Building upon Calories in vs Calories out

Actually although fiber slows the movement of food through the alimentary canal it does not cause a net increase in weight. In fact dietary fiber has been proven to increase weight loss. please find the research paper attached.

1.^ Fiber, Weight Loss, and Cholesterol British Journal of Nutrition Sebely Pala, Alireza Khossousia, Colin Binnsa, Satvinder Dhaliwala and Vanessa Ellisa.

Fiber requires your body to produce short chain fatty acids to try to digest it, it gets these acids from your fat. So it is a crucial addition to fat metabolism and weight loss.

I agree with the starter of this thread there may be more to the puzzle then just the simple trunk of the tree expressed earlier.

There are people who get sick with wasting syndromes who are given 6-8thousand calories a day and continue to lose weight. We also see people who eat in calorie deficits chronically who do not lose weight. The reason is negative nutrient partitioning.

Positive nutrient partitioning is associated with accelerated fat loss and an increase in lean muscle mass. What you eat and how you eat can create this positive nutrient partitioning, can create a sense of satiety and should be considered to maximize someones opportunity for successful weight loss. Mike
 
Mike M. said:
Actually although fiber slows the movement of food through the alimentary canal it does not cause a net increase in weight. In fact dietary fiber has been proven to increase weight loss. please find the research paper attached.

1.^ Fiber, Weight Loss, and Cholesterol British Journal of Nutrition Sebely Pala, Alireza Khossousia, Colin Binnsa, Satvinder Dhaliwala and Vanessa Ellisa.

Fiber requires your body to produce short chain fatty acids to try to digest it, it gets these acids from your fat. So it is a crucial addition to fat metabolism and weight loss.

I agree with the starter of this thread there may be more to the puzzle then just the simple trunk of the tree expressed earlier.

There are people who get sick with wasting syndromes who are given 6-8thousand calories a day and continue to lose weight. We also see people who eat in calorie deficits chronically who do not lose weight. The reason is negative nutrient partitioning.

Positive nutrient partitioning is associated with accelerated fat loss and an increase in lean muscle mass. What you eat and how you eat can create this positive nutrient partitioning, can create a sense of satiety and should be considered to maximize someones opportunity for successful weight loss. Mike
Click to expand...

Well yes. there is more to it overall than pure CI vs CO (that is just the core). You can lose weight just doing that..I'm a good example..but better weight loss is caused by adding to that tree. Exercise, proper nutrition, etc.

Now, your comment about wasting syndrome is a little flawed. It's still calories in vs calories out because both factors are altered by the syndrome (mainly the part about calories in not actually being used). It can't really be used in this example can it?

But your statement about eating better foods is true. No one suggests it is a good idea to eat a diet of sugar and fats. It is possible to lose weight on twinkies..it's just not exactly a good idea for the other factors. I'm sure my body can make use of 1000 calories of protein better than 1000 calories of Nerds candy.
 
Negative nutrient partitioning or an inability to stabilize a body that is feeding on it's own amino acids is the reason for the wasting...it is a syndrome that personifies the fact that macronutrients have different benefits to the individual.

These people when given huge amounts of intravenous carbohyrates continue to waste. When given a diet rich in easily obsorbed protein recover very well. It is absolutely usefull as an example in this case to show that things are not as easy as calories and calories out.
 
Mike M. said:
Negative nutrient partitioning or an inability to stabilize a body that is feeding on it's own amino acids is the reason for the wasting...it is a syndrome that personifies the fact that macronutrients have different benefits to the individual.

These people when given huge amounts of intravenous carbohyrates continue to waste. When given a diet rich in easily obsorbed protein recover very well. It is absolutely usefull as an example in this case to show that things are not as easy as calories and calories out.
Click to expand...

wait...medial study or proof of people with wasting syndrome recovering when eating proteins? Also be more specific because there are different types of wasting syndromes like AIDS or from cancers.

and at it core..yes it is as easy as CI vs CO. That's medical fact that can't be changed. Eating better choices increases how well that weight loss can happen.
 
I think melancholy started this thread not in opposition of the fact regarding calories in and calories out. But, what I think she was trying to generate was discussion on how that "medical fact" as you called it is grossly inadequate for fine tuning weight loss.

I have seen, first hand, dozens of people on low calorie diets in the range of 1500-1800 sit stagnant and overweight with high body fat percentages.

We ketp their "calories out" or energy expenditure constant. The calories in was increased to anywhere from 2500 to 4000 kcalories.

In all cases, body fat percentages dropped below 18% for the woman and 10% for the men.

If it was only a case of calories in to calories out these results would not have been attainable.
 
Could you show any proof or evidence of this and be more detailed? What you said comes off like weight loss hype instead of science.
 
Last edited:
What I took from the OP was that in terms of Calories in vs. Calories Out perhaps we are assuming too much.

When he said "Our bodies are not that good." I thought he was questioning the efficiency of our bodies. His theory is that when you calculate how many calories you have eaten for the day (Lets say 1,500) then that number automatically becomes calories in. However, how much of that 1,500 is not used because the inefficiency of the human body?

I bet if you could actually narrow down to the exact calorie how much your body needs a day (Or Calories out) and you ate exactly that amount (Calories In) I bet you would still lose weight because some food (Or calories) would simply pass through the system (Your body) without being processed.
 
Carthonn said:
What I took from the OP was that in terms of Calories in vs. Calories Out perhaps we are assuming too much.

