Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: The Calorie Debate Thread page

  1. #1
    cerebelumsdayoff's Avatar
    cerebelumsdayoff is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    486

    The Calorie Debate Thread

    I thought this may be an interesting project, especially for all of us who like to have a nice friendly discourse regarding an important topic.

    The nature of calories -- even throughout this forum, there seems to be two principal schools of thought regarding calories: they either matter or they do not.

    Some claim that calories in should equal calories out. Some claim that it does not make sense of think of the body as perfectly tracking every single calorie that goes through it.

    I'd like to see what you all think on this subject matter.

    The traditional, even the CW, approach, is that to sustain your weight, you have to perfectly balance the calories you eat with the calories you exhume. However, calories are not "real" entities, as are things like fatty acids and proteins. If a person eats as little as one calorie over their "daily budget," then he or she is elibigle for weight gain over the long run. Also, the thermodynamic hypothesis (energy in = energy out) applies to simple systems functioning in one level of scale. Humans and other animals are multi-scalar systems that function at different temporal levels: the neuron funcions at a different rate than the entire brain in which it is nested, than the entire body in which the brain is nested, and so forth.

    However, many people claim to see results by following how many calories they eat. Then again, people even one hundred years ago did not have fit day, and people a centruy ago did not suffer from many problems we see today, even through all the grain consumption.

    Let the discussion begin!
    --
    Here it is, your moment of zen.

    It's a no brainer: The journal of the cerebelum

  2. #2
    cavemanj's Avatar
    cavemanj is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    173
    People from thousands of years ago also didn't have delivery or supermarkets. So it was difficult to stuff your face day in day out.

  3. #3
    Daemonized's Avatar
    Daemonized is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    2,253
    Personally, I think that since protein really isn't a major fuel source for the human body under normal circumstances that protein calories should not be considered or counted the same way that ones from carbs and fat are. I think that the mistake that we tend to make around here is to over consume fat by virtue of the fact that we are greatly reducing or nearly eliminating our carbohydrate intake.

  4. #4
    Nik's Avatar
    Nik
    Nik is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    89
    Interested to see how this plays out. I think calories matter. I don't seem to lose, unless I am under a certain amount, no matter how clean I eat. I can say though, that I am maintaining my weight very easily eating whatever I want from the primal blueprint foods......even when adding in an absolute ton of 85% chocolate (about 1/4 to 1/2 a bar a day).

    I feel like I'm pigging out, but not gaining weight.......haven't counted calories though since I haven't been trying to lose lbs.

  5. #5
    FlyNavy's Avatar
    FlyNavy is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    52
    Here's something I wonder about too after rereading the section covering Ketones in the BP. If we're in a mild state of ketosis...and once there, the body expels ketones (energy) in urine and waste products, then our effective calorie burning rate goes way up, correct? That might help to account and reconcile the two theories. Thermodynamic laws are kind of tough to get around.

  6. #6
    runnergal's Avatar
    runnergal is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    921
    I think at some level calories matter. Yes, if you eat more than your body needs you will pack on weight.

    What is wrong with CW is the notion that your metabolism is totally unaffected by what you put in your body. (so in ketosis in pp calories in still equals calories out...there is just a higher out than in other scenario)

    However I do not think a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Even CW doesnt when it comes right down to it. They will SAY that insulin resistance leads to lower metabolism...but then go back to calorie is a calorie....but you have to assume a lower burn. If you do any research at all into diabetes even from CW sources it will say that one of the issues in managing type II is that once the insulin resistance starts the body increases hunger and decreases metabolism so you get fatter which makes the diabetes worse which makes you hungrier and fatter until you fall off a cliff.

    As to 100 years ago...People simply did not eat the quantity of processed food that we eat now. Period. I think that if the magic food fairy came down and eliminated all processed foods and all you could buy was unprocessed foods it frankly wouldnt matter much if you were vegan or paleo, high fat /low carb or hc/lf. The majority of people would be healthy in about 10 years. Much of the remaining damage would clear up in a generation. Much of the necessity for lower carbing (to the point of needing to restrict fruits, veggies and nuts) that you see on this site is to repair damage caused either from eating poorly earlier in life, or they are finding, in utero.

