The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 18

[Paleobird]

Personally I need to go start a thread on why I can't lose weight even though I've only eaten one meal today, I mean I can't be the coconut oil chocolate with cream and toasted hazel nuts I had for pudding, which I'm still feeling a bit sick from, but you can't turn coconut oil into body fat so it can't be that, and I only had a stir fry before that *burp*

Yeah, and before my one meal I had six bulletproof coffees but MCT oil is magical so it can't be that.

[Bron]

So after reading and posting on this thread, the answer that is appearing is that I must have lower calorie needs than I am calculating for. And like many others have posted-- it's super depressing to think about eating less, when I'm already battling hunger and white knuckling through it and calorie counting like a mad scientist.
So I should eat less, and less? My family already thinks I barely eat. I get more and more obsessed about it and become anorexic? Is that where this is headed?

Well the last few weeks I've been trying something different: no calorie counters and no weighing. Try to listen to body and not stress about it. Eat real food. I haven't weighed but I can tell from my clothes that I'm increasing a bit. But it's been a nice break from the constant roller coaster of feeling good because I've stayed well under my calories, and then disappointment at seeing zero change in the scale, day after day, week after week.

I've been reading at the smarter science of slim after he had a guest post on MDA the latest article talks about that continually cutting calories down and down is counterproductive. Ep.5 - Eating Less Doesn't Cause Long-Term Fat Loss (Side Effects of Starvation) - The Smarter Science of Slim with Jonathan Bailor and Carrie Brown

Like other have said, If my metabolism is already slow, do I want to damage it further?

I haven't read the whole thread (Not really interested in hearing people bag out others for their questions and confusion), so this may have been covered.

What about the other part of the equation though? Are you moving enough? I am similar (5ft, 103lb, have the tummy to lose after having 4 babies, but it's only about a pound worth. On my body, which is a very small body, it looks bigger though). If I have time off work (we get part of the school holidays off) I'll put on a bit of weight. But go back to work (where I'm a cleaner so I'm constantly moving and lifting), it'll drop off again.

I've worked out my intake should be about 1800 calories, buggered if I'm eating that tiny amount! So instead I up the exercise. (and just quietly, I love food too much to restrict myself. I'm pretty much full primal most of the time so don't get upset at myself if I eat a plate of cornflakes).

[Catharsis]

I've read little of this thread, mainly because I can accurately guess the content. But I'll say that if you're judging progress based on scales, then you're doing it wrong. If you suffer from a macronutrient phobia, then you're doing it wrong. If you get all of you're information and advice from message boards and the opinions of others, then you're doing it wrong. If you think it's better to be under weight than over weight, then you're doing it wrong.

People are way, way, way to obsessed with calories, carb counts and various tricks like fasting and "bulletproof coffee". Don't get me wrong, technically I "fast" daily only consuming 2 meals a day. But at the end of the day, the equation really is as simple as my avatar on the top left of this post. Stay off the damn scales. They're stupid and pointless. I'm biased, since being Celiac a week of gluten "binging" can result in 10-15lbs and untold inches gained, but that fact is missing the point. Being healthy isn't a destination. Being in shape isn't a destination, it's a process that requires constant maintenance. It's a lifestyle decision that requires not only being dedication, but also choosing to be realistic and level headed in your goals.

[BestBetter]

I'm sorry but I think this is a cop out. Sure it is easier if there is a label to read but there is nutrition info about everything on the web including grass fed meats and oxtail (I found livestrong.com has a good data base). Also there are programs like the SparkRecipes section of SparkPeople which help you calculate all the ingredients in say a stew and then divide that by portion sizes that you choose.

Yes, it's a little more work but it's doable.

When you're trying to stay close to 1,000 calories a day, even being the littlest bit off makes a huge difference. I'm sure there are online calculators that will tell how much fat/calories, etc are in an average piece of oxtail, but they can't account for variations in bone size/vs the meat vs. the fat, or seasonal variations in the fat vs. muscle levels in general. With farmer's market meat, I have no way to know if I'm getting 80%, 85%, 90%, etc... which makes a huge difference when there is very little wiggle room.

The onlne calculators can give you an estimate, which might be totally fine for a huge dude who has 2,500+ calories to spare in a day, but for petitie ladies, that variation can mage a huge difference. The problem is there is just no way to know.

[jsa23]

Another thing I've noticed about this thread: if calorie charts are mostly bunk and calorie counting programs are so wildly unprecise what the heck ?? How on earths a person supposed to follow CICO anyways, GOSH!
Stop ruining my life and eating all my steak!