When he said "Our bodies are not that good." I thought he was questioning the efficiency of our bodies. His theory is that when you calculate how many calories you have eaten for the day (Lets say 1,500) then that number automatically becomes calories in. However, how much of that 1,500 is not used because the inefficiency of the human body?

I bet if you could actually narrow down to the exact calorie how much your body needs a day (Or Calories out) and you ate exactly that amount (Calories In) I bet you would still lose weight because some food (Or calories) would simply pass through the system (Your body) without being processed.
Click to expand...

that's still calories in vs calories out because the calorie out is increased by the food not being digested into the system.


I think we all need to just say 'ok, the core is fine but let's talk about the building blocks on it'. We need to discuss nutrition, protein values, tricks to our mental side to help us continue on in a productive way on this thread.
 
Jericho said:
that's still calories in vs calories out because the calorie out is increased by the food not being digested into the system.


I think we all need to just say 'ok, the core is fine but let's talk about the building blocks on it'. We need to discuss nutrition, protein values, tricks to our mental side to help us continue on in a productive way on this thread.
Click to expand...

In reality it is increased but mathematically it is not. You know how some calculators can factor in lifestyle (Ex: Sedentary) for calories out? Why can't we have a calculator for calories in to factor in the inefficiency of the human body?
 
If it is true in reality, it is true mathematically.

That is because there is no real calculation for every person. Everyone is different and there are too many factors for each individual person. The core concept is true but that core is different for each person. It's always CI vs CO, just what you put into CI and into CO changes.
 
Last edited:
There seem to be some differing opinions on this... some are adamant about the calories in calories out theory. And yet most of the leaders in the field disagree.

I think the discussion is great and the sharing of thoughts are fun. I find it disconcerting when the forum moderator takes such a firm stance and infact is aggressively dismissive of others opinions or even experiences.

The results of dozens of clients has been chalked up as hype but I swore not to self promote. I am here to see where challenges are for people and help when I can.

So instead of sharing my own stuff...here is a link to a PHD researcher in the field of weight loss who shares a markedly different opinion on the calories in calories out theory...with actual test cases for proof. If you find yourself in a plateau...this may help!

It will certainly give us something to talk about and shouldn't be poo-pooed on by anyone but should infact open our eyes to the CI CO theory.

(actually have to remove the link as it is connected to advertising on a site.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that Jericho has actually been very 'moderate' in respect of this thread. It really is an attempt to build on CI vs. CO.

I would say it's almost universally accepted that CI vs. CO needs to be respected when losing weight. There is undoubtedly other factors that affect this equation, that are good/ fun to discuss. Examples are:

1: do you burn more calories for an amount of time, post work out? What kind of work-out? what is the duration of this extra thermic effect? What is the percent increase in relative metabolism? etc. etc.

This is just one example of something that I envisioned when making this thread. Now, in that example, the work out (the variable), is affecting the CO portion of the equation. So, we are not debating the nature of losing weight, we are accepting that CO are being increased. We are discussing the validity of claims, such as the one in the example.

Other examples are ice baths, eating low-carb, it goes on and on and on. Again, we don't need to discuss IF these methods work, we are discussing the science, the theories, sharing personal experiences surrounding these theories. Aka, building upon the CI vs. CO equation by talking about weight loss methods.

Please, if you want to disagree please at the very least, provide at least a personal testamonial, but quoting one line over and over just isn't constructive to a mature discussion!
 
Jericho said:
If it is true in reality, it is true mathematically.

That is because there is no real calculation for every person. Everyone is different and there are too many factors for each individual person. The core concept is true but that core is different for each person. It's always CI vs CO, just what you put into CI and into CO changes.
Click to expand...

If it's true mathematically I'd like to see the equation. The ones I have seen are crude.
 
Last edited:
Course they are crude..just what I said it is different per person but calories in < calories out is as basic as it gets.

Can we please move past this fact?
 
Jericho said:
Course they are crude..just what I said it is different per person but calories in < calories out is as basic as it gets.

Can we please move past this fact?
Click to expand...

If you are satisfied with facts based on crude equations then there's the door as they say.
 
Actually, I'm satisfied by the facts of the general medical community and the very foundations of science.

My statement is based over we are getting to wrapped up in fighting over CI vs CO instead of what Mel wanted to talk about..building on that
 
Last edited:
Jericho said:
Actually, I'm satisfied by the facts of the general medical community and the very foundations of science.

My statement is based over we are getting to wrapped up in fighting over CI vs CO instead of what Mel wanted to talk about..building on that
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, the way I lost all my weight was based on Calorie In vs. Calorie Out. I just think it can be better. I'm thinking more about it as I get closer to my goal as maintaining will become my new focus.

I guess I got hung up on the "our bodies are not that good" which I completely agree with.
 
seriously, what is the point of debating CI vs. CO?

Calories in --> can be food, drink, paste, etc. etc. you name it, it goes into your mouth, counts as in.
a. Some foods can effect calories being absorbed <-- what we want to talk about, but the end result, is that this in the end, affects the calories in

Calories Out --> This can be food that is expelled, undigested from the human body, this can be calories utilized by the body, etc.
a. working out, can INCREASE calories out thus affecting this side of the equation. <-- this is what we want to talk about

there is no point debating the primary coponent, CI vs. CO. For the duration of this thread, I would like to discuss manipulating this equation with this in mind. I personally, don't want to debate if CI vs. CO or if it is true or not.

It's not constructive to debate this, unless you would like to provide scientific, non-biased, non-marketed evidence (from scientific sites like PubMed, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top