Building upon Calories in vs Calories out

[Melancholy]

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.

I learned by following a diet... I dunno, guess I am too stupid to know that a salad has 1200 calories (I thought veggies were healthy).. but either way, I chose a diet that had amicable choices, and achieved my goals. I don't see a problem with that. Incidently, my Mom, whom I love dearly has started doing a low GI/GL diet, and has already lost about 5% of her body weight. If something is going to keep a family member of mine healthier, and alive longer, I'm all for it.

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'

Maybe you are right... but my intent was to discuss how CI vs. CO is impacted by various diets (now I say 'diet' but I am not saying diet in the sense you are thinking... a diet in my context is discussing what a person eats, not a specific diet that is purchased and followed.

 

[Jericho]

Then might I suggest a renaming of the thread that would really help here?

'Building upon Calories in vs Calories out'

I can change it if you wish

 

[Melancholy]

Then might I suggest a renaming of the thread that would really help here?

'Building upon Calories in vs Calories out'

I can change it if you wish

Sure, you're the boss haha. If you think it's a more appropriate title, sonds good to me.

 

[ChefChiTown]

The boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. That means, water doesn't boil unless its temperature reaches 212 degrees. If the water is 50 degrees, it's not going to boil. If the water is 138 degrees, it's not going to boil. Even if the water is 211 degrees, it's not going to boil. Water doesn't boil unless it is 212 degrees (or higher).

It doesn't matter what heat source you use, it doesn't matter what outside influences effect that heat source and it doesn't matter how long it takes that water to get to temperature. The only thing that matters is reaching the temperature of 212 degrees. Water will not boil unless it reaches 212 degrees.

Let's compare this to weight loss.

You don't lose fat unless you burn more calories than you consume (until you reach a temperature of 212 degrees). It doesn't matter what you eat (the heat source), it doesn't matter how the foods interact with each other (the outside influences effecting the heat source) and it doesn't matter how good your metabolism is (how long it takes to get to temperature)...

The only thing that matters is burning more calories than you consume (reaching the temperature of 212 degrees). You will not lose weight unless you burn more calories than you consume (water will not boil unless it reaches 212 degrees).

All of the variables might change the formula, but not the answer.

 

[Jeanette401]

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.

Well... that kind of WAS part of what would make it awesome! Talk about unpleasant though... probably even less pleasant than the gall bladder cleanse...

 

[Jeanette401]

The boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. That means, water doesn't boil unless its temperature reaches 212 degrees. If the water is 50 degrees, it's not going to boil. If the water is 138 degrees, it's not going to boil. Even if the water is 211 degrees, it's not going to boil. Water doesn't boil unless it is 212 degrees (or higher).

It doesn't matter what heat source you use, it doesn't matter what outside influences effect that heat source and it doesn't matter how long it takes that water to get to temperature. The only thing that matters is reaching the temperature of 212 degrees. Water will not boil unless it reaches 212 degrees.

Let's compare this to weight loss.

You don't lose fat unless you burn more calories than you consume (until you reach a temperature of 212 degrees). It doesn't matter what you eat (the heat source), it doesn't matter how the foods interact with each other (the outside influences effecting the heat source) and it doesn't matter how good your metabolism is (how long it takes to get to temperature)...

The only thing that matters is burning more calories than you consume (reaching the temperature of 212 degrees). You will not lose weight unless you burn more calories than you consume (water will not boil unless it reaches 212 degrees).

All of the variables might change the formula, but not the answer.

Well... if you add salt to water it changes the boiling (and freezing point). I think the question is, in terms of burning fat, are there things that are analogous. And to add to that, are there things that could significantly change the 'boiling point'.

But I think what we're looking at here is... what effects would different kinds of fuel have on building up heat. What kind of conductor is in your pot. Can you really add some 'salt' to it.

If your fuel isn't 100% flammable then you may go through 2 cords of wood, if you ... maybe I should go back to talking about calories instead of boiling water because I'm already losing my analogies

I don't think anyone is arguing that the laws of thermodynamics are altered within the human body, the question is more what variables affect the inputs and outputs, and which ones are the most significant.

 

[Melancholy]

Then might I suggest a renaming of the thread that would really help here?

'Building upon Calories in vs Calories out'
I can change it if you wish

Now... wait a minute! ... how is this above underlined the same as what we talked about naming my thread? talk about creative license!

