calories in vs calories out/portion control

[fortyninethousand322]

So which is it? I submit it's the type of foods you eat. A 250 calorie candy bar is worse for you, in terms of both nutritional value and weight maintenance than 250 calories of meat or vegetables.

 

There's a lot of conflicting research out there. The bulk of nutritionists believe that creating a caloric deficit will burn fat. Others like Gary Taubes believe that it isn't about the calories, but about the carbohydrate content. Others like Martin Berkhan say that it is a combination of caloric deficit and eating times that determines fat burning.

 

Personally, I have had the most success in terms of maintaining weight loss not from calorie counting, but from sticking to a Paleo style diet. I'm curious to see what other people have had success with.

 

On a personal note, I think that it's very likely that cutting calories can be successful to help people lose weight. It's also very likely that the kinds of foods people cut out when cutting calories, are the kinds of foods that are high in carbohydrates, specifically simple carbs. I'm also very skeptical of a strict calories in calories out explanation since we all know people (in my case several) who are essentially couch potatoes and eat whatever they want in however many portions they want and don't get fat. Since these people also eat a lot of carbs, I'm also skeptical about low carb diet explanations as well.

 

I was basically called a simpleton, a fool, and an idiot who knew nothing about nutrition or fitness in the other thread. It made me realize that if there's one thing more important to people than their political or religious views, it's maintaining their superiority in knowing about nutrition. I would hope that we can a civil discussion here. Thanks.

Edited March 24, 2013 by fortyninethousand322

[kaylan]

Of course a 250 cal candy bear has less nutritional value than 250 cal of meats or veggies. However, the reason experts advise us to forgo the candy bar is not solely because of its lack in nutritional value, but because it will still leave us hungry.

 

Junk food generally has more calories per pound of food, than does a balanced meal. So in order to get the same fullness and satisfaction, youd have to eat more junk...which means more calories...which means weight gain.

 

The reason good food maintains weight better than junk is because it takes less of it to keep you full. Thereby not going over your daily caloric requirements. The reason I have abs showing is because I limit my calories in order to burn fat. And the reason I eat less junk is because I dont want to hit my calorie limits and still be hungry.

 

Your healthy, lower calorie, diet is why you maintain weight loss.

 

Its still largely possible for me to eat junk food everyday and binge drink beers on the weekend and maintain the same weight. My body composition will change some (a little less muscle, less defined abs) because Im not hawk eyeing my protein intake and calorie intake. But for the most part, my weight doesnt go more than 3 lbs away from my normal weight.

 

Why is this? Because even though Im eating junk, Im not eating enough of it where my calories taken in greatly outweigh my calories burned. There are plenty of athlete examples, where these guys eat garbage all the time, but do enough training that they never pack on a pound. There are also numerous guys on the bodybuilding.com forums who eat like mad men during their bulking cycle, eating huge amounts of crap food, yet dont get fat and build muscle because of how their body work.

[fortyninethousand322]

Right but why does research by people like Gary Taubes or Martin Berkhan come to different conclusions?

 

I understand the gut inclination to conclude that it's all about calories vs calories out for maintaining weight loss or staying healthy, I used to believe those things too. But, there is considerable debate on the issue, unless one believes that people like Berkhan and Taubes are mere charlatans seeking to make a buck.

[neveragain34]

I do paleo as well and the same topic came up in another thread today:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/mind-body-soul/physical-fitness-health-weight-management/375469-decrease-anxiety-depression-food-2.html

 

The foods you can consume while doing paleo are for the most part low in calories and carbs, but they are more filling than a candy bar and won't result in eating more food to fulfil your hunger. The hunger you continue to experience after eating the candy bar comes from the lack of nutrients your body is wanting. When doing paleo, it feels like you are pigging out, but if you actually add up the calories, you are taking in the same amount of calories as you would be on a non-carbohydrate restricted diet. I hope that makes sense.

 

There is more science to paleo regarding your blood sugar levels and fat burning, but most of it comes down to the details above.

 

I personally love paleo because I have much more energy now that allows me to workout harder and more often. Overall, I feel great! My next personal challenge will be the Whole30. Not quite ready to give up fruit and red wine for a month. Lol

[fortyninethousand322]

Yeah, I mean I wasn't trying to say that somebody could eat a million calories and be fine, obviously there is a limit. But, the relationship between calories and weight loss is more complicated than an addition problem.

