ExRx.net

these are both good points. I can put away 1000 calories of carbs in ten minutes, probably less (love me some Doritos...). I struggle to eat more than about 600 calories of fatty meat in a sitting.

Considering that either of them being out of the target range for your goal would cause a problem, that makes them pretty much equal.


Yea, and that's actually an extremely important factor.


Some cells require glucose for one thing. Muscle glycogen is another issue. so that generally what you need before, during, and after a workout. In general carb sources digest faster than fat sources, although there are exceptions. With simple carbs you even skip a step in metabolism. I didn't realize this was a controversial concept.


Uh, this thread for one.... You said it's all calories in/out and thermodynamics in a couple different places. That's not consistent with what you are saying here though. Perhaps we are thinking you are saying something other than you are saying because you are making such a gross oversimplification.

If you're hooked up to an IV, then yea it's calories in/out, and thermodynamics proves that, just like you say. In other situations that is a gross oversimplification that appears to be at odds with other things you are saying because of how badly oversimplified it is. So if you would say what you mean instead of repeating media catch phrases, that sound like they were written by three year olds, in order to be easy for the general public to brainlessly mouth, in their drone-like way, then I would know what you mean, and would not find your statements contradictory.


This is not a simple arithmetic problem. It could never, by any stretch of the imagination be equated with one. Is said arithmetic problem in there somewhere? Yes, but it's just one little, albeit important piece.

So equating the part with the whole can be a bit unclear. If you're playing build-your-own-synecdoche, unbeknownst to me, It's going to look like you're just contradicting yourself.


If I replace "pound" with the more realistic amount that you probably meant, then yea, it wouldn't be as good, but it could be done. Things like this tend to assume healthy population, but in this case, a less than healthy group is a very large factor. So that can cloud the issue a little, as what might work for people without X problem, doesn't work quite as well for people with that problem, simply because the problem in question is a malfunction of a metabolic pathway. So if you talk about the majority in total, and I talk about the majority of the "I need help" folks, it's going to get confusing because we aren't talking about the same thing; just as an example.


No, he believes counting the calories doesn't matter, and that it happens in adjusting macros. So you're making a straw man argument there via a....wait for it....oversimplification. I'm seeing a pattern here.


(facepalm) Ok, I'm going to assume you're not going to contradict yourself in the same post......... To that statement I would say "insufficient data". What calories, in and out of where? What are the inputs and outputs here. Then there is the context you use it in. It seems like you are saying this same statement, and then equivocating so that "calories in/out" can mean one of two things depending on which argument you are having.


So I have to figure out that when you say these things like it's just calories in and out, you mean......

Calories are just the most important factor, but not the only one.*

* Statement makes no claim on type of weight lost when considering macros to be only secondary to this, ignoring that important factor can lead to muscle loss, and less fat loss. The author is not responsible for your misunderstanding of the above.

I think that means you agree with me, but I could be wrong about that.

Okay, let me take this back a bit now that things get more aggressive. I can be pretty intense and extreme in my opinions, and can't maybe always put it correctly. See here Nightfall, these are the points I want to make

1) Extreme calorie reduction should be unhealthy for you. Lots of exercise combined with extremely low calorie amount will equal to fat and muscle loss. That is simple physiology. Your body will not get enough nutrients to cope with the severe disturbances. However, the body will adapt and lower you metabolism and system overall. It starts to spare everything. Your body will not use 2400kcal of energy if you are on a 800kcal diet. Then, when you up the calories, the body is still on the lowered mode, only adapting back slowly and late. In the mean time, you will most likely gain fat. Again, scientifically proven fact. Just look at the Biggest loser competitors after the contest, where almost 80% have gained all the weight back, or even more. Many nutritionists, doctors and trainers recommend only reductions of around 200-500 kcal, and a weight loss of max 0.5-1 pounds a week. More than that and the risk of bouncing the pounds back increases.

2) Carbs offer quick energy. I might be mistaken about the fat absorbtion rate. But it doesn't change the fact that the body makes ATP from carbs over twice as fast. That is researched backed information.

3)You simply got a twisted image of me. Carbs are essential around the window of exercise when we talk about optimal performance and fat loss.

4) Everyone seems to be also missing my point. Maybe due to my poor sentences. The main take away I wanted to say is the Following:

"Counting calories and purely just reducing everything to match specific calorie window is not the optimal method on losing weight. By cycling carbs and adding the importance of fat and protein gives you far better results. "
For optimal fat loss, the calorie reduction should come from carbs and be only around 200-500 kcal. This way the result and also the diet is way more permanent. I stress this; it's the macros you should be counting, not the calories. That is my main point. That is why I say the calories don't matter. The macros do.

Sure, if you eat way too much fat and protein, you will gain fat. It is just a lot harder than binging on carbs. That's a given.

Peace and understanding? There is no way I'm married to any opinion. These are my beliefs and I will stand behind them, but I will admit if I'm wrong.

_________________
Prove the impossible!

I have to highlight that too. That's a huge factor. Let me tell you, at one time I could make a bag of Dorritos and 2 litter of soda disappear pretty damn quick. I can't choke down anywhere near that much in bacon, and believe me I would have done it if I could, I like bacon quite a lot.

Is the basic arguement in this thread:
For losing weight it is better to cut fewer calories and adjust the macronutrients vs. a calorie is a calorie and you need to cut as many calories as you can?

_________________
Thanks TimD.

I think everyone actually agrees lol. It's more things being taken out of context i.e. Nightfall appeared to take "don't count calories, just cut carbs/adjust macros/whatever", as, "eat as much protein and fat as you want and you will lose fat".

