Page 47 of 69 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 686

Thread: The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 47

  1. #461
    BestBetter's Avatar
    BestBetter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NY / Italy
    Posts
    1,210
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post

    There are people with metabolic issues on this forum. However, they are the exception, not the norm. Look how far this thread has shifted away from the initial point - it has shifted because people are obsessed with bringing up rare genetic and metabolic conditions in hopes that they have some genetic reason why they have trouble losing weight that's beyond their control and "not their fault." The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people walking the street and typing on this forum are overweight because of one reason - they eat too much food.

    The methods of calculating CICO available to use are not perfect, but they'll work for almost all of us. Stop focusing on the 2% of people that the equations don't apply to and focus on portion control and consistency to find out what works for you. For most, this is going to mean leaner meats, less oils for frying and overall smaller dinner plates.
    I don't disagree that for SOME people, weight loss is really just about calorie restriction. Especially for the men.

    However, I STRONLY disagree that people with depressed metabolisms are an exception, and i don't know where the 2% came from, but if CICO was as clear-cut for 98% of the population, this thread wouldn't exist.

    If calorie restriction didn't lead to depressed metabolisms, then Lyle McDonald would not need to be pushing calorie-cycling diets. The fact that our bodies automatically reduce the CO part when we reduce the CI part means that fat loss is not something we are designed to do happily, our bodies will fight it, and we have to resort to trickery to prevent this from happening.

    In fact, if CICO was so simple for 98% of people, millions of diet books on the market wouldn't exist, low-carb probably would never have become such a huge deal, because all people would have to do is cut back on calories and viola! Fat loss.

    We all know it doesn't happen this way for MANY people, and that's why some people have decided that CICO is bunk. Instead of saying 'Get with the program, all 98% of you, just cut your damn calories!' i think we should focus on why calorie restriction DOESN'T work for so many people, and what we can do to fix the CO part, since that's what's gumming up the works.

    BTW, isn't it past your bedtime?

  2. #462
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    7,289
    I actually am a calorie counter, and I'm losing weight at a nice rate. But straight up calorie counting is easy to crash from because if you continue to eat garbage, you will continue to want food. All the low carb really does is to sate you.

    Think of it this way: The only way most people can quit an addiction is cold turkey. Unfortunately, you can't quit food forever or you'll die. You have to control it. If you continue to eat just a "little bit" of foods that make you hungry, you'll give in to temptation eventually. Just like if you let yourself have one cigarette occasionally, it can easily turn to two, then "just when I go out with the guys/girls," etc.

    Yes, all overweight people are eating more fuel than they need based on their genetics, metabolism, and lifestyle. But that's not sloth or lack of character. Nor is it easily fixed. One of the richest, most successful women in this country has battled with weight and diet her whole life and she's certainly neither sloth nor slacker.

  3. #463
    Voyageur's Avatar
    Voyageur is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Litchfield, Minnesota
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Because I'm trying to drive home that simply eating foods that don't create insulin spikes isn't going to make you lose weight. There is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate diet, and calories from butter aren't going to make you lose weight faster than calories from flour. Putting 1/2 of stick of butter in your coffee isn't much different than putting 1/2 cup of sugar in your coffee. Your weight loss stalls til you burn off those calories, and people need to understand this.

    There are people with metabolic issues on this forum. However, they are the exception, not the norm. Look how far this thread has shifted away from the initial point - it has shifted because people are obsessed with bringing up rare genetic and metabolic conditions in hopes that they have some genetic reason why they have trouble losing weight that's beyond their control and "not their fault." The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people walking the street and typing on this forum are overweight because of one reason - they eat too much food. Dropping grains, sugars and vegetable oils are great for your health, but if you're consuming 3,000 calories of steak, butter and avocado a day, you're not going to lose weight any faster than if you're consuming 3,000 calories of chicken breast, whole wheat pasta and soybean oil.