'Building upon Calories in vs Calories out' (discussed) --> Building dietary/lifestyle changes upon on the idea of Calories in Vs Calories Out Reply to Thread (actual)

 

[Melancholy]

Well... if you add salt to water it changes the boiling (and freezing point). I think the question is, in terms of burning fat, are there things that are analogous. And to add to that, are there things that could significantly change the 'boiling point'.

But I think what we're looking at here is... what effects would different kinds of fuel have on building up heat. What kind of conductor is in your pot. Can you really add some 'salt' to it.

If your fuel isn't 100% flammable then you may go through 2 cords of wood, if you ... maybe I should go back to talking about calories instead of boiling water because I'm already losing my analogies

I don't think anyone is arguing that the laws of thermodynamics are altered within the human body, the question is more what variables affect the inputs and outputs, and which ones are the most significant.

hahaha!! that really made me laugh. I remember as I was reading, and seeing things like conductor, thermodynamics, chords... I was thinking... this analogy is getting INTENSE!


The purpose of this thread (in my mind), was to...argue (just kidding!)... was to discuss prevailing ideas about why some dieting behaviours allow us to be more successful than others. And if they led to success in our personal experience, lets discuss why, and build upon this CI vs. CO thing.

 

[Jericho]

Now... wait a minute! ... how is this above underlined the same as what we talked about naming my thread? talk about creative license!

'Building upon Calories in vs Calories out' (discussed) --> Building dietary/lifestyle changes upon on the idea of Calories in Vs Calories Out Reply to Thread (actual)

there you are. you are welcome.

 

[Jericho]

Ok based on what you said was the reason you posted this thread:

food diary
addressing emotional eating
cutting down fried foods that contain higher calories
cutting out higher calories foods in favor of lower calorie foods
seeking knowledge about the calorie counts of the foods I enjoy
cooking my own food more
reading and posting on this forum for support
throwing out bigger clothes as I lowered my weight
photos to track progress
learning to have a positive attitude
avoiding drinking my calories
buying smaller plates
putting fork down between bites

there is several right there.

 

[Melancholy]

there you are. you are welcome.

Thanks, that other title sounded like a graduate thesis!

 

[Melancholy]

Ok based on what you said was the reason you posted this thread:

food diary
addressing emotional eating
cutting down fried foods that contain higher calories
cutting out higher calories foods in favor of lower calorie foods
seeking knowledge about the calorie counts of the foods I enjoy
cooking my own food more
reading and posting on this forum for support
throwing out bigger clothes as I lowered my weight
photos to track progress
learning to have a positive attitude
avoiding drinking my calories
buying smaller plates
putting fork down between bites
there is several right there.

I missed this!


awesome! I would have a tough time with the two I highlighted:

Do you really do this??? I have a TON of clothes from when I was bigger, but it never occured to me to throw them out (donate). I guess keeping them around is kind of defeatist eh? assuming that I was going to eventually need them. Also, thinking of the money that I spent... ... interesting.


secondly, the fork thing. Man... that is interesting. I just think I don't have the patience for that haha... it seems like a lot of work.. do you do this ever??

One thing that is interesting about your list, is the number of mental aspects that are involved... "reading", "attitude", "photos", "smaller plates" etc. etc.... it's interesting to see how psychological the tie is to weight loss.

Thanks Jericho!

 

[Jericho]

I try to do this all the time. I sold half my clothes that were too big so yes. The fork thing is to force you to slow down eating.

As far as the mental: Most of mine is mental to be honest. When my mind isn't in it (like now) then it is harder for me to lose the weight. It's easier to overeat.

 

[Jeanette401]

Hehe. I kept one pair of my largest pants. I used to pull them out from time to time to compare where I was to where I am now I got rid of a lot of my clothes over the years because 1) I didn't want the easy slide and 2) after a few years you begin to be more confident. I did consider that if I got rid of them then it'd be a good motivator not to regain but...

Meanwhile, I think in terms of effecting the calories in vs calories out equation I can think of 3 general categories...:

1) Intake - what reduces the amount of calories you actually put in your mouth.
2) Absorption - once you've eaten it, what reduces the amount of calories actually digested/absorbed by your system. (Alli still scares me!)
3) Expenditure - what increases calories burned, or to use the technical terms - Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE)

It seems like a lot of diets claim to do 2 or 3 with some magic, even though when you look at them they actually have quite a few components that effect #1 as well...

I'll use my obligatory Subway cookie example A lot of the time a diet will cut out cookies and say you can 'eat more' - but is this really looking at calories, or is it looking at volume? Not that volumetrics isn't taking off... but it still seems like a diet doesn't become huge unless it suggests you can eat 4000 calories a day (or 'as much as you want'). So are they really 'ramping up the metabolism' or do most diet authors assume that if people were good at knowing how many calories were in something, they wouldn't be buying a diet book to begin with?

 

[ChefChiTown]

Well... if you add salt to water it changes the boiling (and freezing point).

Then it's no longer water. It's water with salt in it. The salt is a variable.

There are sooooo many variables that you can throw into the mix, but the boiling point is still the boiling point. And, if you don't reach that boiling point, the water won't boil. You can't boil water without reaching the boiling point, just like you can't lose weight without burning more calories than you consume (once again, unless you have a rare medical condition or parasite).

I think that's what people are trying to argue against. Maybe not you personally, but people who are arguing against "calories in vs. calories out" - I think they're focusing on the variables and splitting hairs instead of looking at the unarguable fact that you can't get rid of fat without burning more calories than you consume. It's unarguable, yet, people are still arguing it. And, I think that's happening because people are focusing on the variables and not the results.

 

[Jeanette401]

Here are some articles I've been digging up that may be interesting in terms of the discussion:

Thermal Effect of Food (TEF) - which is part of the lovely TDEE Disclaimer, the following study was done on pythons and not on humans, but it was interesting none-the-less. Basically they fed pythons raw meat, cooked meat, and cooked ground meat and saw that the thermal output, which they're equating with caloric expenditure was highest for raw meat, lowest for ground cooked meat, and in between with cooked, non-ground meat. Which implies that you'll burn more calories digesting 200 calories worth of sirloin than 200 calories worth of ground sirloin. (I'm leaving out the raw sirloin... although what if it's super rare?) Title is: Cooking and Grinding Reduces the Cost of Meat Digestion. This link is the full article, the abstract is available at PubMed.

So, this brings up an interesting (to me at least) question. Atwater came up with his calorie values by burning food to determine the actual 'calories' in heat, and then did some math to estimate calories food based on absorption, cost of digestion etc. This work was done a century ago, and has formed the basis for modern calorie counts. Are the estimates that Atwater did valid for highly processed food such as we eat today? I've seen tables that give variations in calories per gram of protein, something like egg whites at 3.96 calories/gram, soy protein at 4.05... (I don't remember the details and haven't relocated the table). Is it possible that while a gram of carbs from an ear of corn is 4 calories/gram... HFCS is more because of the absorption/ease of digestion? I'm actually trying to find more on the accuracy of the Atwater system now because I'm curious.

Certainly it could explain the success of diets that focus on meat and minimally processed vegetables. Food for thought

 

[Melancholy]

Then it's no longer water. It's water with salt in it. The salt is a variable.

There are sooooo many variables that you can throw into the mix, but the boiling point is still the boiling point. And, if you don't reach that boiling point, the water won't boil. You can't boil water without reaching the boiling point, just like you can't lose weight without burning more calories than you consume (once again, unless you have a rare medical condition or parasite).

I think that's what people are trying to argue against. Maybe not you personally, but people who are arguing against "calories in vs. calories out" - I think they're focusing on the variables and splitting hairs instead of looking at the unarguable fact that you can't get rid of fat without burning more calories than you consume. It's unarguable, yet, people are still arguing it. And, I think that's happening because people are focusing on the variables and not the results.

This thread is an attempt to build upon ye' ol' adage, "CI vs. CO" haha...

That may be the foundation of weight loss, also defined as the physical aspect of losing weight. I personally, am not arguing that calories expended weekly need to be a net deficit from calories absobed in order to lose weight.

However, CO vs. CI is actually a very poor foundation for mental aspect of losing weight. CI vs. CO does not offer any explanation for the nuances that EVERYONE on a diet experiences over time. Without discussing/ researching things, frustration would set in.

Like Jeanette pointed out, there are a few aspects of the equation, one being:

1) Intake - what reduces the amount of calories you actually put in your mouth.


Now, in my experience, staying away from certain foods causes me to be less hungry. This in turn causes my intake to be reduced, which in-turn reduces the CI portion of my equation.

I also think Jeanette is spot on about volumetrics. We (as people) in general are VERY bad about measuring calories unless we are physically looking at the nutrition facts. 1 tsp. of creamer = 10 calories, how much do I use? I know because I measure, but before my diet... I didn't, so I would estimate. How much butter on my toast? no idea..., but I was eating a lot of toast, so I estimate that my coffee, butter, and toast is about 400 calories... well, it's not, It's closer to 200 calories because I was using less butter than I thought, and the toast was 120 calories. But I could make the claim.. "I am eating more, and weight less" but in fact, I was eating less and weight less haha...

