Building upon Calories in vs Calories out

[Melancholy]

So, we have calories in vs. calories out. A simple distillation of almost any diet that comes into existence. Calories are present in almost any food, broken down per gram as follows: fat-9 calories/ gram, Carbs-4 calories/ gram, and protien-4 calories/ gram. The problem with "calories in vs. calories out" is that it fails to address some very complex bodily functions. I hope this thread can be a (heated at times) discussion relating to the manipulation of this equation (calories in vs. calories out), and ways to turn the different variables in our favor.

calories in vs. calories out... I hate that exact term, because it implies that 100% of what is taken in, is used somewhere in the body, which just isn't the case. Our bodies are good, but not that good. It also implies that all calories are created equal, but that is also just not true. A better equation would be something along the lines of "calories absorbed, vs. calories utilized".

It takes a different amount of energy to metabolize one gram of fat, than it does to metabolize one gram of carbohydrate. Over time, these minor differences add up. Also, these Calories coming from different sources cause different levels of satiety. Here is an excerpt from a study done at UW School of Medicine:

In a recent study from the University of Washington School of Medicine, 19 subjects were fed each of three diets sequentially. For two weeks they followed a weight-maintenance diet comprising 15 percent protein, 35 percent fat, and 50 percent carbohydrate. For the next two weeks they followed a high–protein diet of equal calories. The macronutrient breakdown of this diet was 30 percent protein, 20 percent fat, and 50 percent carbohydrate. Finally, the subjects switched to a high-protein diet with the same macronutrient breakdown but no calorie restriction—subjects were allowed to eat as much or as little as they pleased (or “ad libitum”). They stayed on this last diet for 12 weeks.


and here are the results of that study:

The authors of the study reported that when subjects switched from the low-protein weight maintenance diet to the high-protein weight maintenance diet, they started feeling much fuller despite the fact that they were consuming the same number of calories. Even more significant, during the unrestricted high-protein diet phase, the subjects voluntarily reduced their daily eating by 441 calories per day and lost almost 11 pounds, including more than eight pounds of body fat, on average.


So in this scenario, a Calorie is not a Calorie, because in the context of losing weight, the results were dramatically different.

Fiber is also shown to reduce the "calories absorbed" portion of the equation. Fiber is generally not absorbed into the body, thus not contributing calorically to what is taken into the body. Consequently, it will also reduce the overall number of calories eaten because it will provide satiety, without being absorbed, another manipulation of the equation

Lastly, there is the TEF or thermic effect of food that varies depending on when you eat your meals.

Here is a study that was done on TEF:

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that TEF is higher in the morning than in the evening. Volunteers were given an identical 544-calorie meal at one of three times. In subjects fed at 9 am, TEF increased by 16 percent; in those fed at 5 pm, TEF increased by 13.5 percent; and in those fed at 1 am, TEF increased by only 11 percent. So it’s clear that we burn more calories in the morning.


So, again.. I think it does a grave injustice to dieting by saying calories in vs. calories out (no offense [anyone that says this], honestly! ), because it doesn't teach someone that doesn't know how to lose weight, the biological factors that contribute to hunger, fullness, and weight change. I honestly think we need to be mindful of telling new members that it's that simple (calories in vs. calories out), because when they fail, they will think they did something wrong when in fact they may have just eaten calories that were loaded with HF Corn Syrup, etc. People that don’t know about weight-loss are told “It’s simple” yet they cannot succeed, that contributes negatively to self-confidence, and chances of success.

I have also enjoyed the heated discussion in the last week or so about 4-hour body.. so things like ice water baths (change the calories utilized part of the equation), drinking cold water, etc. bring it on... let's discuss scientifically why they do/ don't work.

 

[Jericho]

It is the CORE, not the end all be all. I'll do the tree thing again. Calories in vs calories out is the trunk, all else grows from that. Exercise, nutrition, emotional eating grows from this trunk.


Dear lords, this is going to turn into a big mess of a thread, I can just see it now.


Oh.. - found the study.

 

[Melancholy]

Dear lords, this is going to turn into a big mess of a thread, I can just see it now.

