Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 150

Thread: Calories in/Calories out-what do we replace it with? page 3

  1. #21
    dboxing's Avatar
    dboxing is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    458
    Shop Now
    Quote 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.

  2. #22
    Nuance's Avatar
    Nuance is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    26
    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

  3. #23
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    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).

  4. #24
    barryman9000's Avatar
    barryman9000 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    355
    Quote 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.

  5. #25
    DFH's Avatar
    DFH
    DFH is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    1,778
    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.

  6. #26
    Sue's Avatar
    Sue
    Sue is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote 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.

  7. #27
    ciep's Avatar
    ciep is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Barneveld, NY
    Posts
    531
    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    DFH's Avatar
    DFH
    DFH is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    1,778
    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!

  9. #29
    Sue's Avatar
    Sue
    Sue is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,368
    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.

  10. #30
    quelsen's Avatar
    quelsen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lexington Kentucky
    Posts
    2,972
    Quote 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

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •