Eating too few calories???

[nolliabed]

I have been trying to lose weight for about 6 months to a year now. I haven't ever watched what I ate. I just worked out doing some cardio.

After doing alot of reading and research I realized that I need to cut my calories. The problem is everyone seems to have an opinion on how many calories I should or should not me taking in.

I have been counting my cals. daily now for about a month on Fitday.com and I am eating between 1500 to 1700 a day.

I'm 41 yrs. old
Male
210 pounds
Workout with weights 3 times a week.

How many cals. should I be eating to lose about 1 to 2 pounds a week?

Lets see what the experts have to say.

 

[noremorse]

1500-1700 kcals a day for a man of your size is simply TOO LITTLE. Especially if you are also following a resistance training program.

A pound of fat contains 3000-3500 calories. So to lose 1 to 2 lbs a week, you'd need a total caloric deficit of about 7000 calories a week.


Google for "how much calories do I need" and try some of the calculators and formulas you find that way to see how much calories you would require.


As a guesstimate I'd say you'd need to be consuming about 2100 - 2200 calories every day to have a daily deficit of about 400 to 600 calories a day. (600x7 = 4200 deficit, which would be a 1lbs-1.5lbs of loss a week, that's a little less than what you wanted, but which could be advantageous for developing the muscle you're training for as well as losing some fat at the same time ).

You could perhaps eat a bit more on your workout days and eat a little less on your non-workout days to aid in muscle development and to battle fatigue while still keeping your weekly deficit at about 5000 to 7000.




There is a TREASURE TROVE of information out there (google is your friend). I can see you are committed to this and I would like to encourage you to visit the johnstonefitness.com forums (they're free), which has hundreds of really committed individuals aiming for optimal weightloss combined with developing a stronger physique, in short: body recompositioning.

 

[Steve]

1500-1700 kcals a day for a man of your size is simply TOO LITTLE. Especially if you are also following a resistance training program.

I would tend to agree, for the most part. I don't think it's insanely low but I've always been of the opinion that for general, consistent fat loss.... your best bet is to eat as much whole, nutritious food as possible while still triggering enough of a calorie deficit to influence your weight over the long term.

Besides what I said to you (the OP) in PM, my general recommendation is to shoot for 10-12 calories per pound as a starting point. The secret lies in what you do from that point forward. Track your progress (in terms of how you look, pictures, measurements, weight, etc) every 2-3 weeks and modify your approach as needed. That's the part most people screw up.

Where you start isn't the important thing. It's what you do with the bodily feedback from your ongoing assessments that makes all the difference.

A safe bet for weight loss is 1% of your bodyweight per week. Some weeks may be higher, some lower. But the longer term trend, assuming there's a good chunk of fat to lose, should average out to be about 1% per week.

If you find you're losing faster than this, you should probably jack intake up a bit. If you find you aren't losing fast enough, bump it down a bit.

Follow me?

A pound of fat contains 3000-3500 calories. So to lose 1 to 2 lbs a week, you'd need a total caloric deficit of about 7000 calories a week.

The numbers hardly ever work out like this.

Why?

Because this very rudimentary math assumes you lose nothing but fat when you diet and that's simply not the case. Plus it says nothing about the adaptivity of metabolic rate and things of that nature.

 

[noremorse]

The numbers hardly ever work out like this.

Why?

Because this very rudimentary math assumes you lose nothing but fat when you diet and that's simply not the case. Plus it says nothing about the adaptivity of metabolic rate and things of that nature.

I know. I kept it rudimentary, like you said. I was not accounting for any LM loss, waterloss or any of the many other variables that come into play. Seeing as my goal was to give rudimentary, in globo, advice, I guess that's fine.

Good to see we're all trying to help each other out here!

 

[Steve]

Yea, I hear ya. The problem I see with telling people to make deficits of 3500 or 7000 calories per week to lose 1 or 2 lbs respectively is this....

Dieters tend to be very binary in their ways of thinking and assessing things. It's either all or nothing. On or off. Black or white. There's no middle ground. So if you tell someone to create a weekly deficit of 3500 calories to lose 1 lb of fat since 1 lb of fat has approximately 3500 calories... they're going to be damn pissed when it doesn't happen and more often than not, unfortunately, give up.

You're right, those numbers should get people around the right "spot" calorically speaking but I think we need to focus on framing things a bit differently in order to promote more open thinking... if you catch my drift.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Randall]

What are you eating? Maybe it is more about what you eat than how much. High glycemic goods (sugars, starches, cereals, grains, bread) jack around your blood sugar, insulin, etc. Try eating far more protein (meat, fish, fowl) and good fats (olive oil, coconut oil, omega-3), and low glycemic load carbs (vegetables); minimize or eliminate simple carbs (cereal, grains, sugars, potatoes, chips, etc) and legumes.

 

[Steve]

Why would have have to eliminate all simple carbs? Grains? Potatoes? You do realize that the glycemic index or the insulin index is not the be all end all to eating. Especially if you assure that the essentials are in place... such as adequate protein, healthy fats, etc.

I do appreciate your post as it brings up another angle that should've been mentioned - that's food quality and type - even though the question was specifically about quantity.

That said, the more constraints you put on people the more likely they are to fail. At least that has been my experienced. The main point I have is I don't see much a reason to avoid some of the foods you're suggesting unless *maybe* someone is extremely sedentary, insulin intolerant, etc.

 

[Randall]

Current evidence, if you scour the current medical knowledge base, is that in fact carbohydrates are in fact at the root of weight gain, diabetes II, arthersclerosis, heart disease. I will leave it to anybody with time and interest to pursue that further. The OP is asking how to lose weight that does not seem to be coming off in spite of diet and exercise. My emphasis was on minimizing or eliminating carbs (sugars, sweets, potatoes, grains, etc). Research has shown that a high protein low carb diet with exercise is vastly superior (1.75x) for weight loss compared to the high carb diet (grains, cereal, legumes, potatoes, pasta, etc) with exercise.

Some people eliminate the simple carbs, others minimize them, whatever can be done to lessen those types of foods could help the OP achieve his/her goal.

Why would have have to eliminate all simple carbs? Grains? Potatoes? You do realize that the glycemic index or the insulin index is not the be all end all to eating. Especially if you assure that the essentials are in place... such as adequate protein, healthy fats, etc.

I do appreciate your post as it brings up another angle that should've been mentioned - that's food quality and type - even though the question was specifically about quantity.

That said, the more constraints you put on people the more likely they are to fail. At least that has been my experienced. The main point I have is I don't see much a reason to avoid some of the foods you're suggesting unless *maybe* someone is extremely sedentary, insulin intolerant, etc.

 

[Steve]

Challenge?

No need. That's what I do as a hobby.

That said, no, research definitely does not support the idea that obesity is caused by carbohydrate consumption. Obesity is caused by an excess of calories which is caused by many, many factors including lifestyle factors, dietary factors, societal pressures, etc, etc.

Sure, there is research suggesting there are advantages of low carb dieting. There's plenty of research supporting the flip side too. And there are a few key points that you appear to be overlooking. And I assure you I've seen all available research on the subject at hand - human and animals.

1. High protein is the main driver at play. It's not the magic of low carbs. A key distinction here that has to be made is that the research on the whole does not match protein intakes between diets. So, the adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (ie, LBM support, satiety, thermic effect) compared to the inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it's not lower carb intake per se that imparts the advantage, it's the higher protein intake.

The majority of the research compares dietary extremes (high-carb/low-fat/low-protein versus low-carb/high-fat/moderate protein), and the majority of long-term trials (12 mo or more) STILL fail to show a significant weight loss difference.

2. The overwhelming majority of metabolic ward studies show no metabolic advantage of low-carb treatments. If a metabolic ward has not been used, the study is suspect at best given the variable, uncontrolled factors surrounding something as complex is nutritional intake.

3. These two reviews discuss the entire body of metabolic ward research, which clearly does not support your claims.

Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC. Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter? J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105(5 Suppl 1):S24-8.

Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S.

4. Note that these trials used the sedentary obese, so in the fit population (which has better glucose tolerance than the sedentary obese), any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Furthermore, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss was seen despite unequal protein intakes across treatments.

Brinkworth GD, et al. Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 mo. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jul;90(1):23-32.

Dansiger ML, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293(1):43-53.

Stern L, et al. The effects of low-carbohydrate versus conventional weight loss diets in severely obese adults: one-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004 May 18;140(10):778-85.

Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. N Engl J Med. 2003 May 22;348(21):2082-90.

5. Individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn't. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low-carb absolutists, which I'm not labeling you as. Perhaps your biggest folly is the belief that carbs are bad, and thus low-carb dieting is the answer for everyone. Both research and practice do not support this.

6. And we can sling all of the research that exists regarding metabolic advantages associated with low carb dieting. It's all out there for anyone with the time to read. But what's the point? If you've reviewed all of the available data as you suggest, you'll agree that:

a) The proposed MA for low carb diets is a hypothesis, not a fact
b) There is inadequate data to support the MA hypothesis
c) There is inadequate data to reject the MA hypothesis
d) The MA hypothesis does not trump the concept of energy balance. It postulates inefficiencies in energy metabolism, which would translate to an increase in measured energy expenditure (due to heat loss) in a living organism. Thus, if the MA was true, "calories out" would increase for a given "calories in".
e) A definitive study examining 24-hour energy expenditure (using room calorimetry), comparing a ketogenic diet to a traditional diet (with matched protein intake) for subjects in an energy deficit, has not been performed. This is the only study that will adequately test the MA hypothesis in humans
f) Weight loss still requires an energy deficit. If a MA exists, it still cannot make up for an energy surplus or energy balance. To assert otherwise is to assert that energy can be created or destroyed out of thin air, or that human tissue can be created in the absence of any energy input. Not that you're suggesting this... from what I can tell... you do know calories trump nutrient balance when it comes to losing mass... even though both are critically important.

7. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, from 1970-2007, percentage of daily calories from added sugars decreased 1% during this period, whereas flours/cereals increased by 3%. Dairy is down 3%, with no change in percentage of fruit consumption. Meat, eggs, & nuts (collectively) are down by 4%. Vegetables are down by 1%. Added fats increased by 7%. And the clincher: total daily calorie consumption increased by 27.7%. Given this, if you want to analyze things from a different angle rather than research papers... it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to a net increase in calorie intake.

What it comes down to is this. Like I said above. I'm not a fan of saying, "Carbs are bad unless it's fruits or veggies." Research does not support this as a whole and it's simply an unnecessary "rule" for people to follow. For some a low carb approach may be optimal. For others, it won't be.

If calories are in check, essentials (by that I mean adequate amounts of the essential nutrients) are in check, and the rest is tailored to your individual set of circumstances... that's what matters. Not blanket rules that are supposed to apply to everyone.

 

[Steve]

Also, Randall, can you explain to me your position on insulin with regards to fat loss please? I'd also love to hear your position on the paleo diet.

Thanks for the exchange.

 

[Randall]

I am going to pass on a debate, just do not have the time to do the postings (especially since yesterday I just started three UCLA courses online for screenwriting, so my time for postings is now quite limited and must be focused)-- been through it all at too great a length in the past couple of weeks with my overweight best friend, who is vegan btw, no interest in repeating a debate, because in the end it becomes almost a religion for people to stick to one mode of eating or another. Everybody needs, or should, do the research and discover the history of food, of obesity, and possible causes, and decide for themselves what the cause is, make appropriate adjustments to lifestyle and eating.

I appreciate your list of journal article references, I am going to print out that list and check them out in the near future. Even if carbs do not matter for weight loss or maintenance (for the sake of argument), I would urge one to research the links between dietary carbs and cardiovascular disease, a whole other but related issue.
Cheers
Randall

Also, Randall, can you explain to me your position on insulin with regards to fat loss please? I'd also love to hear your position on the paleo diet. Thanks for the exchange.