No way! Look at yesterday... ChefChiTown and I had a little, er, "tiff" and then it was quashed in 3 posts, argument over.

This is a heated, and relevant aspect of weight loss (manipulation of the cal. absorbed, vs. calories utilized) especially, for those who really want to...err, debate. I have seen plenty of threads started in the last month with titles with the likes of should I exercise? etc., I can't see how this thread could be less constructive than those haha.

Anyway, Jericho, I expect you to provide the backbone of reasoning for otherwise unreasonable people like me. So, care to add any advice about how one can lose more weight??

 

[Jericho]

'more'

You mean more as in continue losing weight or more as in faster? Because the later is part of the reason people keep failing. They want it now now now instead of remembering it takes time.

 

[Melancholy]

And you can't find the studies, because when they are referenced, they are given laymen titles like "fat and carbohydrates", but to find the actual study on a .gov site like pubmed, the title is along the lines of: Improvements in glucose tolerance and insulin action induced by increasing energy expenditure or decreasing energy intake: a randomized controlled trial. aka complex.

I use google Uncle Sam, that only searches .gov sites before I got to Pub Med, it's a great search engine:

<Unclesam> - Google Search

 

[Melancholy]

'more'

You mean more as in continue losing weight or more as in faster? Because the later is part of the reason people keep failing. They want it now now now instead of remembering it takes time.

Exactly, you know how it is... you are not going to change anyone's mind, and make them suddenly decide losing weight over 5 months is better than 'now' (whatever now means for someone)...

I lost 50 pounds in the last 170 days, or about .29 pounds/day, about 2.05/ week... but in the beginning, I was averaging 4lb/ week. I was motivated to continue my effort, but losing weight in the early part of my diet. You know how society is, so we might as well discuss 'healthy' ways to conform to this mentality, or more people will continue to fail.

 

[Melancholy]

Here is an interesting study, relating to satiety:

Influence of two breakfast meals differing in glycemic load on satiety, hunger, and energy intake in preschool children.
LaCombe A, Ganji V.

Division of Nutrition, School of Health Professions, College of Health and Human Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA.

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glycemic load (GL) is the product of glycemic index of a food and amount of available carbohydrate in that food divided by 100. GL represents quality and quantity of dietary carbohydrate. Little is known about the role of GL in hunger, satiety, and food intake in preschool children. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of two breakfast meals differing in GL on hunger, satiety, and subsequent food intake at lunch in preschool children aged 4-6 y.

METHODS: Twenty three subjects consumed low-GL (LGL) and high-GL (HGL) breakfast meals according to a randomized crossover design followed by an ad libitum lunch 4 h after consumption of breakfast. Children were asked to consume meals until they are full. Each treatment was repeated twice in non-consecutive days and data were averaged.

RESULTS: Children in LGL group consumed significantly lower amounts of GL, total carbohydrate, energy, energy density, and dietary fiber and higher amounts of protein and fat at the breakfast compared to those in HGL group. Prior to lunch, children were hungrier in the HGL intervention group compared to the LGL intervention group (P < 0.03). However, no significant difference was observed between LGL and HGL intervention groups in the amount of food and energy consumed during lunch.

CONCLUSIONS: Decreased hunger in children prior to lunch in LGL group is likely due to higher protein and fat content of LGL breakfast. Diets that are low in GL can be recommended as part of healthy diet for preschool children.

 

[ChefChiTown]

It's a scientific fact that a human being must burn about 3,500 calories to lose 1 lb of fat. Meaning, they must use up 3,500 calories more than they consume in order to lose 1 lb of fat.

Disregarding certain medical conditions and outside influences (er, INSIDE influences) such as tapeworms (and fluctuations in water weight)...

A person can't eat 3,000 calories a day, burn 2,000 calories per day and lose weight. It is physically and scientifically impossible. In that case, a person would be consuming 1,000 calories more per day than they were burning. That equals weight gain.

A person can't eat 3,000 calories a day, burn 3,000 calories per day and lose weight. It is physically and scientifically impossible. In that case, a person would be consuming the same exact amount of calories as they were burning. That equals weight maintenance.