I don't think anyone arguing the trunk of the tree (in Jericho's analogy), more-so, discussing the specifics of the branches that come from it.

 

[Melancholy]

Here are some articles I've been digging up that may be interesting in terms of the discussion:

Thermal Effect of Food (TEF) - which is part of the lovely TDEE Disclaimer, the following study was done on pythons and not on humans, but it was interesting none-the-less. Basically they fed pythons raw meat, cooked meat, and cooked ground meat and saw that the thermal output, which they're equating with caloric expenditure was highest for raw meat, lowest for ground cooked meat, and in between with cooked, non-ground meat. Which implies that you'll burn more calories digesting 200 calories worth of sirloin than 200 calories worth of ground sirloin. (I'm leaving out the raw sirloin... although what if it's super rare?) Title is: Cooking and Grinding Reduces the Cost of Meat Digestion. This link is the full article, the abstract is available at PubMed.

So, this brings up an interesting (to me at least) question. Atwater came up with his calorie values by burning food to determine the actual 'calories' in heat, and then did some math to estimate calories food based on absorption, cost of digestion etc. This work was done a century ago, and has formed the basis for modern calorie counts. Are the estimates that Atwater did valid for highly processed food such as we eat today? I've seen tables that give variations in calories per gram of protein, something like egg whites at 3.96 calories/gram, soy protein at 4.05... (I don't remember the details and haven't relocated the table). Is it possible that while a gram of carbs from an ear of corn is 4 calories/gram... HFCS is more because of the absorption/ease of digestion? I'm actually trying to find more on the accuracy of the Atwater system now because I'm curious.

Certainly it could explain the success of diets that focus on meat and minimally processed vegetables. Food for thought

I could not agree more. opponents of this mindset would argue that the calories used in digestion are negligble. I would say, relatively speaking, for weight-loss this may be true, but for lifestyle changes/ long-term diets and maintenance, I don't think so. If it adds up to tens of thousands of calories/ year, it becomes significant.

There is no way that fructose takes the same work as a fiberous vegatable, it's just not possible, yet they are both carbs and assigned the arbitrary 4 kcals/gram. So... in this example, the dietary choices you make influence the CO part of the equation.

 

[ChefChiTown]

This thread is an attempt to build upon ye' ol' adage, "CI vs. CO" haha...

That may be the foundation of weight loss, also defined as the physical aspect of losing weight. I personally, am not arguing that calories expended weekly need to be a net deficit from calories absobed in order to lose weight.

However, CO vs. CI is actually a very poor foundation for mental aspect of losing weight. CI vs. CO does not offer any explanation for the nuances that EVERYONE on a diet experiences over time. Without discussing/ researching things, frustration would set in.

Like Jeanette pointed out, there are a few aspects of the equation, one being:

1) Intake - what reduces the amount of calories you actually put in your mouth.


Now, in my experience, staying away from certain foods causes me to be less hungry. This in turn causes my intake to be reduced, which in-turn reduces the CI portion of my equation.

I also think Jeanette is spot on about volumetrics. We (as people) in general are VERY bad about measuring calories unless we are physically looking at the nutrition facts. 1 tsp. of creamer = 10 calories, how much do I use? I know because I measure, but before my diet... I didn't, so I would estimate. How much butter on my toast? no idea..., but I was eating a lot of toast, so I estimate that my coffee, butter, and toast is about 400 calories... well, it's not, It's closer to 200 calories because I was using less butter than I thought, and the toast was 120 calories. But I could make the claim.. "I am eating more, and weight less" but in fact, I was eating less and weight less haha...

I don't think anyone arguing the trunk of the tree (in Jericho's analogy), more-so, discussing the specifics of the branches that come from it.

Everything everybody is saying, whether it be in this thread or another, all boils down to calories in vs. calories out. It's easier said than done, but it's not as complicated as people are trying to make it out to be.

If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.
If you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose weight.

Anything added onto either of those comments doesn't matter. Because, when it all boils away, the only thing remaining will be...you guessed it...

Calories in vs. calories out

 

[Jericho]

ok, we understand this is the foundation.

What we want to talk about here is layering up on top of that core with concepts such as nutrition, exercise, and mental choices.