Page 4 of 69 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 686

Thread: The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 4

  1. #31
    primalrob's Avatar
    primalrob is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    2,142
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    I love these CICO debates. They are so enjoyable . Really nothing new here as far as his blog. However, I'm much more interested in the other physiological ramifications and body composition than JUST weight. The more you learn in that arena the more interesting things get, so keep looking.
    thank you.
    the number one thing i want to tell people who post the "i'm not losing" threads is to look at things other than weight. if you're anywhere in view of normal weight range, time to stop chasing a number on a scale and look at some of the important stuff.

  2. #32
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,605
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Key concept #3 – current dogma
    Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend. This is almost true! To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended. Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write. The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat.

    If you believe Current Dogma, of course you’ll believe that “calories count” and that counting them (and minimizing them) is the only way to lose weight."
    You don't have to "count calories" to lose weight. You do, however, have to store less energy than you expend. There's no way around the fact. You can do it based on hunger, but you have to find foods that allow you to eat a suitable volume that you can sustain indefinitely that allow weight loss/maintenance or whatever level you're looking for. For many of us, that is NOT coffee swimming in butter, ribeye and avocado. They're too calorically dense. Chances are, a 12oz flank steak will leave you just as full as a 12oz ribeye, and you'll do it for 30% less calories. Does that mean you can't eat ribeye? Hell no! But you can't eat that stuff every damn day. Eggs, bacon and rib meat is not a realistic, sustainable diet. You need to break up all those fat calories with something. Vegetables and fruits are great ways to add bulk to your plate without adding a lot of calories, meaning you can eat a large pile of food without eating a large amount of calories. It's shocking how many calories are in a pile of 80% ground beef, or eggs, bacon and cheese. They're great, healthy foods but they're not the best foods to break through a setpoint plateau.

    I don't count calories. I get stressed, depressed and obsessed. All the bad "-essed's". And eventually I'll break down and eat a bigass bowl of ice cream and give it all back. I can't live that way. I'm much more successful being mindful and eating more reasonable foods. This means eating lean meat more often than fatty meat. I don't care, I like lean meat, too. It's not a dirty word. But it's what works, and I can maintain my body composition effortlessly. Sure, I don't have chiseled 6 pack abs, but I'm pretty lean and can benchpress 260 lbs despite only weighing 145 lbs. I'm comfortable with that.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 07-25-2012 at 12:45 PM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  3. #33
    camel's Avatar
    camel is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Simply put, you were probably doing it wrong.

    1.) Do you own a food scale and measure in grams? You can't use "cups" or measurements like "1 medium apple." They vary wildly. You have to be precise to the gram.

    2.) Were you using a tracking program like Fitday?

    3.) Were you truly tracking everything you eat? Or did you leave out that heavy cream you put in your coffee or that square of dark chocolate you took subconsciously?

    4.) And the #1 reason people fail with tracking calories: did you severely overestimate your TDEE? People typically seriously overestimate their food requirement. This is a solid TDEE calculator:

    IF Calculator

    Chances are, your activity level is much less than you think it is. These TDEE calculators typically assume exercise is heavy lifting. If you go for a 2 mile walk 3 times a week and choose the "3 days of exercise" option, you're wrong. That assumes you're going to the gym and doing 3 45-60 minute sessions of deadlifts, squats, benchpresses, chin-ups, overhead presses and cleans every week.

    I do heavy deadlifts on Monday. I do heavy benchpresses on Thursday. I do heavy squats on Saturday. Each day takes about 1 hour.

    Then I do cardio 3 days a week. 2 days is usually low intensity - a 10-15 mile bike ride over 45 minute - and 1 day of HIIT (sprinting). I choose the "moderately active/3 days a week exercise" option. My HIIT and 10-15 mile bike rides do not count. They just make me break even because I sit at a desk all day. My only "real" exercise is the complex, intense, heavy stuff.

    Low intensity cardio is not considered a workout and is considered vital movement and assumed to be done.

    5.) My final question: have you ever been "good" for a whole week, weighed yourself, saw no weight loss and said "Fuck it, I'll eat whatever I want then" and go to town?

