Calorie Counting Conundrum

[Katy North]

Hello, I'm trying to go from 190 lbs to 150 lbs, but I'm not sure how many calories I should be eating in a day. I went to many calorie calculator websites, but I get hung up on the exercise question.

When I'm not at work, I'm pretty sedentary. However, when I am at work (I'm a cashier at a grocery store), I stand all day, and frequently lift heavyish objects, for example, twelve packs of soda, bags of dog food, etc... our store doesn't have a scanner gun. Would this be considered light exercise?

I'm 5'6" , 25, and as I said, 190 lbs. I've been doing 1850 calories a day, and have been trying to cut out junk food.

If this is exercise, I guess you could say this is the only way soda can be good for you.

Also, another burning question, is flavored water as good as water? For example, is vitamin water or crystal light considered "water?"

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

Counting calories doesn't really do you any good. Obesity is not in and of itself a disease, it is actually one of many symptoms of hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance. Eating a diet high in fat and protein and very low (see zero) carbs combined with a high intensity work out regimen is the most effective way of reversing this.

 

[Steve]

Counting calories doesn't really do you any good.

Can you explain this more thoroughly, please?

 

[clever_plant]

I would perhaps add in something about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence with regard to claiming that counting calories does no one any good... just saying...

 

[Steve]

Possibly he has stumbled across a universe where energy conservation doesn't apply. If this is the case, maybe he holds the key to our world's energy crisis. Let's hope!

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

Possibly he has stumbled across a universe where energy conservation doesn't apply. If this is the case, maybe he holds the key to our world's energy crisis. Let's hope!

First of all, not all calories are created equal. This can be illustrated in a thousand ways, but lets start with the simple comparison of carbohydrates to protein. In order to turn protein into usable energy by the body, it has to undergo the process of gluconeogenesis, which is highly inefficient (up to 60%).

More importantly though, obesity is a hormonal disorder not a psychological one. In effect, obesity is not caused by overeating, it is an effect of overeating which is caused by hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance.

Elevated insulin levels cause fat to be mobilized out of the bloodstream and into the adipose tissue, depriving the rest of the body of the fatty acids they so desperately need to properly function. This results in internal starvation, and causes people to overeat, which then elevates insulin levels even more, increasing the synthesis of fatty acids into the adipose tissue and starving the cells, etc. The solution to this is restricting your carbs and eating a diet that is high in fat and protein.

Back to energy conservation, and its lack of significance in weight loss, weight loss on restricted carbohydrate diets is one of the most consistent and remarkably predictable things in science, and while some have tried to argue that is was a result of restricting carbohydrates, Yudkin, who was one of the pioneers of restricted carbohydrate diets, the research has proven that people will lose weight hunger free independent of the calories per day if carbohydrates are sufficiently restricted, and without hunger. This holds true for diets as little as 800 calories a day and as large as 2700+ calories a day. Interestingly, the people who ate 800 calories a day of fat and protein lost weight quickly and without hunger, whereas a group eating the same diet with an additional 400 calories of fruits and vegetables became ravenous and went into starvation mode.

 

[Steve]

First of all, not all calories are created equal. This can be illustrated in a thousand ways, but lets start with the simple comparison of carbohydrates to protein.

You might want to start over. This isn't the best way to prove your point considering the above statement uncovers a gross misunderstanding you have about the difference between calories and nutrients.

Unfortunately for your case, they are not one in the same.

In order to turn protein into usable energy by the body, it has to undergo the process of gluconeogenesis, which is highly inefficient (up to 60%).

Point?

What does this have to do with energy conservation?

More importantly though, obesity is a hormonal disorder not a psychological one.

I never claimed it was solely a psychological issue.

In effect, obesity is not caused by overeating, it is an effect of overeating which is caused by hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance.

So you're suggesting all obese people overeat b/c their proclivity is to be insulin resistant and hyperinsulinemic? Last I checked research was not conclusive with regards to what comes first, "the chicken or the egg." Even if it were conclusive, I doubt the findings would be applicable to all cases.

More importantly, I think it's important for you to realize that nobody is suggesting calories are all that matter. Hardly in fact. Nutritional quality and quantity matters quite a bit.

We only spoke up b/c you presented a very blatant misunderstanding of energy.

Back to energy conservation, and its lack of significance in weight loss, weight loss on restricted carbohydrate diets is one of the most consistent and remarkably predictable things in science, and while some have tried to argue that is was a result of restricting carbohydrates, Yudkin, who was one of the pioneers of restricted carbohydrate diets, the research has proven that people will lose weight hunger free independent of the calories per day if carbohydrates are sufficiently restricted, and without hunger.