 

[Steve]

I am going to pass on a debate, just do not have the time to do the postings (especially since yesterday I just started three UCLA courses online for screenwriting, so my time for postings is now quite limited and must be focused)-- been through it all at too great a length in the past couple of weeks with my overweight best friend, who is vegan btw, no interest in repeating a debate, because in the end it becomes almost a religion for people to stick to one mode of eating or another. Everybody needs, or should, do the research and discover the history of food, of obesity, and possible causes, and decide for themselves what the cause is, make appropriate adjustments to lifestyle and eating.

Religious-like only if people can't separate themselves, emotionally, while assessing information. A critical mind is obviously necessary for a healthy debate. And I assure you, debating with your overweight friend would not be the same as debating with me.

I'll leave with this, and the remainder of what I'm about to say is more for the others who are reading this public discussion.

I've been doing this for a living for near a decade - helping people lose weight. There have been very, very few cases where I had to eliminate carbs to a degree that you're suggesting. My client's success rates are far superior to the average dieter's success rates. I don't say this to boast. And I'm not trying to appeal to authority or experience, as I do thoroughly appreciate and respect factual discussion.

The only reason I spoke up and the only reason I say this, however, is the mere fact that I'm totally against people trying to pigeon-hole everyone into one, strict way of going about things. It's not only unnecessary... more often than not it's counter-productive. My clients are successful b/c I'm not married to any one way of dieting or exercising and respect the fact that there's no universality to much of anything in this field, sans the basic physiological responses common in all healthy humans. Hence the lack of zealotry you'll see from me, unlike most low carb absolutists who preach The One Way.

That said, I respect your time and certainly agree that research is imperative along with education. This is assuming, however, one is educated in research methodology and can separate fact from fiction as well as make educated assumptions when research is lacking or incomplete, which is often the case in a field as new as nutrition and physiology. Far too many people head over to pubmed, read an abstract, jump right to the conclusion, and marry it as if it were the be all end all without taking the time to read the full papers, understand the test parameters, apply the isolated test variable to the dynamic world where everything is connected, etc. They also have a terrible case of confirmation bias which leads them to ignore or disregard the research that opposes their preconceived notions.

I appreciate your list of journal article references, I am going to print out that list and check them out in the near future. Even if carbs do not matter for weight loss or maintenance (for the sake of argument), I would urge one to research the links between dietary carbs and cardiovascular disease, a whole other but related issue.

I agree. Make sure the research is done with carb intake coupled with already healthy diet parameters - i.e., adequate aminos, adequate essential fats, nutritionally dense foods, etc.

Take care.

 

[Randall]

Gotta go read Casablanca (screenplay) for UCLA homework, so-- in brief, I do not do the Paleo diet, but a quasi (modified) Paleo diet; I eat carbs, dairy, some grain, but I emphasize protein and veggies, minimize simple carbs. I am down 14.4 lbs and this is day 24. The best thing for me about my quasi-Paleo way of eating, which I would say is closer to the Mediterranean diet (shown to be very healthy for cardiovasc disease prevention as most know), is that I am having daily caloric balances of -1000 to -1500 and am not even hungry, feeling very satiated.

FWIW, here is a journal article from the Mayo Clinic Proceedings about this, comparing the Mediterranean diet, strict Paleo (hunter-gatherer), Atkins (yuck!), and Ornish (low fat, high carb). Make of the article what you want, I am just sharing it.

I did find an article on the web today showing atherosclerosis development in mice on a high protein high fat diet-- but the Paleo diet in the Mayo article is not high fat, and even then I wonder what fats those mice were fed, because Paleo and Mediterranean diets strive for healthy fats. I eat and cook with olive oil (low temperature), coconut oil (for medium to high temperature), and eat lean meat.

Gotta run. You can have the last say to my posts.
Cheers.

... I'd also love to hear your position on the paleo diet.