    There is a chance you have severe metabolic distress, hormonal issues, potential thyroid issues, food sensitivities, etc. But the 5 points above are far, far more likely. Also, scales are highly unreliable. If you're the impatient type that wants rapid weight loss and goes on a severe caloric deficit, you'll probably retain a shit ton of water and show no "weight loss." Heavy caloric restriction needs to be paired with regular refeeds. Some people often call this the "woosh" effect.
    Believe me, I was OVER estimating if anything. I used a food scale, and was accurate as possible. I used a food tracking app (MyNetDiary iphone app). I would both measure AND weigh my food - for example if 1 TBSP of butter and weigh it. Whichever value had the higher calorie amount I went with the higher amount. I was aware of the "underreporting" and wanted to eliminate that as a possiblility. Every bite that went in my mouth was tracked. The longer I went without losing weight, the more religious I got.

    To get my "maintenance caloric requirement" I input myself as 1 inch less than I am, and the lowest activity level, sedentary, even though I am not quite sedentary. I exercised and did body weight exercises, but didn't minus these calories or include them in my calculations.

    I did get frustrated and ate a little more some days, but I always measured and input all calories. Even on a day that I ate a little more I was still coming up under my maintenance calories. I tried to keep calories above starvation 1200 but under 1800. Maintenance was supposed to be 2050.

    I'm not impatient... It took several years to lose the first 40 pounds. I'm 10 pounds away from being out of the "overweight" category according to BMI charts. I'm nowhere near "lean" I've got lots of fat still to lose. I can't seem to budge them.

    I've used the TDEE calculator you posted, and it comes up with about the same amounts of cals I was going by.

    So much FOCUS and so much WORK, and no progress... makes a person question everything !
    (EG: maybe I should eat more/less carbs/fat/protein you name it! At this point I'll try anything!)

  4. #34
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,929
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    You don't have to "count calories" to lose weight. You do, however, have to store less energy than you expend. There's no way around the fact. You can do it based on hunger, but you have to find foods that allow you to eat a suitable volume that you can sustain indefinitely that allow weight loss/maintenance or whatever level you're looking for. For many of us, that is NOT coffee swimming in butter, ribeye and avocado. They're too calorically dense. Chances are, a 12oz flank steak will leave you just as full as a 12oz ribeye, and you'll do it for 30% less calories. Does that mean you can't eat ribeye? Hell no! But you can't eat that stuff every damn day. Eggs, bacon and rib meat is not a realistic, sustainable diet. You need to break up all those fat calories with something. Vegetables and fruits are great ways to add bulk to your plate without adding a lot of calories, meaning you can eat a large pile of food without eating a large amount of calories. It's shocking how many calories are in a pile of 80% ground beef, or eggs, bacon and cheese. They're great, healthy foods but they're not the best foods to break through a setpoint plateau.

    I don't count calories. I get stressed, depressed and obsessed. All the bad "-essed's". And eventually I'll break down and eat a bigass bowl of ice cream and give it all back. I can't live that way. I'm much more successful being mindful and eating more reasonable foods. This means eating lean meat more often than fatty meat. I don't care, I like lean meat, too. It's not a dirty word. But it's what works, and I can maintain my body composition effortlessly. Sure, I don't have chiseled 6 pack abs, but I'm pretty lean and can benchpress 260 lbs despite only weighing 145 lbs. I'm comfortable with that.
    Nobody disagrees that the laws of thermodynamics apply to human metabolism dude. That's what my article said. Did you read it? I read yours.

    Stop starting threads accusing people of/arguing against something no logical person denies. Straw. F***ing. Man. And of all people, you know better, that's why your posts sometimes seem to frustrate people.

    Now, if you want to start a thread to debate or inform us about the comparative satiety of various macronutrient ratios, go ahead and do so. That's a valid topic, and might even be open to some debate, and would probably make for an interesting thread. But bringing that up now is nothing more than an attempt to change the subject.

  5. #35
    iniQuity's Avatar
    iniQuity is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern NJ
    Posts
    5,683
    You know what the problem is with fat/carbs/CICO... what it all comes down to?

    VEGETABLES ARE BORING AS FUCK.

    I'd rather eat fatty meat/eggs/etc all the time.

    I know, take some time to take in this truth.

  6. #36
    emmie's Avatar
    emmie is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,232
    camel-
    A possible flaw in your entire system is adopting your caloric number from the 'charts.' I know that I have metabolic dysfunctions, but I also know that if I used the charts, I would never have lost any weight. I could never lose on 1200 cal, and the idea that it's some 'minimum' to be avoided is just nonsense.