Please post links to peer reviewed literature of long term clinical trials where low carb diets led to tissue loss in the presence of a hypercaloric diet.

I don't need any short term shit showing what we all know about low carb dieting and fluid loss.

And just to pound my point home... let's be very clear in I'm the one saying calories and nutrients matter.

You're the one saying calories don't matter - only nutrients.

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

Just to be clear, I do understand the difference between calories and nutrients. A gram of protein and a gram of carbohydrates are both 4 calories, thus the comparison.

As for the studies, watch this, you may learn something:

 

[Steve]

Just to be clear, I do understand the difference between calories and nutrients. A gram of protein and a gram of carbohydrates are both 4 calories, thus the comparison.

It's actually comical the fact you're trying to teach me something (see below) when you don't differentiate between calories and nutrients. Read your post above again and tell me you differentiated calories and nutrients. If you can do this, than I understand that going forward with this debate is futile as you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Why waste my time when a) you obviously have zero desire to learn, which is unfortunate given the fact you hold yourself out there as an authority on the subject matter, and b) even if I did engage you further you would likely misconstrue and misunderstand the things I'm saying given your i) piss poor reading comprehension and ii) obvious lack of understanding regarding human metabolism.

As for the studies, watch this, you may learn something:

Asking for peer reviewed research doesn't reserve you the right to post videos of a choad who's more interested in selling copies of his latest book that's supported by piss poor science than maintaining the integrity of information.

Try again.

 

[Guest]

AT Katy North:

I did lose 20 lbs last year and I have made Counting Calories a habit whether I'm trying to lose weight or not! It helps to lose weight and maintain it too. I'm not touching the topics of WHAT you eat or exercises as they all go hand in hand but counting calories can never be bad!! Just make sure it's a healthy number. There are a lot of calculators that will help you find a number to lose weight!
My 2 cents...

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

We are talking about calories in the context of nutrition. If you are going to say that counting calories matters, then it doesn't matter what nutrient a calorie comes from, because all calories are the same. Thus eating a gram (4 calories) of protein is going to cause the same amount of weight gain as a gram (4 calories) of carbohydrate. It's really cute how you're trying to discredit me by saying something so absurd, but the fact is that our body is not a furnace, so if you are going to count calories, then it is important to understand the effect that a calorie from nutrient x has on the body as compared to a calorie from nutrient y, thus the statement that "not all calories are created equal." I think that anyone who has taken 3rd grade physics understands that in fact, a calorie is a unit of measurement of energy, but in the context of nutrition, to dismiss the idea that calories can be semantically substituted for weight as a measurement of portion size is just silly. You're better than that Steve.

So for example, if we're going to talk about energy conservation, shouldn't ATP production be a much better indicator of "calories in" than actual calories in our food? I think so, although I still think this grossly misses the point since the body is completely incapable of storing excess fat without carbohydrates in the diet. But let's for a second assume that we're now talking about actual usable energy in the cells. In this case, we are now looking at a 60% decrease in efficiency of using protein as compared with using carbohydrates. Most of this is lost to heat of course, which goes back to this idea that calories in and calories out are not even close to being independent variables in any equation.

Try speaking from the top of your intelligence because right now you're not being a constructive force in this discussion. Contrary to what you might pretend to believe for the sake of discrediting me, I am actually extensively read on the subject, and additionally, I make good money (first 10 are free, then $50 a pound for the next 30, and it progressively decreases per pound beyond that) teaching people how to lose weight, generally the people who have tried everything else and failed.

 

[Steve]

We are talking about calories in the context of nutrition. If you are going to say that counting calories matters, then it doesn't matter what nutrient a calorie comes from, because all calories are the same.

Thus eating a gram (4 calories) of protein is going to cause the same amount of weight gain as a gram (4 calories) of carbohydrate. It's really cute how you're trying to discredit me by saying something so absurd, but the fact is that our body is not a furnace, so if you are going to count calories, then it is important to understand the effect that a calorie from nutrient x has on the body as compared to a calorie from nutrient y, thus the statement that "not all calories are created equal."

I don't have to try and discredit you. You do a great job of that yourself.

And you're still wrong. Very.

Calories are the same regardless of where they're coming from.

Nutrients have different effects on the body, which is beyond obvious. Therefore you don't get to say:

it is important to understand the effect that a calorie from nutrient x has on the body as compared to a calorie from nutrient y

and be right. Because you're not. You could say a fixed amount of one nutrient measured in grams will have a different effect than a fixed amount of another nutrient measured in grams. But that has nothing to do with calories.