    Food was just more work. You didnt run out and get a big mac and fries. At best you probably baked your bread and made the patties and sliced the potatoes and fried them in oil. Maybe you bought bread 100 year ago, probably not 150. Mom probably didnt take too kindly to you eating an entire loaf in one sitting if she was kneading it for hours.

    I (blushing slightly) have the Little house in the praire cookbook. In it she documents what a typical farm breakfast was for Almanzo when they were married and living in the ozarks. By ANY diet it is a feast of gargantuan proportions. But they both worked their ass off to make that food. Maybe they bought flour or sugar, but they also hacked the heads off their chickens and plucked them. The time created to make food means you didnt wander into the kitchen aimlessly and scarf down 400 calories randomly while you try to figure out what you want.

    For what it is worth I think I am losing weight partially because I am eating food that encourages losing and partially because I am eating less even with the high fat. Satiety for me has decreased by about 700 calories a day. However I estimate my intake to by old formulas still be "too high" to be losing at the rate I am losing.
    Last edited by runnergal; 02-03-2011 at 04:12 PM.
    MTA: because it is rare I dont have more to say

    "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - my daughter Age 7

  7. #7
    gordo's Avatar
    gordo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    712
    The human body is a very complicated, well designed feedback system. If it's healthy, the system works and maintains the proper weight. Eat a bunch of crap and screw the system up and you get fat. Pretty simple, really. You aren't smart enough to do all this in a conscious way, so you'd better concentrate on staying healthy and let your body do the tricky stuff.

    Gordo

  8. #8
    kennelmom's Avatar
    kennelmom is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Upstate of SC
    Posts
    1,328
    Do calories matter? Sure. I also think it's funny that people think they can outsmart their body and figure out exactly how many calories are being burned. Your body can up and down regulate so many things to account for excess or deficits of calories. It's also pretty hard to know exactly what's going in the ol' piehole...calories vary and most of us use generic food databases...the gov't even allows up to 20% variance on food labels vs what's actually in the food. You combine what your body can do to adjust it's metabolism with the inherent in accuracy in logging food (even if you are a meticulous weigh/measure person) and it's all basically a crap shoot. I think tracking can be VERY helpful though in keeping people from binging. It also makes them aware of what they're eating and I think that spontaneously makes people eat less.

    If it were JUST about calories in/calories out, then weight loss would be linear. There would be no plateaus. Even on shows like Biggest Loser where they contestants are meticulously watched every moment, they don't see linear weight loss.

    What a lot of folks have a problem with - and this can happen even eating "real, whole, unprocessed" foods is eating for the sake of eating and not from hunger. This has been my problem all week. sigh. If I keep eating beyond what I know I need, I'm gonna gain weight. In this case, the system is working (my body isn't saying "feed me"...and in some cases it's shouting I'M FULL UP!) but my boredom and laziness is saying eat eat eat eat past what my body wants or needs.

    And that doesn't even get in to how stress/cortisol and other hormones can affect metabolism.

    I think nutrient density matters a great deal. Stephan Guyenet wrote a line that struck a cord with me with respect to weight loss - essentially you have to have a calorie deficit without the body thinking there's a calorie deficit. You do that with REAL whole, unprocessed, nutrient=dense foods - meat, veggies, fat. And, you have to have a GI system that can digest and absorb said nutrients...things like wheat and other grains break down this system.

    eta: I think about this a lot and find it a really interesting subject. I frequently change my opinion as I learn new stuff, so this thread will be really interesting to read!
    Heather and the hounds - Make a Fast Friend, Adopt a Greyhound!

  9. #9
    tfarny's Avatar
    tfarny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,478
    They matter, but if you are eating low processed carbs and whole foods, it will be hard to stuff your face enough to get fat in the face of your increasing metabolic rate and need to exercise constantly. You can do it though, I just did it this fall and am about to do it again (gain weight on paleo). I had to force myself to drink coconut milk and chocolate shakes before bed every night, literally. I was also COMPELLED to take brisk walks every night. Weird stuff.
    Calories matter but they are not the whole story.

  10. #10
    MalPaz's Avatar
    MalPaz is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    2,790
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    http://www.ketotic.org/2011/02/integ...logy-case.html

    this post in my opinion is $$, cleared up a lot of body functioning for me

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •