The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 9

[noreaster]

"Also consider that although the ratio of heat output of glucose to fat is 9:4 Cals/gram, fat produces many times more ATP than glucose (see Wikipedia entry on ATP). Many times. The ratio of 9:4 is a little more than 2. Is this "many times" more? I dunno for sure but I highly doubt it."
this is a great perspective, which types of food best help cell/mitocondrial function? That is the key to long term healthy body weight. No short term study of calories and weight loss comparisons is going to truly gauge this in any useful fashion.

[magnolia1973]

A 800-1000 cals range is barely enough to get sufficient proteins in, with little room for fat and carbs.

Yeah, lol, we are pros at controlling hunger... I kind of like the feeling of being a little hungry. But it is the nutritional stuff I worry about. I want fruit for a reason other than being "out of control" or a "sugar addict". I don't want a candy bar or a soda. I think I want the fruit because of the vitamins and minerals.

I don't know- maybe my solution lies in supplements and reduced calories.

My other thought is that nightshades are stalling me. I have always gotten heartburn from tomatoes. Back when I was losing it was winter/spring, so no consumption of tomatoes. But the past few months have been tomatoes, eggplant and peppers. But again, le sigh... they are veggies I enjoy. Seriously, must a stew of eggplant and tomato and garlic be yet another thing I "can't have".

Sorry for the vent- it's just depressing. I just want to eat and enjoy whole foods. I have exactly zero desire to eat processed foods or junk foods. I just want the ability to eat a variety of fruits and vegetables and NOT BE fat.

[yodiewan]

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."

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so maybe someone has brought up this point again, but the statement you quoted is entirely valid because of the way calories are measured. The food is placed in a bomb calorimeter and basically burned until only ash remains. The body does not work this way. Different foods will be broken down to various degrees. Kurt Harris's "No such thing as a macronutrient" series of posts explain this very well. Especially concerning carbohydrates For example, cellulose is totally indeigestible but has the same number of calories as starch. Your body cannot assimilate the cellulose at all, but you will nearly completely assimilate the starch. A cup of gasoline has about 2000 calories:

Archevore - Archevore Blog - No Such thing as a macronutrient part II - Carbohydrates*(revised)
Archevore - Archevore Blog - There is No Such Thing as a Macronutrient Part I -*Fats

[BestBetter]

While I firmly believe that CICO matters, even though it is a complex, mysterious process that we will never be able to understand (at least the CO part, since we can't see or track how our bodies are using energy), there is a huge, glaring issue that is being ignored, though Magnolia hit on it:

Women and men lose/gain/store fat very differently. Women are genetically programmed to gain and store fat, men are designed to put on muscle.

Of course there are exceptions, to a degree. And of course this doesn't mean that women can't put on ANY muscle, or men can't gain ANY fat. But the fact is, we are designed for different biological purposes, which is a fact that is generally ignored in the diet/fat loss world.

If CICO was as neat and easy as some people claim, why would this be? And why would women be ROUTINELY excluded from fat loss scientific research experiments, with the explanantion being that the researchers don't want female hormonal issues bogging down the studies and preventing them from getting some clear-cut results?

Why is it that a common story is a husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend go primal/paleo or whatever way of eating, and the dude drops weight without really trying while the female counterpart is treading water while meticulously tracking and reducing? (Of course the female is accused of underreporting, because what else could explain the difference?)

Again, I'm in no way trying to dismiss CICO, but these glaring omissions of differences between male and female fat loss are infuriating.

[AdamC29]

I wish this worked for me.

And yes, 900 calories would suck. How active are you? I think a lot of my issue is that exercise doesn't help anymore. I don't know if I am just efficient or what? I do the weights, but cardio gets me no where.

I actually worry about the future- and getting to a point where I can only have 800 or 900 calories a day. It's depressing. I've stalled and have maintained very well on about 1400 calories a day plus 3x a week bodyweight and other random exercise. However, that was the level I was losing at. I'd hate to have to go to 1200 to maintain and then 1000.... and so on. With about 30 lbs. to lose, it's a depressing thought.