But, if a person eats 3,000 calories per day and burns 5,000 calories per day, it means that they are burning 2,000 calories more than they are consuming every single day. That translates into weight loss. That is the only way that you can lose weight.

Now, do other things factor into weight loss? Yes, absolutely. In a sense (a big sense) it matters WHAT you eat, just as much as HOW MUCH you eat. If I consume all of my calories through salt and sugar, I'm certainly not going to lose weight as quickly as people consuming their calories through fruits, vegetables, grains and proteins. Different foods have different consequences and produce different reactions within our bodies. So, it most certainly matters what we're putting into our bodies - not just how much.

Now, you can eat as healthily as you want - nothing but fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean protein, etc - but you HAVE TO burn more calories than you consume in order to lose weight.

No matter what you eat, it all boils down to calories in vs. calories out.

 

[Jericho]

is this really a discussion about calories in vs calories out or is it really more of a discussion in support of low GL diets?

 

[Toddless]

Hahaha. I can't help but laugh that this thread was created. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great.

I'd say that it's frustrating to constantly have to hear, "everything boils down to calories in vs. calories out". WE ALREADY KNOW THAT! ...Makes me angry just thinking about it.

Here's a scenario:
Cal logs into the forum and says he eats 2,000 calories a day, and according to some calculations via a BMR calculator, he burns about 2,500 calories a day. He weighs himself every morning, but for the past month he hasn't lost or gained weight. (This seems to me a pretty typical forum member, I think we can all agree.)
Cal logs in one day and tells everyone he started eating more. A lot more. Now he logs about 4,000 calories a day. He still calculates that he burns 2,500 calories a day. ... He says he's lost 4 pounds in the past 2 weeks.

Here's what I find interesting: Some people will read the above and think, That's Impossible. And yet, there's Cal, 4 pounds lighter, and logging into the forum to read things like, "that's impossible", or "it must be water weight" or "you're severely overestimating your calories".

Something else I find interesting is that it seems to happen ALL THE TIME.

Thoughts?

Aaaaaaannnnnd, I'm out. Have fun guys.

 

[Melancholy]

is this really a discussion about calories in vs calories out or is it really more of a discussion in support of low GL diets?

No, that is all I have practical experience with, which is why I created this thread... because others will have other experiences... the 4HB is about low carb, low GI/GL, and some people don't like that...

Jericho, if you don't in fact like such a 'diet', then please cite sources showing the negative effects and provide personal context to why you dislike it, rather than just poo-poo'ing the idea alltogether.

 

[Melancholy]

A person can't eat 3,000 calories a day, burn 3,000 calories per day and lose weight. It is physically and scientifically impossible. In that case, a person would be consuming the same exact amount of calories as they were burning.

I agree to an extent, but where I have a problem is with the bolded line. Calories from different sources are not absorbed. For example, some fiber is insoluble, and thus non-utilized in the body. You have 'eaten' this fiber, and gained satiety from it, but it will not be stored in the body as fat.

I also don't think any diet advocated ignoring this crucial aspect of losing weight; that you need a net caloric deficit to lose weight. I beleive the way some diets attain this goal is different. By limiting food groups (such as sugar in your analogy) you will be less-prone to intense hunger, thus likely to ingest less calories for the day... thereby reducing your "calories in" aspect of the 'tree trunk'

 

[Jeanette401]

For what it's worth, I think the protein focus of diets is far more important than the Glycemic Index/Glycemic Load part, even though it seems like the whole insulin part of it gets way more press.

This is for a few reasons - one, when people do studies of 'low carb' or 'low GI' they often end up with a higher protein content (rather than fat content) to make up the rest of the calories. When you hold carbs steady, higher protein wins. Two, insulin response widely varies among individuals. Even though the GI provides an average, unless you take your own readings, there's really no way to say if that's true for you. And finally, most protein actually generates a substantial insulin response, so even if it's not showing up on the GI, with respect to blood sugar etc. it's not clear that it's the sugar or starch etc. that's at issue.