    The methods of calculating CICO available to use are not perfect, but they'll work for almost all of us. Stop focusing on the 2% of people that the equations don't apply to and focus on portion control and consistency to find out what works for you. For most, this is going to mean leaner meats, less oils for frying and overall smaller dinner plates.
    Post of the year. Bravo.

    .
    There is a huge difference between talking about how to do something and getting it fucking done.

  4. #464
    highaerials36's Avatar
    highaerials36 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by cori93437 View Post
    This...
    Hyperbole.

    Calorie restriction matters... but the macros matter as well.
    While I agree with Choco and the like on everything, the reason why CW people do believe this is that the initial weight that drops is the water weight, which IIRC is associated with the carbs. After that initial loss, then CICO with the already applied Primal setting needs to be implemented.
    "Carbs are the victim, not the crime" - ChocoTaco

  5. #465
    Kingofturtles's Avatar
    Kingofturtles is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    but if you're consuming 3,000 calories of steak, butter and avocado a day, you're not going to lose weight any faster than if you're consuming 3,000 calories of chicken breast, whole wheat pasta and soybean oil.
    1) Why is chicken breast in the perceived "bad calorie" section of that example?

    2) More good news: Study after study confirm that we can achieve what Mark calls “effortless weight loss” by eating more of these SANE Primal foods. For example, in all of the studies that follow, everyone ate the exact same quantity of calories, but one group’s calories were of much higher quality (aka more Primal, more SANE):

    University of Florida researcher J.W. Krieger analyzed 87 studies and found that those people who ate SANE calories lost an average of 12 more pounds of body fat compared to those who ate an equal quantity of lower quality calories.
    C.M. Young at Cornell University split people into three groups, each eating 1,800 calories per day, but at different levels of quality. The highest-quality group lost 86.5% more body fat than the lowest-quality group.
    In the Annals of Internal Medicine, F.L. Benoît compared a reduced-calorie low-quality diet to a reduced-calorie high-quality diet. After ten days the high-quality diet burned twice as much body fat.
    Additional studies by researchers U. Rabast (1978,1981), P. Greene (2003), N.H. Baba (1999), A. Golay (1996), M.E. Lean (1997), C.M. Young (1971), and D.K. Layman (2003) all show that people who ate higher-quality calories lost an average of 22% more weight than those who ate the exact same quantity of lower-quality calories.


    Read more: Ancient Wisdom Confirmed by Modern Science | Mark's Daily Apple


    Point 2 seems to say that it does matter what kind of calories you're eating.

  6. #466
    annedawso's Avatar
    annedawso is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Liverpool UK
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingofturtles View Post
    1) University of Florida researcher J.W. Krieger analyzed 87 studies and found that those people who ate SANE calories lost an average of 12 more pounds of body fat compared to those who ate an equal quantity of lower quality calories.
    C.M. Young at Cornell University split people into three groups, each eating 1,800 calories per day, but at different levels of quality. The highest-quality group lost 86.5% more body fat than the lowest-quality group.
    In the Annals of Internal Medicine, F.L. Benoît compared a reduced-calorie low-quality diet to a reduced-calorie high-quality diet. After ten days the high-quality diet burned twice as much body fat.
    Additional studies by researchers U. Rabast (1978,1981), P. Greene (2003), N.H. Baba (1999), A. Golay (1996), M.E. Lean (1997), C.M. Young (1971), and D.K. Layman (2003) all show that people who ate higher-quality calories lost an average of 22% more weight than those who ate the exact same quantity of lower-quality calories.

    If it is just CICO why do individuals lose more weight on different diets that have the same calories?
    I actually do have an eye to my calories, as I have found as a 46 year old woman I need to or I dont lose weight.
    I think I have messed myself up with all the years of fad diets etc
    Last edited by annedawso; 08-02-2012 at 03:52 AM.