    The only way to know what your caloric needs are is by trial and error. If I eat 1200 cal and don't lose or gain--then that's my 'maintenance' level. I need to create a deficit below that in order to lose.

    Some people 'fit' the charts and can use them, but most of us don't.

  7. #37
    jimhensen's Avatar
    jimhensen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat.

    If you believe Current Dogma, of course you’ll believe that “calories count” and that counting them (and minimizing them) is the only way to lose weight."
    Other factors might lead someone to overeat but they still MAKE the decision to eat. Maybe they are hungry, maybe they are bored, maybe they just walked by a cinnabun and couldn't resist...all of these things can lead someone to eating, but in the end they are making the decision to eat. Some low calorie diets will certainly lead you to be hungrier than others (200 calories of broccoli is going to fill you up a whole lot more than 200 calories of olive oil for instance) but it really depends on the person as well.

    And the conclusion seems like BS to me "The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body."

    What does that even mean? That you can eat 2,000 calories and gain weight and eat 4,000 calories and lose weight?

  8. #38
    jimhensen's Avatar
    jimhensen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Nobody disagrees that the laws of thermodynamics apply to human metabolism dude. That's what my article said. Did you read it? I read yours.

    Stop starting threads accusing people of/arguing against something no logical person denies. Straw. F***ing. Man. And of all people, you know better, that's why your posts sometimes seem to frustrate people.

    Now, if you want to start a thread to debate or inform us about the comparative satiety of various macronutrient ratios, go ahead and do so. That's a valid topic, and might even be open to some debate, and would probably make for an interesting thread. But bringing that up now is nothing more than an attempt to change the subject.
    You can't compare satiety by macronutrient alone. You can make generalizations like "fat is more filling than carbs" but a HUGE plate of vegetables is a lot more filling than a couple spoonfuls of oil. Some foods are more filling than others. The ratio of macronutrients have a lot to do with it, but you can't make generalizations about the satiety of macronutrients.

  9. #39
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by primal pete View Post
    Whatever did happen to him? I actually thought many of his posts were very good. His cholesterol primer is excellent. He also did talk about being autistic, and when I asked if primal helped with that he admitted that it made no difference. Makes sense given that (edit: condition) is entirely genetic, as far as I understand it. Still, that's a tough thing to deal with when coupled with the health problems he also had. Though I remember he made a huge turn around at least, and that was awesome to read about.
    Griff left because he felt unwelcome and harassed for not being overly concerned about getting skinny--he'd already achieved his goal of beating type 2 diabetes and being able to walk again, and he felt like he was being attacked for not wanting to force himself to get a lot thinner and asking people to accept that he was pretty happy with where he was.

    He also hated exercise (as others have said here) for specific reasons, although people accused him of doing nothing, which was untrue because I know he walks regularly around campus. He's still doing well and has lost more weight, and I am still in touch with him elsewhere and enjoy seeing his ongoing successes both healthwise and in his academic career.

    I'm sad he's gone. He was really encouraging to other people who were struggling with major health conditions and large amounts of weight to lose, and I thought it was cool to have someone who was really entirely in this to beat a health condition and not get a six pack.

    Oh, and he eats vegetables from what I know of his meals. But I understand why he continues to stay very low carb considering that he is one of those who experienced significant metabolic issues and thus has to deal with things a little differently from those of us who have mainly healthy metabolisms.
    “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

    Owly's Journal

  10. #40
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,929
    Quote Originally Posted by jimhensen View Post
    Other factors might lead someone to overeat but they still MAKE the decision to eat. Maybe they are hungry, maybe they are bored, maybe they just walked by a cinnabun and couldn't resist...all of these things can lead someone to eating, but in the end they are making the decision to eat. Some low calorie diets will certainly lead you to be hungrier than others (200 calories of broccoli is going to fill you up a whole lot more than 200 calories of olive oil for instance) but it really depends on the person as well.

    And the conclusion seems like BS to me "The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body."

    What does that even mean? That you can eat 2,000 calories and gain weight and eat 4,000 calories and lose weight?
    You can eat 2000 calories and gain weight if you burn 1000 calories in the same time period, and you can eat 4000 calories and lose weight if you burn 5000 calories in the same time period. Nobody's disputing the basic laws of physics. That's precisely my point. What's being disputed is whether you can change one side of the equation without affecting the other. And you can't.

Page 4 of 69 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... 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
  •