Now, that's not to say low GI/GL is a bad plan for health. It's most likely going to be less processed, have more fiber and more protein than the Standard American Died (SAD). But then again when you look at say the Mediterranean diet which is not particularly low GI/GL and also has been shown in studies to correlate with better health than the SAD it seems that low GI/GL is one way to achieve a goal, but not the actual cause.

Now, as to Todless' point about the 'eating 4000 calories' and suddenly losing, the fact is I'm really skeptical about that for two reasons. First, it has never been shown to happen in an actual study where people are measuring exactly how many calories are being eaten and burned. Doubly labeled water studies are really good for this,and self reporting is notoriously unreliable. If someone really can go from 2000 calories a day and not losing, to 4000 calories and losing... they should contact a researcher and go in a study because the mechanisms behind it would be extremely valuable to our understanding of the human body. Second, these claims of eating more are usually coming from people who are on a 'don't count calories' plan. Not only is confirmation bias a real factor, but I could easily see me believing I was eating more calories because I switched from 4 Subway cookies to a 6" Subway sandwich - since the volume is like 8 times more - even though the cookies actually have twice the calories.

As to the ice water bath etc... In a few weeks I am actually contemplating an experiment with it, if someone would give me the details? My plan is to go a week on my 'normal' slow weight loss, weigh myself and take a BIA reading every day, and write down all of my meals. Then the next week do the same thing, having the exact same meals and exact same workout, and see what the change in bodyfat is at the end of each week. Does that seem like a reasonable experiment? ... Although I'm still shivering thinking about it, lol.

 

[Melancholy]

I don't believe I 'poopooed' over any 'diet' you said here. I am pointing out your discussion is less about calories in vs calories out and more about the pros of the low GL diet. That is all.

I'm starting to wonder Melancholy if you are just wanting me to fight you on this or something? I don't know. I would like to just ask you is this a life style change you plan to keep for the rest of your life?

That (in bold) is not true... I said I wanted to discuss manipulation of the equation, with different techniques. I then sunsequently used my real life experience losing 50 pounds to specify the way I personally manipuated the equation in my favor, and then cited actual studies to support the way that I personally lost the weight.

There are some tough questions that need to be asked... mainly, why have some people not lost the weight on this board? Seriously, I clicked on your ticker, and you have done fairly well, 20 pounds or so over the last (almost year), but, why not more? 1% of your weight (you referenced on a thread yesterday) is 3.5 pounds/ week. That is a lot of weight.

Now, me.. I struggled BIG TIME till I found something that worked for me. I was all over the place with weight, and I 'thought' I was eating healthy, I thought I was making good choices, but our minds can betray us more than we realize. We can pick an item (salad) at a restaurant with 1200 calories, instead of Salmon and Veggies (600 calories), the whole, eat this, not that thing.

for me personally again, low GI/GL was the way to go. In the context of calories in vs. calories out, I took in less by adhering to a particular diet, what if other people can identify with my shortcomings, and also lose 50 pounds? What have you got to lose, to try something besides what you've done for the last 10 months? You don't have to buy anything.

People log onto this board all the time, and read calories in vs. calories out (all the timeeeeeeee) and they need to know that many factors affect this equation, and there are many opinions on how to influence the equation one way or another.





-----------------------


PS - I don't know (about the lifestyle change). I have struggled with weight my whole life. I have always gained weight very easily, eating very close to what others around me eat (without the same results on them). I have always been a person that is generally hungry, generally the one that was the (jokingly) 'garbage disposal' of family gatherings. Changing my diet to account for this shortfall in my genetic makeup, seems like the reasonable way to go.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I agree to an extent, but where I have a problem is with the bolded line. Calories from different sources are not absorbed. For example, some fiber is insoluble, and thus non-utilized in the body. You have 'eaten' this fiber, and gained satiety from it, but it will not be stored in the body as fat.