 

This type of thing illustrates the problem with the fitness community in general. As soon as someone says something that contradicts what another person thinks it becomes an insult laden flame war. "No you're wrong!" "No you are!" Which I admit I was as guilty of as anyone else. But if this is really a science, you would think it would be easier to have a civil discussion.

 

I wish we could have a simple experiment and find out for sure who is right. But the logistics and ethical issues are too hard to overcome.

[neveragain34]

Yeah, I mean I wasn't trying to say that somebody could eat a million calories and be fine, obviously there is a limit. But, the relationship between calories and weight loss is more complicated than an addition problem.

 

This type of thing illustrates the problem with the fitness community in general. As soon as someone says something that contradicts what another person thinks it becomes an insult laden flame war. "No you're wrong!" "No you are!" Which I admit I was as guilty of as anyone else. But if this is really a science, you would think it would be easier to have a civil discussion.

 

I wish we could have a simple experiment and find out for sure who is right. But the logistics and ethical issues are too hard to overcome.

 

I've experienced the same problems too on here. The way I see it is there is no right or wrong answer. Experiments have been done on the various dieting lifestyles out there and they all have their own benefits/science behind them. It basically comes down to what works for YOU.

[tman666]

As neveragain said, it basically boils down to what works best for you to reach your own goals.

 

This doesn't mean that there aren't objectively "right" and "wrong" answers when it comes to nutrition, but there are so many factors that could skew the results that it's almost pointless, in my opinion, to get too worked up about the precision. Some of these factors include:

 

a) was the study based on an applicable and sizeable population? A lot of the studies I've seen sited are in untrained individuals or obese individuals. Do the results have direct carryover into trained athletes?

 

b) were the results interpreted and applied correctly to support the conclusion?

 

c) individual behavior patterns: no matter how sound a principle is, the meaning behind it diminishes with improper application. I.e., is this something that a normal person can implement outside of of a lab setting?

 

d) individual physiological variation: our genetics, state of health, age, sex, etc. all have an effect on how our bodies metabolize energy and utilize nutrients.

 

I'm sure there are other factors that I have neglected, but my point is that there are just too many factors to determine absolute correctness.

 

From personal experience and the experiences of my fitness/bodybuilding minded friends, the key to good performance and looking your leanest and meanest is much, much more involved than simple "calories in versus calories out", though caloric balance DOES play a role.

 

Obviously, that's anecdotal evidence, but I think that the ends justify the means (at least when it comes to bodybuilding nutrition). Research can support one thing and personally experienced anecdotal evidence can support another. Personally, I value the advice of those who walk the walk over the person armed to the teeth with studies.

 

Again, that's not to say that research is useless, but you just have to be careful who you listen to and how you apply information. Remember that nobody ever built the best physique, or became the strongest or fastest, by being the most correctly informed researcher. Time under the bar and keeping an open mind (with a filter) are the assets that lead to the greatest results.

Edited March 25, 2013 by tman666

[fortyninethousand322]

Yeah I'm big into experimenting with yourself and figuring out what works best. This was more geared to the idea of why many Americans had become obese. There was another thread in the sex section that started to get off topic talking about that issue so I started this thread.

 

My claim in that thread is that people were getting fat a lot more because of what they were eating not necessarily how much they were eating. Sugar intake, insulin, hormonal issues, those played a bigger role than calories in determining whether someone got fat. Especially since I think a huge amount of these people have Metabolic Syndrome or some variation thereof, and are probably much more sensitive to sugar and simple carbs.

 

Of course I could be wrong on that, I don't deny it. Maybe there really are hordes of people gorging themselves at buffets three times a day. But, I remember when I was fat about 10+ years ago I got about as much or more exercise (I was even on a youth soccer team) as my skinnier friends and ate the same amount of food as they did. I was even brown bagging it, while they were eating school provided fries and pizza.

 

Once I changed the kinds of foods I ate, I got healthier. Anecdotal, yes. But that's my experience.

[tman666]

 

My claim in that thread is that people were getting fat a lot more because of what they were eating not necessarily how much they were eating. Sugar intake, insulin, hormonal issues, those played a bigger role than calories in determining whether someone got fat. Especially since I think a huge amount of these people have Metabolic Syndrome or some variation thereof, and are probably much more sensitive to sugar and simple carbs.

