What you eat VS. calories

If calories are the most important, then do you think someone who, for arguments' sake and to make it easy, ate 1400 cal. of cookies a day would stay the same weight as someone who, with all else equal, ate 1400 cal. of fruits, veggies, good carbs, etc? I really don't think so. I think if you eat 1400 cal or a lot of the wrong thing, you WILL gain weight vs if you ate the same amount but of good stuff. I like sweets but I never eat over my calorie limit and I exercise...and I've gained 10 lbs.
Any arguments? Because I hope that's the case. Otherwise I will never lose weight.

1. Weight and fat are too entirely different things.

2. If there are 3500 calories in a pound of fat, how does your body add fat *magically* from junk food if calories are accounted for. For example:

Diet A = 1500 calories of sugar
Diet B = 1500 calories of protein

There are two individuals consuming each diet respectively, who
are identical. Each have a maintenance intake of 1500 calories.

Using your theory, individual 1 will gain weight. Individual 2 probably
won't.

So for starters, what are they gaining? And secondly, if it's fat, where's it coming from since the rules of thermodynamics are rather binding?

I know that when your blood sugar spikes after eating sugar/bad carbs, it ends up being stored as fat regardless of calories.

You know this, huh?

I think you better check your physiology on that one.

You have to realize that this claim you are making is like saying, "I know that if these bricks weren't here making up these walls, that roof would still be right were it is."

Calories are energy. Fat is stored energy. How do you gain fat if you aren't eating a surplus of energy?

And how is it that insulin makes you fat?

Using the insulin model of lipogenesis is outdated and ignores the last ~20years of research.

You do realize while insulin is raised, and the body is at an energetic deficit, the body has to provide energy from somewhere, and ultimately this somewhere is fat.

I have trouble getting 1500 calories period. From what I read I should be getting 1800. Regardless of if it fills you up or if you get hungry, my point is that both situations are 1400 cal. If you ate 1400 cal of each category and didn't eat anymore that day, I think you'd GAIN weight w/the cookie diet.
And yes it would probably take more calories to digest the good stuff. Plus the blood sugar spike w/the cookie diet would make you store more fat.

What are these magical building blocks that are used to add fat to your body when you are in a caloric deficit?

I need to watch out for them.

So 1400 cal of different things is NOT the same.

Certainly is.

A calorie is a calorie no matter which way you slice it. It can be nothing else, just as a kilogram can be nothing but a kilogram.

Now if you were to say not all macronutrients (protein, carbs, fats) act the same in the body.... than you'd make sense.
 
In addition to what Steve said, Phix, I would add, "Bad science."

Refine your method and you won't have such problems. For example, if you are gaining fat weight at 1400 calories, then it should be somewhat obvious that 1400 calories isn't your maintenance. There could be any number of other explanations, of course, as you don't give the impression of knowing enough to make proper observations or arrive at accurate conclusions. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just saying.

There are lots of reasons to make better choices than a diet consisting almost entirely of "sweets", but calories in vs. calories out is a separate matter, for the most part. Insulin resistance might be one that is relevant to you, for example. The body's supposed minimum protein requirement. Micronutrient balance. Energy stability.Thermic effect of foods. Regularity. Etc.

So what I'm saying is I do agree with you that eating healthy is a better choice for you, but not for the reason you insist. Also, once again, improve your ability to track and assess your results and you will find yourself moving in the right direction instead of away from your goals.
 
About that website you posted. This dude is consuming 3 to 5K in calories a day, all fast food. OK, if you looked like him or Steve and worked out like that, yeah, you can eat Mcd 3 or 4 times a day. But the average female cannot and not get fat. Sorry, when I see this study done by your average non heavy weight lifting female, then I'll take heed.

Sorry, just had to get that out. And besides, my cholesterol would be through the room (like it isn't already) if I did that.

But thanks for sharing the site, it was interesting.

Very true, if I ate like that and spent his 1hr+ at the gym I'd still have gained massive amounts of weight. I think his point though was that it's not what you eat but your net calories, which is true.
 
Very true, if I ate like that and spent his 1hr+ at the gym I'd still have gained massive amounts of weight. I think his point though was that it's not what you eat but your net calories, which is true.

We all live and die by the rules of thermodynamics. And basal metabolic rates do not vary across populations to the extent most assume.

Why I referenced that website ages ago was to combat the simple fact that junk food is not the primary catalyst for fat gain. Calories are.
 
My 'argument' with it is
1400 cals of cookies seems like a lot of food but it isn't. So in 2 or 3 hours, you'd be wanting to eat again.