It sucks to skim out healthy food. Now I'm looking at one fruit a day instead of two. Eliminated chocolate, next up is the coffee. Don't eat excess fat. The only large portions are protein- but the advice is to get what, 1 gram per pound of lean body mass- most days I don't come close. And this is with 30lbs to lose (and it's legit- 184- 155 is my goal... only 5'6 so I have obvious fat to lose). It seems like every 10 lbs I need to cut another 200 calories to lose.

Personally, I don't think it's MDA's role to fix me. But damn I wish someone would do more research into people who struggle to lose weight despite following CICO and eating healthy foods. It's like there is zero help. I think people here *get it* and are actually pretty understanding compared to the wonderful MD's.... (skip the fast food and walk..... said to a marathoner vegetarian).

It's sucky to work hard at something and not succeed.... and it smarts a bit more when people assume you are not actually trying. I think that attitude turns off a lot of people.

You sound pretty down about it but you need to look at where you have come from and keep focusing on where you want to get to. Its a marathon not a sprint.

One other trick is working out in a fasted state. I.e. workout in the morning before you eat. It doesn't matter who you are and what gender you are this will burn fat off. I started this process by cycling to work 9miles a day for 18 months. It can be done. you just need to teach your brain that.

your body can do anything, it's your brain that tells it you can't. Once you conquer your brain the rest is easy.

Keep at it!

[Hawkward]

Facing the reality of calories is just too depressing for some people to handle because it means that 300 calorie cream/coffee and slab of butter on your vegetables doesn't come without drawbacks if you're trying to lose or maintain a certain weight. I feel like I've walked into an alternate reality sometimes when I see questions from people who are putting slabs of butter in their coffee and asking why they're not losing weight. I remember a lady telling me she couldn't lose weight despite hardly eating anything, I was wondering whether she was grossly miscalculating her food intake but then she told me she was drinking lots of glucose drinks everyday so she could still have energy while she was dieting.

I no longer give people advice like "don't fear the fat" because sometimes they translate it from "don't throw your egg yolks out" and interpret it as "ditch all carbs and slather everything in hundreds of empty fat calories".

I have no doubt that losing weight / fat requires that you consume fewer calories than you burn. There are no "magic" calories that don't count, or count less. And on a day to day basis, it wouldn't matter what those calories consisted of. However, I would think that over time, what you eat could affect how well your body burns calories. Eat a bad enough diet over time (even without increasing calories) and your body will become malnourished (thyroid or liver problems, for example) and less efficient at burning calories. You'll then gain weight, and it's still because you're burning fewer calories than you're taking in, but the kinds of calories you ate had a lot to do with that by making you less able to burn calories effectively. So in that sense there really are "good calories and bad calories", but not based on whether they're carbs or fats, but rather based on whether in total, they give your body the nutrients it needs.

It's true that you'll find it easier and your body will most likely run more efficiently on whole foods but these things play an extremely insignificant role in short term weight loss for and are basically irrelevant for the people making threads asking "Why aren't I losing weight".

I agree that the type of food / calories you eat doesn't make a significant difference over the short term. I thought my original post made that clear? But the long term is what really matters. So while it does need to be pointed out that a calorie deficit is required in order to lose weight, it's also important to note that what you eat still matters, and if you consume the wrong kinds of calories and don't get all the right nutrients, you'll make it that much harder to maintain a healthy weight over time. I know that seems obvious, but so many of these "calories do matter" posts try to make their point by saying things like, "hey, you could lose weight living on Twinkies as long as you didn't eat too many of them".

[BestBetter]

One other trick is working out in a fasted state. I.e. workout in the morning before you eat. It doesn't matter who you are and what gender you are this will burn fat off. I started this process by cycling to work 9miles a day for 18 months. It can be done. you just need to teach your brain that.

your body can do anything, it's your brain that tells it you can't. Once you conquer your brain the rest is easy.

I'm guessing you're a male. Even without the clue 'Adam' in your name, this is a very typical response that men give, and it's advice that typically DOES work great for MEN, not so much for women.

I did this for months - IFed (often fasting for 20-24 hour periods, with 8/16 being my standard) and routinely lifted HEAVY in a fasted state, pushing myself in ways that my husband admitted he could never do. Did I lose fat? Nope. Gained a little muscle, can now do multiple reps of 220lbs on the leg press, but that's all it got me.