I also don't think any diet advocated ignoring this crucial aspect of losing weight; that you need a net caloric deficit to lose weight. I beleive the way some diets attain this goal is different. By limiting food groups (such as sugar in your analogy) you will be less-prone to intense hunger, thus likely to ingest less calories for the day... thereby reducing your "calories in" aspect of the 'tree trunk'

With that logic, I could eat 20,000 calories of pure fiber every day and never gain weight because of it.

Different foods cause different reactions in our body, all of which throw variables into the speed in which our body burns calories and how difficult it becomes for our bodies to lose weight - not just fat, but weight. For instance, eating a lot of salt will cause you to retain water. Retaining water technically makes you gain weight. Water isn't weightless. So, lots of sodium will make it harder for you to lose weight, because as you burn fat, you retain water. So, even though you're burning fat, you might not be losing any weight. It might balance out.

Plus, just because it's not being absorbed into your body as fat doesn't mean that it's not being absorbed into your body at all. Take carbohydrates for example. In layman's terms, carbs are pretty much pure energy. But, if that energy goes unused, it eventually (over a period of time), breaks down into glucose. And, if we don't do anything to get that glucose out of our body, it will slowly but surely turn into fat.

Now, to throw fiber back into the mix - fiber slows down the digestion and metabolism of carbohydrates. So, although that fiber itself may not be being digested, it certainly aids in potential weight gain by slowing down our metabolism and digestion of the carbohydrates that we eat. And, as I just stated, carbohydrates turn into glucose which turns into fat.

So, just because a food doesn't necessarily absorb into our bodies as fat, it doesn't mean that it doesn't effect the rate in which our body burns and/or absorbs calories.

 

[Jericho]

Well, if you want to talk about MY weight loss..it is 50 pounds over the last year. Why has it stalled? Cause I stopped focusing. There are emotional factors so guess what? My calories in vs calories out is about equal right now.


In fact, according to what you said yourself, your calories in was too much (the salad) and until you learned better food choices to make your calories in lower that you lost weight.


so..what is the debate about calories in vs calories out again because I don't think your initial debate is right. You are not discussing CI vs CO..you are discussing the 'what elses'

 

[Jeanette401]

I would like to see you eat 20,000 calories of fiber in a day! Please do this on youtube! Lessee, average of 2 cals/gram of fiber... 10kg of psyllium husk? This sounds awesome!

I don't know that fiber itself blocks things... however I can say that beansprouts pretty much go right through me, whereas celery is not recognizable... yes, this is bordering on serious oversharing here! I think the real question isn't whether or not 3000 calories intake and estimated 3000 calories burned will work out to perfect maintenance, but rather how much variance can there be. The 4 calories per gram is an estimate. Different proteins and different carbs have different values. But if you were to use doubly labelled water studies to really see how much intake and output there is... could 3000 calories be as 'low' as 1500 calories? Or is it more like + or - 50 calories? Of course, I don't have the answer to this at all, but if someone actually does I think it would be quite interesting

 

[ChefChiTown]

I would like to see you eat 20,000 calories of fiber in a day! Please do this on youtube! Lessee, average of 2 cals/gram of fiber... 10kg of psyllium husk? This sounds awesome!

There's not a toilet big enough to handle me intaking 20,000 calories of fiber in a day. I'd need a kiddie pool to unload after a day like that.

 

[Melancholy]

With that logic, I could eat 20,000 calories of pure fiber every day and never gain weight because of it.

haha... well, putting aside what 5kg of fiber would do to your.. eh-hem... insides.... ....

I agree principally with what you are saying. My whole concern with distilling a diet to CI vs. CO is that it doesn't teach people how to eat, because it merely is an anecdote. Like you put it in your other post, you could eat salt+sugar (it would take 700g of sugar to equal 2800 calories... yuck), or you could eat something different. the goal of diets, is to 'aim' (for lack of a better term) the dieter in the direction, that achieves the CI vs. CO net deficit.

just saying CI vs. CO does not address how to acheive this, which is problemmatic for "poster Cal" in Toddless's analogy.

 

[Jericho]

so it really isn't Calories in vs Calories out you are wanting to discuss, it is the 'branches'..such as nutrition.

Kinda makes the title misleading.