1400 cals of fruits and veggies (is a lot of food) trust me. I have trouble getting to 1500 calories in a day (vegan). I eat about 300 cals of fruits and veggies in a sitting and I can barley move after. It takes about 5 hours for me to get hungry again. The fiber fills you up, and you eat less often.

If anyone doesn't belive me, I challenge you to try it.

A banana is about 130 cals. An apple about 60. A serving of cabbage can run about 30 calories. Go ahead. Make it to 1400 in one shot. I dare you. :D

I love your argument! It's so true!!!
 
I love your argument! It's so true!!!

Right, her argument is valid. It just has nothing to do with the OPs stance about junk food making you fat regardless of caloric state.

Busy's point though I agree with outside the context of this discussion.... part of the reason why controlling fat intake is necessary for many people. Dietary fat doesn't make you fat but caloric density of foods should be considered and the caloric density of fat is more than double that of carbs and/or protein.

Just as the caloric density of junk is much higher than the caloric density of veggies.

And all this does is confirm the importance of calories.
 
Right, her argument is valid. It just has nothing to do with the OPs stance about junk food making you fat regardless of caloric state.

Busy's point though I agree with outside the context of this discussion.... part of the reason why controlling fat intake is necessary for many people. Dietary fat doesn't make you fat but caloric density of foods should be considered and the caloric density of fat is more than double that of carbs and/or protein.

Just as the caloric density of junk is much higher than the caloric density of veggies.

And all this does is confirm the importance of calories.

Thanks for feeling the need to critique me. I actually was agreeing to the part about trying to eat that many calories in fruits and veggies in a day and how hard it is. It's a good thing you are hear to clear up any confusion.

I guess I should have put in a disclaimer first that I have no fricken idea about what the calories in cookies do. :biggrinjester: Sorry I should have stuck with the topic. My mistake. Bend me over and spank me!
 
Thanks for feeling the need to critique me.

Interesting perception.

Completely invalid.... but it intrigues me nonetheless.

I most certainly did not feel the need. I'm just as much as part of the conversation as you or the next person and I was doing just that..... adding to the ongoing conversation.

I didn't realize your responses were of separate issue and that any and all replies directly to them would be labeled "critiques."

My apologies.

I actually was agreeing to the part about trying to eat that many calories in fruits and veggies in a day and how hard it is.

I know.

And this is what my comments were based on. Maybe I wasn't clear.... very well could have been the case as I like to ramble.

Caloric density is a seperate issue. I was more clarifying this for the OP as these types of threads usually get drowned in muddy water quickly and the original point gets lost.

And I think the integrity of that original point*, although wrong, is important to maintain as there's some value to be had for those being guided by misinformation.

*original point = junk food makes you fat b/c of the insulin response

It's a good thing you are hear to clear up any confusion.

Yea, again, interesting perception.

I'm here to chat just as you. But I'll be sure to avoid responding directly to anything you say again for fear of how you'll interperut the "critique."

:)

I guess I should have put in a disclaimer first that I have no fricken idea about what the calories in cookies do. :biggrinjester: Sorry I should have stuck with the topic. My mistake. Bend me over and spank me!

Where's my paddle?
 
Ok, I'm not on any high horse alright? This is just what I've heard many times. If I'm wrong, fine, let me know. I'd LOVE to be able to have a square or two of chocolate and not feel instantly depressed b/c I think I ruined my diet.

I just want to know why I cannot lose any fat. I AM counting my calories correctly; I'm not missing any.

Steve, I found this article and I'm not insinuating it's THE source for info, it just came up in a search. And from what you're saying, this article is not correct (If I've misunderstood you, sorry):

"Insulin Resistance... knowing you have it may help how you deal with many common health conditions

How does high insulin create body fat?
Eating foods that cause a spike in blood sugar create excess food “energy”. In order to have someplace to put this excess energy, the body must make new fat cells, with insulin being the facilitator for the creation of these new cells. Excess energy triggers an increase in insulin, and the fat storage cycle begins. Since cholesterol is the framework for cells, when new fat cells are created, so is cholesterol. Remember that fat storage starts with insulin, so if you don’t eat foods that cause an excess of insulin, you won’t trigger the fat storage cycle. Foods that enter the bloodstream slowly, and don’t spike blood sugar up don’t cause excess insulin to be produced and therefore don’t contribute significantly toward fat storage. Your food choices are really the key here."

If this is WRONG, please tell me what is the truth. This makes some sense to me, as perhaps I am on this cycle of fat storage since I have eaten some form of sweets since I was a kid.