[ChocoTaco369]

What exactly are you arguing about here then? That's exactly what the point of the OP is - that for one reason or another, stalled weight loss is ultimately a result of no calorie deficit. Yes, it is entirely possible that someone might have a legitimate hormonal issue that causes their energy levels to be terrible, hence they don't burn a lot of calories on a daily basis. However, for 99% of people that is NOT THE CASE. That's what the point of the thread is - that for most of us who want to make a change and lose the weight, it's just a simple matter of diligence, will power, and perhaps dealing with the slight discomfort of a calorie deficit.

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.

[AdamC29]

I'm guessing you're a male. Even without the clue 'Adam' in your name, this is a very typical response that men give, and it's advice that typically DOES work great for MEN, not so much for women.

I did this for months - IFed (often fasting for 20-24 hour periods, with 8/16 being my standard) and routinely lifted HEAVY in a fasted state, pushing myself in ways that my husband admitted he could never do. Did I lose fat? Nope. Gained a little muscle, can now do multiple reps of 220lbs on the leg press, but that's all it got me.

Yes I am a male. I do this with my OH who is female and she also has lost significant fat following this routine with me. She has gone from a size 14 to 6/8. We do train with Kettlebells though. It may be coincidence but the fat/weight has literally fallen off using KBs (coupled with a fairly clean diet)

[gopintos]

I actually worry about the future- and getting to a point where I can only have 800 or 900 calories a day. It's depressing. I've stalled and have maintained very well on about 1400 calories a day plus 3x a week bodyweight and other random exercise. However, that was the level I was losing at. I'd hate to have to go to 1200 to maintain and then 1000.... and so on. With about 30 lbs. to lose, it's a depressing thought.

I hear ya. I was losing more while I was eating more - every two hours, always hungry, going to bed hungry. Then I cut carbs and increased fat, and now I have settled into not as hungry, eating less frequently, eating fewer calories - resulting in losing less weight. Yes I have less to lose now than before but I am only about half way there. Yes I should be happy, I am consistently losing - and I know slow and steady yada yada. But I have only lost 16 pounds in the last 4 months, and I really thought it would be more like twice as much. I realize also body composition & measurements are probably changing and more yada yada, but waist measurement hasnt hardly budged in as many months also, and clothes seem to fit about the same.

I also think about maintenance. But figured I would cross that bridge when I come to it, but I have thought about it and what the bottom line calorie is going to look like at that point if I have to keep cutting and cutting.

See above in bold

Thank you for your replies. I LOVE PKLOPP's stuff and was hoping he knew what he was talking about.

I think the N=1 is where I am at, and it is just hard to tweek. Like how long do you wait to see if it works, the whole definition of insanity thing comes to mind. It is just hard to pinpoint it all. I am losing, and that is the main thing I guess. I just wish someone would wave a wand and say eat this and this, at this time. I am relatively healthy, I think so anyways. No high BP, no high cholesterol, no diabetes, no bad joints, not an unusual high stress (most of the time), sleep could be better but not bad - I think I have started to reverse it in time before my health got out of hand. It just seems like the more I study this and try to learn, the slower my weight loss has become. When I was just blindly watching calories.......... hmmmmmmmm rutroh - when I was just counting calories and letting the macros fall where they may, I seem to have done better. I was also doing about an hour of cardio every day. Carbs were about 175-200 but some of that was things like legumes and a slice of WW bread once in awhile. I was still low fat everything. Being hungry all the time though wasnt working so I thought there had to be a better way and I found PB. And I am certain this is a lifestyle. So I should be happy that I am losing while still enjoying food. I am just wondering since I am relatively healthy if there is something I could be doing to focus just purely on the weight loss aspect. Get the fat off and then settle into the lifestyle. I could be wrong, but seems like those that say don't count your calories, dont worry about eating your fruit, or say what don't you understand about how all this works, are those that are already pretty fit & lean - and I could be all wrong about that. I know some say get healthy first, and weight loss will follow but I think I probably am so I just want the weight off. But I also want things to go back in place so I keep telling myself I am doing it the right way. I just wish it was faster is all. I know wish in one hand ....