Why I love calorie counting! page 3

[LauraSB]

I decided to pick up LoseIt after this thread and I like it SO much more than MFP already. :P I like graphs and charts!

I never tried anything else, but DH is also a scientist and he liked everything in LoseIt but the food database better than MFP. As long as you're OK with adding a bunch of custom foods to your personal database, you shouldn't mind the limited database in LoseIt.

[qqemokitty]

I eat almost no packaged food so 9/10 I have to add my own foods anyway. >.< Lol.

[Gorbag]

sounds like "a calorie isn't a calorie"...

A calorie is only a measure of the burning value of the food, so yes a calorie is still a calorie, similar to the fact that a hundred gram of fat have the same weight as a hundred gram of water...

[ChocoTaco369]

sounds like "a calorie isn't a calorie"...

Nope. A calorie is always a calorie. What varies is the health of a person's metabolism. That often is determined by vitamin and mineral repletion and proper hormonal balances. Get your soluble vitamins and minerals (from whole foods, not supplements), avoid toxins, make sure you're eating enough but not too much, exercise regularly, sleep well. CW has this idea right. The OP's issue wasn't calories but rather lack of nutrition.

[ChocoTaco369]

You're right that my average daily calories aren't that high. I was actually surprised to see how low they were considering the number of days I was eating over 2000 calories. But I don't think most women who "eat a ton" really eat a ton either. I strongly suspect that they eat quite modestly most days and that allows them to eat like a pig (and maybe drink like a fish) often enough that they just don't feel deprived.

It's pretty well documented that underweight people overestimate calorie intake and overweight people underestimate calorie intake. It goes as high as 50% in each direction in some studies. That's no shocker - if you're overweight, you eat too much and if you're underweight, you don't eat enough. The problem is people don't track their food intake properly.

As far as my metabolic rate, I'm not sure the data shows it increasing. My rate of weight loss did slow over time as my caloric intake increased. I debated about trying to plot that correlation, but I'm not sure I see anything there that suggests I will find any surprises. But if you really disagree, I'm willing to hear the argument. I'm sure that my low nutrient density diet prior to March 2012 made it easy to over eat calorie-wise. I just don't see that anything magic in regard to weight loss happened as I transitioned to primal. My conclusion that grains are a big-ass calorie sucker that will make you starving actually happened prior to that. The fact that my body fat was approaching a more normal % in that time frame is another confounding variable, imo. I do think my reduction in chronic, whole body pain was probably due to primal foods though, also my unbelievable mood stabilization.

The way I interpreted your graph, you eat more calories now but weigh less. If that is true, there are two explanations:

1.) You exercises more (or smarter) now, so your average daily calorie burn is higher.
2.) Your metabolic rate has increased due to nutrient repletion or optimized hormonal profiles, so your average daily calorie burn is higher.

Either way, if you're eating more than before and losing weight, even if it's slowly, you're burning more calories now than when you started. The only other option is you tracked your calories incorrectly.

I had a standard blood panel done about 5 years ago and my thyroid measure (whatever that was) was in the normal range. Actually, everything was normalish. It was quite a bummer to discover I had no detectable excuse for being fat, lol. I am overdue for a physical and all the associated testing, so that's on the agenda.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

Most doctors don't know how to read a thyroid test. Truthfully, I can't either. It's complicated. Normal range isn't normal because the average person in this country is hypothyroid. The TRUE average for blood glucose should be around 73-80, but you'll be in the normal range if you're in the 90's. Truthfully, a fasting blood glucose in the 90's is really bad. Being in the "normal" range of the most unhealthy country ever to grace Planet Earth...not sure I want to be there. I want to excel!

Get your CO2 checked. Do you have a before and after? CO2 production is an indicator of mitochondrial respiration. If you're in the low to mid 20's, you likely have a slower metabolism. Climbing up toward 30, now you're looking good.

[YogaBare]

Nope. A calorie is always a calorie. What varies is the health of a person's metabolism. That often is determined by vitamin and mineral repletion and proper hormonal balances. Get your soluble vitamins and minerals (from whole foods, not supplements), avoid toxins, make sure you're eating enough but not too much, exercise regularly, sleep well. CW has this idea right. The OP's issue wasn't calories but rather lack of nutrition.

Well, you've just said that eating nutritious food (calories) enhances metabolic health. If a calorie from real foods nourishes your body and causes it to function optimally, and a calorie from say, trans fat does the opposite, then logically not all calorie are the same.

In a literal sense, sure: they have the same amount of energy, but in terms of how this energy is used by the body, they are not equal. After being on this WOE for nearly a year I've come full circle to thinking that there was some truth in Taubes.

[Artbuc]

The TRUE average for blood glucose should be around 73-80, but you'll be in the normal range if you're in the 90's. Truthfully, a fasting blood glucose in the 90's is really bad.

Can you cite scientific studies, facts or even anecdotal evidence to support this assertion? Thanks.

[ChocoTaco369]

Well, you've just said that eating nutritious food (calories) enhances metabolic health. If a calorie from real foods nourishes your body and causes it to function optimally, and a calorie from say, trans fat does the opposite, then logically not all calorie are the same.

In a literal sense, sure: they have the same amount of energy, but in terms of how this energy is used by the body, they are not equal. After being on this WOE for nearly a year I've come full circle to thinking that there was some truth in Taubes.

A calorie is a calorie. It takes a long time to screw up a metabolism - for many of us, decades. The person is the outlier, not the calories.

[ChocoTaco369]

Can you cite scientific studies, facts or even anecdotal evidence to support this assertion? Thanks.

When your “normal” blood sugar isn’t normal (Part 1)
When your “normal” blood sugar isn’t normal (Part 2)

[otzi]

Don't you wish you had all the data in the graphs for your entire life? Now that would be cool! Good job! You worked it out for you--that's the best thing anybody can do!