Is No Such Thing As A Calorie”) - GNOLLS.ORG[/url][/QUOTE]
Yup your right. The whole 4 part series is actually quite good.
[QUOTE=Katie14;1258853]Are you saying that the processing of protein and fat burns more calories than the processing of carbs? Is that why you think I would lose more weight eating a low carb diet versus a regular diet even if calories and exercise are kept constant? [/quote]
It's definitely my opinion that we need good fats, good carbs and above all, good protein. Before eliminating bread, I used to try and make the bulk of my meal a bulk carbohydrate, like rice, potatoes or bread. Now I still eat rice and potatoes at dinnertime, but they are roughly the same volume on my plate as the meat I am eating, and less than the vegetables. Before they made up over half the plate (rice particularly).
I think that 'low carb' works for two main reasons.
1. People and animals 'overgraze' when they are deficient in vitamins and minerals, because their body tells them they don't have 'enough'. By eating more nutritious foods (that contain more vitamins and minerals) you will negate this overgrazing instinct
2. Fats and Proteins are satisfying, while carbs are not in comparison. Which is another trigger to stop eating when you have had enough
I think that the 'metabolic advantage' of eating low carb is quite overblown. But learning how to control my own hunger and not be a slave to it was an eye opening experience for me.
[QUOTE=Katie14;1258853]I think that most people don't count calories (or if they do many don't count correctly) while dieting. So it is difficult to know if people lose more weight because of actually eating less calories or because eating less carbs somehow burned more calories. Maybe being on a low carb diet causes energy levels to increase. So dieters subconciously move more throughout the day, thereby burning more calories.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I absolutely think that when your body thinks you are starving (you are deficient in something) then your metabolism is down-regulated, making the 'calories out' part of CICO a losing proposition. It's NOT just about calories in. It's also about calories out, and that's not just a matter of getting on a treadmill. It's having a good hormonal balance.
I am very interested in the idea that carbs versus fat doesn't matter so much if you control for protein. I know I've seen it mentioned a couple times.
My own personAl experiment, I've been tracking cals for a bit and it took minimizing sugar/ wheat before the scale started moving. But I'm still mid experiment so we will see.
[QUOTE=noodletoy;1258983][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]are the scare quotes necessary? or just to make you feel better about acting like you're explaining this to a child? are you suggesting my hormonal balance was the same at 42 as 22? that although i have clearly stated i tried typical cw methods to lose wight, which included cutting cals and increasing activity, still my weight did not budge?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]seriously? if i'm weighing and portioning my food correctly, now it's my fault because i'm eating a massachusetts apple instead of a new hampshire one? are you for real? if so, then you are even more hilarious than i have previously even considered. are people now supposed to send all their food to labs to be analyzed before consumption? or work with the tools available to a normal person and use usda counts as a framework and baseline?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]my [B]half-claim[/B]? gah, you're a tool.
there are plenty of reasonable people on here detailing their individual results with various blueprints. you keep on keepin' on that one size fits all.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
I'm saying you have absolutely no idea what your TDEE is, which is why you didn't have any success. You were clearly overeating. Now, you eat less calories than you did before, or you're simply more active now and you're exercising into a deficit. It doesn't matter if you tracked correctly or incorrectly. You did it wrong.
If you couldn't lose weight on what you think was 1600-1700 calories a day, it was because 1600-1700 calories a day was your maintenance. You should've tried averaging 1400 cals a day.
[QUOTE=Leida;1259029]Word! If only appetite got clued in. That's btw is where I disagree with Chaco. I don't think we are eating out of habit. It's pretty much unthinkable to me to eat as much as I did when I was young, and I am down to 2 meals a day - or trying to. But it's hard because I am hungry. Why I am hungry, I don't know. And I am hungry at any macro ratio and cleanliness level I tried.[/QUOTE]
The average human body isn't supposed to look like the cover of a fitness magazine. If you are truly eating a diet of whole foods and really sticking to it without sneaking in junk, you have to accept that your body doesn't want to look like what you want it to look like. If you want it to be thinner than what it wants to be, you have to go hungry a lot, and that isn't healthy. Those people on magazine covers and in competitions maintain that physique diet down in 6-10 week clips, hang there for a couple weeks to do photoshoots and for the majority of the year they're walking around with a much more normal build. Competition bodybuilders, the leanest people on Earth on competition day, hang around 10-12% bf most of the year. Most men can maintain that simply eating to satiety if their diet is clean and they work hard at the gym.