 

 

I don't think you're wrong with this. The types of foods one eats can certainly influence hormonal balance and insulin sensitivity, both of which can affect body composition and health in the long term.

 

I think people get confused when they look at this stuff through a "24 hour" lens versus a long term view. People see results taken from the perspective of seeing how the body works on a microcosmic level in a short period of time, and (incorrectly) assume that the body will respond the same way over the long term, as if we were machines. Obviously, the human body is much more complicated than that.

[FitChick]

I count calories. That way I can allow for a treat now and again. And again. And again...

 

If I eat foods with high fiber, they really make me feel full. Just had quinoa. High protein, high calcium and very filling.

[Mr Scorpio]

I read an article last week that challenged a lot of accepted assumptions. Things like "eat lots of small meals to increase metabolism" or "you'll lose muscle if you fast for a few days". It contained a lot of citations to peer reviewed articles and was clearly over my head. What I took away from it is that apparently the science isn't settled (is it ever?).

 

Personally, I abide by calories in versus calories out for fat loss. I don't count calories or step on the scale everyday. Rather, I focus on abilities: can I go three miles in thirty minutes? Can I do three sets of ten pull-ups? I know that when I can do those things, that I will have already lost sufficient fat to be pleased with my results.

 

Although, I have often wondered, if calories-in vs calories-out is true, how do the folks on "The Biggest Loser" shed so much weight?! To me, anything beyond 2 pounds in a week is extreme. I assume it has something to do with the excess that they are starting with, but still... over 10 pounds in one-week? Yeesh!

[fortyninethousand322]

I read an article last week that challenged a lot of accepted assumptions. Things like "eat lots of small meals to increase metabolism" or "you'll lose muscle if you fast for a few days". It contained a lot of citations to peer reviewed articles and was clearly over my head. What I took away from it is that apparently the science isn't settled (is it ever?).

 

Personally, I abide by calories in versus calories out for fat loss. I don't count calories or step on the scale everyday. Rather, I focus on abilities: can I go three miles in thirty minutes? Can I do three sets of ten pull-ups? I know that when I can do those things, that I will have already lost sufficient fat to be pleased with my results.

 

Although, I have often wondered, if calories-in vs calories-out is true, how do the folks on "The Biggest Loser" shed so much weight?! To me, anything beyond 2 pounds in a week is extreme. I assume it has something to do with the excess that they are starting with, but still... over 10 pounds in one-week? Yeesh!

 

I read a lot of this stuff, over the years I've experienced with many different diets, counted calories, not counted calories, instituted cheat days, abandoned cheat days, switched up cardio types, etc. I'm curious as to what works and what doesn't. I've been reading up on this thing called intermittent fasting, which sounds like bunk but one of the side benefits is supposedly it will make you look younger. As a guy who looks 10-15 years older than I am, I'm intrigued. Maybe I'll try it, maybe I won't.

 

I'm at a point in my own fitness life where I don't need to lose weight. I'd actually like to put on some more muscle (like 40 lbs or so) but I don't want to use steroids to do it. Anyway, this thread was just some musings by me.

[fortyninethousand322]

Just thought I'd post this article here and see what people think.

 

Obesity Issues | Alternative Explanation for Why People Get Fat

 

One of the main points is the difference between glucose and fructose. Fructose is broken down entirely in the liver and your body uses less of it vs glucose. You are more likely to get fat from consuming fructose vs glucose. Or so the paper alleges.

[tman666]

I read a lot of this stuff, over the years I've experienced with many different diets, counted calories, not counted calories, instituted cheat days, abandoned cheat days, switched up cardio types, etc. I'm curious as to what works and what doesn't. I've been reading up on this thing called intermittent fasting, which sounds like bunk but one of the side benefits is supposedly it will make you look younger. As a guy who looks 10-15 years older than I am, I'm intrigued. Maybe I'll try it, maybe I won't.

 

I'm at a point in my own fitness life where I don't need to lose weight. I'd actually like to put on some more muscle (like 40 lbs or so) but I don't want to use steroids to do it. Anyway, this thread was just some musings by me.