  7. #467
    Glockin Grok's Avatar
    Glockin Grok is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by annedawso View Post
    If it is just CICO why do individuals lose more weight on different diets that have the same calories?
    I actually do have an eye to my calories, as I have found as a 46 year old woman I need to or I dont lose weight.
    I think I have messed myself up with all the years of fad diets etc
    I think a big reason that low carb and primal work so well is the fix damaged metabolisms. They fix insulin and leptin resistance thus increasing the CO side of the equation.

  8. #468
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,800
    I don't trust you. And I never said eat whatever you want. That's the last thing I'd suggest. Eat real food. I don't want to hear about the 3 months you gave up starvation dieting and binged on bad food. I want to see you go an entire year eating real, whole foods. No vegetable oils, no refined sugar, no grains. Just meat, vegetables, fruits, tubers, nuts and saturated animal-based oils in the quantity your hunger desires. I bet you've never done that.
    I did this from February last year with 2 periods of Ultimate Diet between eating paleo/primal. Look, I just don't get it why you think that everyone but me over-estimate their calories and overeats, while I, by whatever reason, is the only one who is supposed to chronically under-eat. I did a CW for a bit when I lost my post-preg weight, but I have never had under 1000 calories not then, not even on the Ultimate diet (I think I managed a grand total of 2 days on like 900 calories) - following your advice, heh. When I was on CW, I continuously over-shoot 1,400 cals a day target (about 150 cals above my BMR at the time). Meaning that I... wait a minute! Ate to satisfy my hunger, not to comply to caloric goals!

    I gave up fasting because I don't want to go hungry, and I have been counting calories for short stretches this year. I almost never can hit target calories I set out for myself, because I eat more than I wanted. I cook with healthy oils only, eat copious amounts of protein, and do not eat grains, with a rare, rare exception, like when I was sick in Moscow and bread was the ONLY thing I could keep down. AFter 5 days of not being able to keep anything down, and on vacations... I would consider it an excusable measure.

    I am 5'6 and 1/2", sit all day except for an hour or so in the gym and a bit of walking, maybe a sprint a week and if I can a bit more cardio... and I am almost 40 y.o. Why the heck my maintenance of 1,600 calories (and a modest deficit of 100-300 cals a day) is a sign of 'damaged' anything? It's good 300-400 cals above BMR, which is what my activities would burn, more or less. I over-shoot my maintenance pretty much every weekend, just like every latest book, from 4 Hours Body to Ultimate Diet to everyone else out there is suggesting.

    All my lifts, when I compared them to the Strength chart from Crossfit actually put me in the pretty much right before competition grade for % of my body weight, so seeing I am old and not athletic (and has never been), not ideally built for lifting... it is more likely that I have reached my athletic ceiling, and will just not improve much from here. Average lifts for an average woman. I have no energy problems. I have not had sugar episode until I had that candy thing. My binging was related to my trying hard to adhere to the IF, again, following your advice. You are the big one for feasting and starving, not me. I prefer just eating the same amount or thereabouts, without inducing long-term hunger and then the feeling over being over-fed. High and lows induce binging in me. I have still to learn to stop at satisfied vs full, because I would like (as an average, normal, geneticlaly correct person) to go all the way to full. I also (just like every average person) tend to want the thing sthat are appealing to me, namely fruit, but I have family history and a diagnosis of blood sugar problems and I feel better without eating it, so I want to cut the fruit out. How's that unreasonable?

    I am very much like BestBetter, and a gazillion of other (in my case middle-aged) women who cannot shift below the average body fat about which a number of books and articles were written.

    Basically, what it boils down to is that I am too healthy to be pretty, with high appetite and fat percentage that sits on my frame in the post child-bearing fat pattern (hips and thighs, wider waist after child-bearing than before). Advising me to grow fat in attempt to get thin is incorrect because that sets me up for a traumatic experience and another unnecessary weight gain re-inflating the fat cells I have since my trying to get pregnant weight gain. It will lead to increased cellulite, hard few month gaining weight and then even harder months trying to lose weight. The more times a person does the fat to thin switch, the fatter s/he becomes, body composition wise. Particularly in a middle-aged woman whose body wants to store fat, and in a quantity higher than I carry now, particularly for an endomorph like me.

