The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 21

[cori93437]

Ah, Napoleon Dynamite...such a special place in my heart.

Use Katch-McArdle and buy a BodyBugg, if desired, for cross reference. They will likely be pretty close (~5% if I recall off the top of my head). I would be willing to bet that a lot of folks severely underestimate their TDEE on here...

This should get you a baseline for testing. Adjust +/- as required...

Did you mean overestimate?
I would think that underestimating TDEE would make life, and weightloss, MUCH easier...

[StackingPlates]

No, I meant underestimate...there have been folks I've worked with who underestimated their TDEE long enough to wreak havoc with their metabolisms which took months of reverse dieting to correct...

[cori93437]

No, I meant underestimate...there have been folks I've worked with who underestimated their TDEE long enough to wreak havoc with their metabolisms which took months of reverse dieting to correct...

And you think that a lot of fat folks trying to lose weight do this...
IME most people reduce just enough to show loss... not severe restriction.
But hey... I'm one of those people with a jacked metabolism, so who knows.

[StackingPlates]

I can only speak to my experiences and a LOT of folks do this (most of the time unknowingly).

[Lawyerchick12]

Yaaaaaaa it is friday, I feel like I have earned proscastinating the rest of my file work until monday so I am here on the forums a lot today. Anywho I am still reading the posts on this thread....

That's basically my stance, here. Calories in/calories out is perfect. What is flawed is the method of calculating one's calories because you may have a rare condition that causes your metabolic rate to be extremely slow.

For people that "eat 1200 calories on SAD and don't lose weight," 99% of the time they are not properly reporting their food intake. As studies show, this can affect calories by almost 50% - overweight people tend to underreport calories by up to 50% and underweight people tend to overreport. That's a fact.

In the rare case with someone with hypothyroidism or some severe metabolic genetic disorder, they may have such a slow metabolism that a calculator that puts them at a TDEE of 1,900 where they're really at 1,200 just for maintenance...well, there's a big issue there. But that's not a flaw in calorie theory. It's a flaw in the method of calculation. Perhaps SAD foods are destroying your thyroid and testosterone and eating primally fixes them - then there is a legitimate example where you can eat more primal foods. However, the calorie theory still holds - your recovered thyroid just increased your metabolic rate, leading to a higher TDEE. Anyone with a somewhat properly functioning metabolism - which is almost all of us - weight loss is going to come out the same if calories and macros are the same regardless of food choices.

You are very brilliant...srsly

I'm speaking in a different context than you are. Hypothyroidism likely isn't all that uncommon, but the cases are mild. Think of it like allergies - lots of people are allergic to dust, dogs and mold. They're annoyances. However, every now and again you'll see someone born that is allergic to water, or to a brother or sister. It's happened. Severe cases of hypothyroidism that are going to make a woman who's maintenance calories should be 1800 plummet to the 900-1000 level is very rare. That's what I'm speaking to. If you should at 1800 kcal maintenance and hypothyroidism has you sitting at 1600 - a much more likely number - that's still doable. You'll probably be taking in a 20% caloric deficit as recommended by most, so that person would still lose weight, just more slowly.

Exactly....inferring that hypothyroidism is a common phenominon based on a study that found that "as much as 10%" suffer from "some sort" of defective thyroid is as flawed a deduction as logical reasoning goes...

It is a well-researched fact that people with substantial weight to lose underreport calories, and usually quite substantially. Let's say you're in the small minority and you are tracking absolutely perfectly. Then you have to deal with:

1.) The inaccuracies surrounding the caloric content of food. As mentioned previously, calories are not measured properly because how they are broken down in a bomb calorimeter does not reflect how they're broken down in the human body. Even if you're tracking absolutely perfectly, Fitday is not.

2.) The inaccuracies surrounding TDEE calculation. Most people overestimate their activity level. Going for a 2-3 mile walk three times a week is NOT 3 days of exercise. Going for a 2-3 mile walk three times a week, then going to the gym to lift heavy 3 days a week is 3 days of exercise. Also, some calorie calculations take bf% into effect, which very few of us know accurately. Not to mention the equations used - depending on method, approximations can vary by up to 10%. That right there could be your "deficit" that has just disappeared.