My point is you're posturing as an authority tripping up over rather basic terminology in the field. That's a real problem. I wouldn't ordinarily speak up but the fact that people turn to you for advice seriously alarms me.

I think that anyone who has taken 3rd grade physics understands that in fact, a calorie is a unit of measurement of energy, but in the context of nutrition, to dismiss the idea that calories can be semantically substituted for weight as a measurement of portion size is just silly. You're better than that Steve.

A measurement of portion size? Right on, boss.

lol

So for example, if we're going to talk about energy conservation, shouldn't ATP production be a much better indicator of "calories in" than actual calories in our food? I think so, although I still think this grossly misses the point since the body is completely incapable of storing excess fat without carbohydrates in the diet.

boring... same tired tantrum and still as wrong as you first were.

see the other thread and start there. if you can talk your way out of that thread where you're crying the same bad tune you'll be onto something. until then you're just a poor excuse of a so-called professional who loooovvvvveeesss the idea of being right. And goes as far as to turn to bullshit authors rather than peer-reviewed data for his information.

But let's for a second assume that we're now talking about actual usable energy in the cells. In this case, we are now looking at a 60% decrease in efficiency of using protein as compared with using carbohydrates. Most of this is lost to heat of course, which goes back to this idea that calories in and calories out are not even close to being independent variables in any equation.

The fact that there's a dissipation of heat energy during digestion means nothing in terms of the efficacy of the energy balance equation. Again, gross misunderstanding at work here.

You've already dug your own hole in both of these threads... there's really no need to go deeper, bud.

Try speaking from the top of your intelligence because right now you're not being a constructive force in this discussion. Contrary to what you might pretend to believe for the sake of discrediting me, I am actually extensively read on the subject, and additionally, I make good money (first 10 are free, then $50 a pound for the next 30, and it progressively decreases per pound beyond that) teaching people how to lose weight, generally the people who have tried everything else and failed.

I couldn't give two fucks about how much you've read (obviously very poorly written books) or how much money you make. The people who make the most money in the fitness field are generally the biggest hucksters out there.

If you wanted intelligent debate, you should have let go of the idea that "I MUST BE RIGHT AT ALL COSTS" from the onset.

 

[Jericho]

NYC - You are a fraud. Your 'facts' have been blasted apart time and time again. You want to prove yourself to people here..post your plan. I want to see an example of what you are selling. Put your money where your mouth is..so to speak.
-------------------------

Katy, I would almost say you do light exercise cause usually seditary means sitting. You do burn more standing and you seem to be moving and more active that the typical office person.

As far as water, any liquid counts BUT you have to take everything together. Caffine, sodium, additives, etc. If you are worried if you are not getting enough water, (and get ready for the gross part) look at your urine. The darker the yellow, the worse you are. In Iraq when I was working there, the US army had charts in the bathrooms. The chart showed roughly how much more water you should be getting based on urine color. You are aiming for light yellow/clear.

Calorie counting wise, it sounds like you are making a good start. The numbers are not an exact science. I think the best thing to do is see how the results are after a week. You can do a food diary to help record what you eat. Portion control will be a factor as well.

If you have any question on really who to go by here..look at how people treat Steve here and then this sham artist. If you are really worried..do the smartest thing and talk to your doctor.

 

[Steve]

Note: I needn't hear the same tired point of view over and over. Multiple people have provided counter-points to your claims in this thread and we're waiting for you to awe us with your invaluable wisdom.

Who knows... maybe at the end of the day I'll be a paying client of yours.

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

You're actually rather obnoxious, and while some of your minions may be fooled, I am sure that the smarter ones will see that you're merely being evasive of the topic at hand and will do research for themselves.

 

[Jericho]

We have. We pointed it out to you. You never actually address it.


Snake oil salesman. That's what you remind me of. I'll say this..I will always support and encourage people here but I will do it with fact, information and truth. I will also step up to anyone selling or pushing off information like you are. I might not use the same big words like Steve who has much more experience than I do. I might not try to baffle people here with words to try and make it sound like I know what I am talking about like you do.

I'll point to medical groups like the Mayo or WHO. I will talk of my own experience. I lay myself out there for everyone.


My question is actually this..why the hell are YOU here?

 

[Tamago]

hahaha how ridiculous this thread has become

anyways Katy I think you are doing a good job, I would have told you to eat 1900-2000 calories and that's what you're doing. If it doesn't work, you can always eat more or less, or pay closer attention to what you eat. Something else I'd do though, is take a picture of yourself now, and take another one in 1 month in the same location and lighting. Scales can lie about your progress, but your body composition rarely will.