    I am not willing to risk adding more fat based on the hypothesis that I am exceptional; I am rather willing to continue to try to maintain slight deficit with an occasional overfeed, based on the hypothesis that I am just like everyone else. Or, more like every other women in her 40'ies, which means a propensity to storing fat, needing far less calories than an 18 y.o male and having to balance the fitness and macros in such a way that the appetite is not over-inflated artificially.

    In other words, I am in agreement with absolutely everyone about making sure you eat appropriate calories to lose weight from good foods and customizing macros to optimize personal satiation mechanism.

    1) Why is chicken breast in the perceived "bad calorie" section of that example?
    Not bad, it is contrasting low fat - no trans-fat, higher 'good' grains CW way vs high fat - not-grain carbs Primal way.
    Last edited by Leida; 08-02-2012 at 05:53 AM.
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

  9. #469
    Lawyerchick12's Avatar
    Lawyerchick12 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by BestBetter View Post
    I'm not saying that this COULDN'T be good advice for some people, but i am an example of how this absolutely does not work (for me). I've had YEARS of eating just about whatever I wanted, and while I never got over 125, I also never been able to lose the extra fat no matter what kind of restriction I tried, caloric or macro.

    The only way I've ever been able to lose fat is by eating VERY low fat (as in 5-10 grams per day, usually) and low carb (which was also very low calorie). This results in the top half of me looking emaciated, while the bottom half is still chubby. My body would probably rather die than give up that stubborn fat, and no amount of overeating is going to change that.

    I think we just have to face that some people are meant to be thin and lean (like SBhike's sister) and some of us are not, no matter what we do or eat. This doesn't mean we still shouldn't strive to eat healthy, but no amount of food/diet manipulation will ever result in looking good for the lucky winners in this group.
    and just how tall are you? 125 is hardly something that would be considered grossly overweight. If you can eat whatever you want and maintain at 125 that seems like a good thing. You also sound pear shaped, which would explain why you look emaciated up top and still look "fat'. I am an hourglass and the twins and "assets" are the last places for weight to come out of.

    At 125 I would had tiny waist, flat abs but was still boobabious and bootylicious..lol, I am now 10-15 lbs away from that but still have a flat stomach. So body shape also determines where you store fat but at 125 lbs, I would hardly complain.

  10. #470
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,800
    And that is how everyone differs. I am 5'6 and 1/2". I weighed this morning at 125.8 lbs, still suffering consequences of my last overeating spree. I normally weigh in ~ 120-122 lbs range. I am heavy lifting, so I have large quad, I build up really good hamstring lately, so my leg is balanced except for a huge buldge on the top outer thigh. I also building up deltoid and trap, so I do not look emaciated up top no more, but not ideal yet, because my thighs make me look fat.

    My BF% shows up as 19% or so on the WW scale, so I am probably like 22-25% right now.

    Unfortunately, after pregnancy and childbirth, my waistline is a mess. I have a muffin top that I have never-ever had before I gained weight trying to conceive (I was 125 back then, and went to 135 lbs on the old wive's advice). Also, whenever I eat, my belly now does not stay flat like before, it rolls out making me look like I am pg again (and my daughter is almost 6 yo!), because of the stretching the baby did. Which looks great on a pg woman, but makes me look simply fat. My belly flattens out at below 120 lbs, looking slightly plump at 118 lbs. I am now able to basically tell my weight by how far my stomach protrudes. When I was at 114 lbs during the low of UD, water and glycogen depleted, I actually got the 'shrunken' skin look for the first time ever in my life.

    So my ideal look should be about 116 lbs, basically just slightly above the lowest 'healthy' BMI reading. A lot of women look just great at about 130 lbs. Not me.
    Last edited by Leida; 08-02-2012 at 06:48 AM.
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

Page 47 of 69 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... 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
  •