3.) The inaccuracies surrounding your own metabolism. Thyroid issues, insulin/leptin resistance, genetic conditions - you may be an outlier that does not fit into the "calorie calculators."

The fact is, if you're not losing "weight," then you are taking in more energy than your body needs. The only way to truly find what works is to be consistent. The most successful people eat the exact same handful of meals over and over again. Go buy 1 dozen eggs and a pint of 1% cottage cheese. Eat that each day for a week. See what happens to your weight. The next week, it your weight doesn't change, do 10 eggs and a pint of cheese. If that doesn't work, do 8 eggs and a pint of cottage cheese. It's the only real way to find your maintenance - eat the same damn thing every day and increase or decrease portions until you get the results you want. And then you have to hope it's sustainable.

The more I do my own research, again, the more I agree with your reasoning.

I agree. The thing is Magnolia is not unique in her frustration; this is the plight of many people (most of them women) who are accurately reporting their calories. Even though I don't have much fat to lose, and I'm in a 'normal' range, I still have flab where it doesn't belong, and no matter what I do with the calorie games and heavy lifting, it will not budge. Like Magnolia, I track meticulously - I mentioned not even tasting food while cooking, but I have also weighed EVERYTHING to the gram on my scale - even sprigs of rosemary, which is really ridiculous. I cooked all my food without oil in the Forman grill, I went to lengths to accurately measure that probably bordered on OCD. Even if Fitday is off a bit, it wouldn't account for the lack of results I saw.

Sure, I'd bet a million dollars I have some devious hormonal highjacking behind the scenes type nonsense going on, but every blood test I've taken to figure out what comes back normal. You can write me off and say that I and Magnolia are some kind of outliers, but then there's another woman and another with the same story, who aren't underreporting, and after a while it's obvious that we're not outliers. We're probably the norm.

According to the OP article linked, "Overweight people are prone to underreporting food intake – to the tune of up to 47% in some studies!"

1) What about the OTHER 53% who WEREN'T underreporting?
2) Some studies show it's as high as 47%, which indicates there are studies that fewer than 47% are underreporting.
3) While it's credible that people tend to underreport calories, where are these studies the author referenced? How valid are they? There's no way to know, I tried to click the link for that comment but it appears to be broken or missing.

I do not think the percentages where being used in that context.

I didn't say it was fun. I did five months at 1000/day (all high quality primal calories) and lost the last stubborn 35 lbs. Yes. it sucked. But now it's done and I am not yo-yo ing at all.

Intuitive portion control for me was something I had to learn by making myself do it. It's a choice that becomes a habit.

One thing we have to get over is the idea that feeling hungry is somehow a pathology. It's just a notification from your body that it would be a good idea to start hunting now. I'm sure the Groks spent a great deal of their time experiencing hunger. It's normal and natural.

Given that our idea of hunting is a walk to the fridge door, it's not like ignoring hunger signals is going to hurt us any. Somehow the sensation of hunger often gets tied up with so many emotional overlays.

Glad to hear that. I think I might be in your same kind of situation my calories have been steady hovering around 1100.

Yes. Maintenance for me is about 1500 (what all the charts say would be blisteringly fast weight loss territory). Ignore all the charts and find your own numbers. I take a medication for epilepsy and a post-cancer drug that may be factors in why my metabolic rate is slower. "The charts" don't take things like that into consideration.

I counted for a while but have now moved to just "eyeball" portion control. So, counting doesn't have to mean shacking yourself to the food scale forever.

I totally agree with camel and magnolia that it is frustrating to have someone who has never needed to count calories tell you that you are "underreporting" your calories.

True talk

[jsa23]

So to sum this thead up in a sentance: To lose weight you need a calorie deficit, how easy that is to achive and mantain depends on many factors including; what you eat, what you do and who you are geneticaly and personally

Yes, yes, and yes.