Then I think the other side has taken Nightfalls statement - i'm paraphrasing - "calories in vs out DOES matter, should be the baseline recommendation for any fat loss", as "a calorie is a calorie, regardless of macro".

I think what has happened is a clarification of both points and realising that both sides think calories do matter and so do macros.

I guess everyone's correct then.

To throw a spanner in the works, I believe calorie restriction* only works for so long then, even with a further reduction in calories OR an increase in activity, that person will still not lose any more "weight" and, in this case, calories in vs calories stops working. I've seen it, too. Doesn't mean I can explain it. I think what Dub said makes sense. I'm just practical and go trial and error with people i.e. "ok so low calories isn't working for you lets try eating more but making sure 'more' is good food".

*of course, calorie restriction could mean anything but, in this case, less assume it's the typical western diet and we've not changed how we've eaten, only reduced what we are eating.

_________________
Thanks TimD

This. KPj nailed it. And Ironman seemed to understand me aswell. It's sometimes sad to see when people say they are restricting calories, they are just eating less of everything. Watching and reading all the calories even in fruits and meat. I think that's not the way to go. The first thing in a situation like this should be looking at the macros. Most likely, there are too many carbs, aka too many calories. May it be sugar or processed grains. Hence, the best solution to lose weight and restrict calories is to ditch some carbs, or atleast make a change for a lower GI -carb. Simple nutrition.

I want to make a disclaimer that low-carb isn't the only solution, nor are carbs the only reason why people are fat. It's not what I'm saying. There are people who do well with 40-60% carbs on their diet, and there's nothing wrong with that. Usually these people just eat better quality or a proper amout of carbs and/or exercise properly when compared to obese people. Carb cycling is just a diet of it's own. Among many working diets.

_________________
Prove the impossible!

With all due respect, the first law of thermodynamics, aka conservation of energy, can never be broken, regardless of complicated diagrams like the one by ironman. Eating 1000 calories a day means the total energy expenditure cannot top 1000 calories (unless your client is losing weight, but that cannot go on forever), and exercising for almost 2 hours a day surely means higher energy needs. No matter what they think, your clients are not reporting correctly.

The other side of the inequality is, however, possible, so you might be eating a lot of calories but for some reason not utilizing them to gain weight, either by secreting undigested food or by generating a lot of heat, like an untuned car in neutral (this does not mean your core temperature has to go up, the body can regulate it by changing the blood flow to the extremities, sweating etc.).

I agree the person is probably under-reporting. There are other options. She may be a very small person. Although you dismiss weight loss, it may be in this case that that is happening. Most people don't go on low calorie diets unless they are trying to lose weight.

With regard to the first law, the body will down-regulate energy consumption as well. The 2 most common ways are reduction in non-exercise activity and reduction in body temperature. The thyroid plays a role in this, and it's often a reaction to a lack of carbs. That's why cycling is recommended for dieters. And, there's always the chance that the person is not really exercising that hard.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Josh that is straw man. Nobody is making that argument. It's always less on the other side. Not to mention the numbers that go into that may not be accurate. The part thermodynamics has to do with is in the middle. You can't prove anything with thermodynamics or anything else for that matter, if the numbers going into it are wrong. Not to mention the conservation of energy that accounts for the difference in burning food and burning bodyfat.

Thermodynamics proves that the total energy of your glucose and lipids minus what is used for energy by your cells, gets stored as fat, minus the energy required to do that process of course. Everything before it is glucose and lipids has nothing to do with it. That's where macros come into play.

Remember Ironman's example of 3000 (or whatever) calories from doughnuts vs. 3000 calories from steak and broccoli. If "a calorie is a calorie" then both should have the same effect. I doubt it.



So you don't read the forum just because there are people who express views that are different than yours on a particular topic? Or who disagree with each other? There are people here who believe all the way from "a calorie is a calorie" to "calories don't matter" and everything in between. I think that just makes (potentially, at least) for interesting and usually civil discussions. I think that's a good reason to stick around.

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

All true! And reporting is only one problem. To me the biggest is that our methods for estimating the energy available from food is very inexact. The thermal energy released from food being burned in a calorimeter is a gross estimate at best of the chemical energy available to be released metabolically. "Energy in/energy out" accurately appeals to the first law. "Calories in/calories out" does not.

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

The majority of the posts on here fall back to the same mantra: Less carbs, reduce carbs, etc.

Only a few stray from that path, really, as is obviously by the amount of stickied threads on low-carbing.

I've never once said macros don't matter - I said they don't matter until you've got an accurate estimate of calories needed to reach your goal. I do reduce carbs when I diet, just to clarify.

If the mantra above is all you got, you have a bit of a reading comprehension problem. I agree with your basic idea here, but I disagree that you need to count calories or have any estimate beforehand. Calories is what you look at when it's not working, then when it's going in the right direction, you know you got it right. The macros and calories really go together. If you are going to bulk, then you maybe add 500 or so calories of mostly carbs to your diet. So if you need X ratio, you know how many carbs you need, multiply by 4, and there's calories. Then if that's not quite enough, you can add a couple hundred more calories and see how you do with that, or if the gain is sloppy, maybe you drop 30 carbs or so.


Obviously if you always count calories you have to start there. However if you don't, you just take your normal diet and add X servings of Y group of food. That does the same thing for you. I don't even think that far into it anymore. I know what I need to add to gain what, and what to remove to lose weight.

True, but we do know that the error is on the side of overestimation, meaning you cannot get more calories than the calorimeter reading, so the claim about 1000 calories intake is really even more restrictive as about the calories available to be used as energy by the body. Therefore the conclusion about erroneous reporting stands (unless that trainee's weight is 60 pounds or so), and "calories in = calories out" is just another way of saying "energy in = energy out", even if you don't know how to measure it.