 

I've been intermittent fasting via Leangains for over 2 years now, and it has honestly been life changing. I don't think I look any younger (haha, I hadn't heard that before), but some of the benefits I've experienced:

 

a) within about 3 weeks after starting it, the knee tendonitis that I had been battling on and off for the entirety of the previous year disappeared and hasn't come back. This may be a coincidence, but fasting supposedly helps decrease inflammation within the body and as such, there may be a correlation. Being able to train pain free was instrumental in getting my progress moving again on my performance, which has a direct impact on one's physique a lot of times.

 

b) I dropped about 20 pounds of fat and then plateaued. To get leaner, all I've had to do is cut back carbs and fat calories just a little bit (protein stayed the same). No diet overhaul was necessary. Training remained consistent, with the exception of the addition of some short conditioning finishers at the end. No long bouts of steady state cardio. I started seeing my abs and abdominal/hip area veins for the first time in my life. Due to my work schedule, I train in a fed state most of the time. Apparently the results come even faster with fasted training.

 

c) My lifts have only increased over the past 2 years. I was already fairly muscular when I started LG, but I have not experienced any of the muscle loss that I feared would happen when I first started.

 

d) behaviorally, it has helped me eliminate the fear of being hungry. No longer do I start to panic that my muscles are being catabolized when I feel hunger. This sounds funny, but this was huge for me, coming from a background of "conventional bodybuilding wisdom".

 

I know plenty of very strong, very ripped people who eat small, frequent meals like it's their religion. It works for them. They've done it for years, so why change? I know plenty of very strong, very ripped people who have gone to eating 2-3 large meals per day, condensed into a 6-8 hour feeding window. The point is that both the research and a growing body of personal and anecdotal evidence indicates that meal frequency doesn't matter. As we were talking about before, I personally think that nutrient timing can play an important role, but there are people out there that disagree with even that.

 

Hence the statement: "you have to find what works for you" rings more true than ever. The last 5 years have shown that conventional wisdom cannot be relied upon as the end-all when it comes to nutrition. The last couple years have shown that conventional wisdom is being turned on its head even with training principles (John Broz, anyone?).

 

This is why it's so important to just get in the gym, keep an open mind, try a lot of things, keep what works for you, and discard what doesn't. I don't know if we'll ever find the "holy grail" of training or nutrition that works for everyone.

[tman666]

Just thought I'd post this article here and see what people think.

 

Obesity Issues | Alternative Explanation for Why People Get Fat

 

One of the main points is the difference between glucose and fructose. Fructose is broken down entirely in the liver and your body uses less of it vs glucose. You are more likely to get fat from consuming fructose vs glucose. Or so the paper alleges.

 

This is what Alan Aragon thinks of Dr. Lustig's conclusions: The bitter truth about fructose alarmism. | Alan Aragon's Blog

 

Who is right? Who cares... I think it's safe to say that if one is performance and physique minded, they're probably not running into any troubles with their fructose intake anyway.

[Video]

I think measuring food in calories is the most unhealthy way to eat. They had it right a long time ago when they made the food pyramid. You should be eating foods from all the food groups every day regardless.

 

In terms of gaining weight SIMPLE carbohydrates play the biggest role. Complex carbs take longer for your body to process and are much less likely to get stored as fat. Protein is also not likely to get stored as fat as much as sugar as well.

 

Staying away from sugar isnt great either. You should be eating plenty of fruit which has natural sugar in it. When you eat is important as well. If you consume simple carbs close to a workout they are much more likely to be used for energy instead of stored as fat.

 

If your overweight, work out more! If thats not giving results lighten up on the carbs a bit but not completely.

 

A normal healthy diet for an average person should be 60% carbs, 25% protein, 15% fat.

[fortyninethousand322]

This is what Alan Aragon thinks of Dr. Lustig's conclusions: The bitter truth about fructose alarmism. | Alan Aragon's Blog

 

Who is right? Who cares... I think it's safe to say that if one is performance and physique minded, they're probably not running into any troubles with their fructose intake anyway.

 

Yeah. I'm largely interested as a purely intellectual exercise. Aside from fitness benefits that I could personally benefit from (to build muscle, etc.).

 

I'm not sure who's wrong or who's right. Probably never will know.

[FitChick]

People have to experiment and do what works for them. I have always been a snacker, ever since I was a kid. I have to keep my blood sugar stable or I will overeat at a big meal and feel sick later. When people see me eating my lunch, they comment on how little I eat: "No wonder you are thin." Yet when they see me snacking they ask, "How can you stay so thin eating all the time?"