The biggest mistake people make when counting calories is treating numbers as absolutes. You don't need to be 100% accurate with how you count calories, you just need to be consistent. Always treat 6 oz of 80% ground beef as the same number of calories, always treat 1 mile walked as the same number of calories, etc. You don't need to be perfect - fiddling with how you count with the goal of being absolutely precise can create more problems than it solves.

1. Track Calories, Track weight
2. Continue for a few weeks
3. Re-evaluate and adjust caloric intake based on rate of weight gain/loss compared with goal.

Anyone who thinks they need to know their exact BMR or anything more than rough calorie counts to use calorie counting effectively, is probably doing it wrong. Use your rate of weight gain/loss as a proxy for caloric deficit/surplus, and don't obsess over what your exact BMR is.

And above all else, eat real, whole, nourishing foods.

[merryish]

Estrogen dominance.

I would agree it's hormone-related in some way, though I think the jury's still out on the interactions responsible. Regardless, I'll take almost any theory over the often-implied "because they're lazy gluttons who can't be trusted to measure their own food."

[Paleobird]

You don't need to be 100% accurate with how you count calories, you just need to be consistent.

1. Track Calories, Track weight
2. Continue for a few weeks
3. Re-evaluate and adjust caloric intake based on rate of weight gain/loss compared with goal.

Use your rate of weight gain/loss as a proxy for caloric deficit/surplus, and don't obsess over what your exact BMR is.

And above all else, eat real, whole, nourishing foods.

This^^^^

[Voyageur]

This^^^^

But, it's so much easier to be fat and unhealthy and argue about the best way to become lean and healthy. I'm so glad I gave up these 'dicussions'.... they are pointless - people have to want to change. The poorest attitudes have the biggest waistlines, guaranteed. Seriously, who argues over energy balances' role in fat loss, aside from rationalizers and people selling books?

.

[Jena]

Great posts and great points! I have only been primal for a few months and while my long-term goal is to lose weight, initially I just wanted to get off the sugar and grains before focusing on that. I did lose some weight with no effort really, but now I am ready to start tweaking. I very much appreciate some honesty on here. I am learning what works for me and what doesn't. I went pretty heavy on the nuts, fatty cuts of beef, and cheese (shameful I know) for a while, but I definitely knew the calories were adding up. I think the only reason I lost weight is that it was so filling that I couldn't eat much of it. I have a workout buddy lined up to start with next week and have filled my fridge with fish, lean beef, chicken, and veggies! Very excited to get into the next phase of this thing now that I have kicked that nasty sugar/grains habit! Okay, well I will be ingesting copious amounts of good beer this weekend, but hell its my birthday. Thanks for the harsh truth! It's nice to hear that some people understand that accountability and responsibility are not extinct just yet!

[merryish]

So after reading and posting on this thread, the answer that is appearing is that I must have lower calorie needs than I am calculating for. And like many others have posted-- it's super depressing to think about eating less, when I'm already battling hunger and white knuckling through it and calorie counting like a mad scientist.

That's one possibility, but it's not the only possibility. If you're hungry all the time and already trying to restrict your calories, there's probably more going on with you than just imprecise mathematics.

The problem with CICO isn't that it's incorrect; it's that it vastly oversimplifies the workings of a hierarchy of incredibly complex systems that varies wildly from body to body. It's not wrong; it's just not helpful.

Being told you can't lose weight because you take in more calories than you expend is like having a doctor tell you you're sick because you have a virus. True? Sure. But it doesn't contribute to solving the problem. It doesn't tell you how to get rid of the virus or the symptoms, any more than telling people to eat less and exercise more has ever gotten rid of the problem of obesity.

My only problem with CICO is that so many people seem to think "You're doing it wrong! CICO!" is a legitimate response to all conversations about how our bodies deal with food. It's not; it's just a starting point. But I guess it's easier to say "CI=CO!" and rend your hair dramatically than it is to engage with people who accept the validity of the equation, but want to understand more about why it's so difficult for some of us to regulate those variables.

If I say, eating carbs makes me hungry for more carbs and also makes me lethargic, so it's hard to stop eating and also hard to work up the will to exercise, I'm not denying that CI=CO, and I'm not demonizing carbohydrates. I'm saying my ability to affect those two variables consciously is impaired when I eat too many carbs.

When people respond to posts like that with flat insistence that CI=CO or bust!, it doesn't contribute to the discussion; it just makes me think they aren't listening very well.