 

[Steve]

Gotta go read Casablanca (screenplay) for UCLA homework, so-- in brief, I do not do the Paleo diet, but a quasi (modified) Paleo diet; I eat carbs, dairy, some grain, but I emphasize protein and veggies, minimize simple carbs. I am down 14.4 lbs and this is day 24. The best thing for me about my quasi-Paleo way of eating, which I would say is closer to the Mediterranean diet (shown to be very healthy for cardiovasc disease prevention as most know), is that I am having daily caloric balances of -1000 to -1500 and am not even hungry, feeling very satiated.

Well that's nice to know. See what I wrote in your other thread regarding paleo vs. veggie. Sounds like you're not far off what I'd typically suggest and have banged out the kinks that I believe are associated with paleo.

Smart dude.

And yea, high protein, high fiber, high water-dense food diets are going to satiate like no other. That's why these basic fundamentals, IMO, need to be present in most any diet one follows. These are the basics, IMO.

FWIW, here is a journal article from the Mayo Clinic Proceedings about this, comparing the Mediterranean diet, strict Paleo (hunter-gatherer), Atkins (yuck!), and Ornish (low fat, high carb). Make of the article what you want, I am just sharing it.

I did find an article on the web today showing atherosclerosis development in mice on a high protein high fat diet-- but the Paleo diet in the Mayo article is not high fat, and even then I wonder what fats those mice were fed, because Paleo and Mediterranean diets strive for healthy fats. I eat and cook with olive oil (low temperature), coconut oil (for medium to high temperature), and eat lean meat.

I've seen that actually. Nice article.

And though I'll typically glance at rodent research, I don't give it much weighting. High fat diets are controversial in terms of the available data out there. But I'm not an advocate of such so we won't venture down that path.

Gotta run. You can have the last say to my posts.

It's not about last word here. Just good discussion.

 

[LovesAutumn]

I'm going to ignore the little debate and interject here: obviously calorie needs seem to differ from what a woman would require, if I am not mistaken? How would one calculate the formula, say, if you are a 20something year old woman who is 5'4" and wants to weight 125 pounds? How many calories do I need to make sure I am eating in order to get to that weight and maintain it later on?

 

[noremorse]

Yea, I hear ya. The problem I see with telling people to make deficits of 3500 or 7000 calories per week to lose 1 or 2 lbs respectively is this....

Dieters tend to be very binary in their ways of thinking and assessing things. It's either all or nothing. On or off. Black or white. There's no middle ground. So if you tell someone to create a weekly deficit of 3500 calories to lose 1 lb of fat since 1 lb of fat has approximately 3500 calories... they're going to be damn pissed when it doesn't happen and more often than not, unfortunately, give up.

You're right, those numbers should get people around the right "spot" calorically speaking but I think we need to focus on framing things a bit differently in order to promote more open thinking... if you catch my drift.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree across the entire board with what you're saying.

I enjoy reading your posts. There are so many people babbling BS on the internet about all of this. It is truly refreshing to see a likeminded individual with a neutral, objective and critical viewpoint who is also able to communicate it so eloquently towards others.

[/mancrush]

 

[Steve]

I'm going to ignore the little debate and interject here: obviously calorie needs seem to differ from what a woman would require, if I am not mistaken? How would one calculate the formula, say, if you are a 20something year old woman who is 5'4" and wants to weight 125 pounds? How many calories do I need to make sure I am eating in order to get to that weight and maintain it later on?

Outside specific medical conditions, there really isn't as large a metabolic variance among populations as you'd imagine once they're matched for weight and activity. That said, some variance certainly exists and short of getting your metabolism tested in a chamber... you're not going to pin-point your maintenance exactly.

I typically don't do this as I don't want to be viewed as "some spammer" but this article is too fitting for this and the original question. I wrote is specifically for those who are hung up on calculating their initial caloric needs.

 

[Steve]

I agree across the entire board with what you're saying.

I enjoy reading your posts. There are so many people babbling BS on the internet about all of this. It is truly refreshing to see a likeminded individual with a neutral, objective and critical viewpoint who is also able to communicate it so eloquently towards others.

[/mancrush]

Thanks very much.