[sbhikes]

I love picking wild mushrooms, and this year I would like to start looking for places near Calgary where you can pick mushrooms. So far I was thinking that everywhere here is some sort of a national park or private land where you can't just go and forage for mushrooms, and I am really scared of bears, because the wilderness is real here compared to where I grew up.

Supposedly the area I was in had black bears and grizzlies, but we saw neither. Only really old scat. I wouldn't be too afraid. Go a day or two after some rain and there will be lots of mushrooms. You probably don't even have to go very far from your car to find them. If you are really afraid of bears, get some bear spray. It comes with a little pamphlet about how to prevent having to use the bear spray. The pamphlet is more important than the spray and with the information in it you will know better how to stay safe in bear country.

[ciep]

So to sum this thead up in a sentance: To lose weight you need a calorie deficit, how easy that is to achive and mantain depends on many factors including; what you eat, what you do and who you are geneticaly and personally

Tribal Rob for the win!

[CaveWeirdo]

Calories are helpful to some extent, as long as you remember that they are a very approximate measure. Food is very varied - the avocado you are eating probably doesn't have the exact same amount of calories as the one that was used for an online food database. Human metabolism is very varied too - your own basal metabolic rate may be different to what the online calculator says, even if you did correct for weight, build, sex, activity level, etc.

You should trust calories about as much as you trust BMI, or the scales, or the tape measure, or the calipers - i.e. with a pinch of salt, and certainly not in isolation.

I'm not going to say I eat 3000 calories a day because I probably don't. I possibly eat 2500 calories one day and 1500 the next without even realising it, because objectively judging this is difficult. Even if you obsessively weigh and measure calorie intake and expenditure you'll still make mistakes. Using a bigger bowl than you normally use when scooping out your yoghurt - that'll increase your calorie intake without you realising it. Getting a fright when you have to break hard for a pedestrian on the drive home - that'll increase your calories burned without you realising it. These little things will add up over time.

'A calorie is a calorie' might be objectively, scientifically true. But if you're not 'fat-adapted' yourself, then you haven't the slightest iota what 'satiety' really is. Anyone that eats a primal diet of high-quality, nutrient dense foods, including a way-higher-than average amount of fat, can literally stuff themselves and still lose weight. There really is only so much full fat real food you can eat before you really can't eat any more, whereas carbs are ridiculously easy to overeat. Some people take a while to settle into it and gain at first but by listening to the body's signals it's possible to learn the difference between true hunger and just feeling a bit peckish. They're probably eating the same amount of calories as the conventional dieter, but the difference is in the quality of food. A conventional dieter will quickly become fed up, feel deprived, and if they have a strong willpower they'll become chronically malnourished. A primal eater will be healthier in the long term and have less cravings, and be less likely to quit and fail at weight loss.

I used to compulsively overeat, and weighed 238lbs. I've lost 33 lbs in 5 months, without having the slightest clue how many calories I eat every day. I can easily sit down and eat perhaps 1,000 calories of delicious primal food in one meal, then go many hours, getting on with my life, not thinking about food, turning down offers of chocolate because I'm really not that bothered about it any more. 'Less calories in' might be sound advice for some people, but it is completely meaningless to me. 'Real food', 'full fat', and 'try quitting gluten', these phrases are better, they are not vague concepts based on imaginary numbers, they are easily-implemented rules to live by, that have certainly worked for me.

[cori93437]

'A calorie is a calorie' might be objectively, scientifically true. But if you're not 'fat-adapted' yourself, then you haven't the slightest iota what 'satiety' really is. Anyone that eats a primal diet of high-quality, nutrient dense foods, including a way-higher-than average amount of fat, can literally stuff themselves and still lose weight. There really is only so much full fat real food you can eat before you really can't eat any more, whereas carbs are ridiculously easy to overeat...

That statement is absolutely completely ridiculously FALSE.