The rest of the article is here:

1. Weight and fat are too entirely different things.

2. If there are 3500 calories in a pound of fat, how does your body add fat *magically* from junk food if calories are accounted for. For example:

Diet A = 1500 calories of sugar
Diet B = 1500 calories of protein

There are two individuals consuming each diet respectively, who
are identical. Each have a maintenance intake of 1500 calories.

Using your theory, individual 1 will gain weight. Individual 2 probably
won't.

So for starters, what are they gaining? And secondly, if it's fat, where's it coming from since the rules of thermodynamics are rather binding?



You know this, huh?

I think you better check your physiology on that one.

You have to realize that this claim you are making is like saying, "I know that if these bricks weren't here making up these walls, that roof would still be right were it is."

Calories are energy. Fat is stored energy. How do you gain fat if you aren't eating a surplus of energy?

And how is it that insulin makes you fat?

Using the insulin model of lipogenesis is outdated and ignores the last ~20years of research.

You do realize while insulin is raised, and the body is at an energetic deficit, the body has to provide energy from somewhere, and ultimately this somewhere is fat.



What are these magical building blocks that are used to add fat to your body when you are in a caloric deficit?

I need to watch out for them.



Certainly is.

A calorie is a calorie no matter which way you slice it. It can be nothing else, just as a kilogram can be nothing but a kilogram.

Now if you were to say not all macronutrients (protein, carbs, fats) act the same in the body.... than you'd make sense.
 
I'm just trying to get validation. I need someone to agree with me that eating 1400 cal of sugar is more fattening than eating 1400 cal of good stuff. B/c otherwise, I have no hope of losing weight, which is very depressing...

I agree :) Don't get depressed, stress is bad if your trying to lose weight ;)
 
I just want to know why I cannot lose any fat. I AM counting my calories correctly; I'm not missing any.

Okay, if you are insinuating you are IR, you can easily (hopefully) go to your doctor and get tested for insulin resistance. You can get an immediate test at the doctor's office where they can pin prick you and see where you sugar levels are at, or you can take another blood sugar level test (on an empty stomach) that will determine what your average blood sugar has been for the last three months.

Additionally, if you have high triglycerides, that might be a sign that your body is having problems with insulin. The cholesterol that you mention below is related to those that are high.


"Insulin Resistance... knowing you have it may help how you deal with many common health conditions

Um... can I point out that this is for someone that HAS insulin resistance.

You haven't said if you have been tested for this or not. Until you have been, you cannot assume that this is the case.

If this is WRONG, please tell me what is the truth. This makes some sense to me, as perhaps I am on this cycle of fat storage since I have eaten some form of sweets since I was a kid.

Get tested and you will find out. An Internet board cannot determine if your are IR or not.

I am, I also come from a family of diabetics, so, I've been tested, and I have my lab results sitting in front of me.

I would suggest you get tested first.

If your insulin is fine, then your problem is something else. What? That you'll have to find out on your own.

But I do agree with Steve -- even I... with IR and everything -- have been losing weight even while eating some sugars (coffee, dark chocolate, etc.).

If you are eating at maintenance, then your insulin can create a new fat storage, while your body empties out an old one for your energy requirements.

I would think, at that point, that you become neutral or "even" in terms of fat storage.

Additionally, even with people who are IR, the biggest factor in improving their IR is exercise -- the best is to exercise after meals (like, walk 20 minutes) in order to help the body burn the extra insulin that is released into the blood stream.

Is eating whole grains and vegetables healthier? Of course. You'll feel fuller, too.

Get tested.

Also, have you thought about the fact that maybe you're looking for a reason that you can't lose weight? I went through many months (years?) of that.
 
I haven't followed the whole thread but I think phix was not insinuating anything, she/he had a valid question: if Steve knows (which from what I have read about steve he probably does) why her article and what he says clash the she/he is asking for an explanation for this.
Phix even said he/she was not insinuating to have IR, just couldn't understand why Steve says if you eat 1500 cals you won't put on weight and the article says if you have this condition you may.

I do not know the answer, I am to no extent a nutritional expert and I hope we can resolve this without being rude or judgemental.
Camy
 
Right, but she only now implied that she thinks she's IR.

All of my posts have been going off the fact that she said insulin = fat.

Insulin resistance and insulin production are two entirely seperate issues. She's moved the goal posts.

Winedeer made a very excellent post above and hopefully the OP reads and understands it.
 
This thread is such a clusterfuck of good and bad information.

Thanks for the posts Winedeer, Busy and Steve. Great stuff and most helpful for my understanding.

Often times I will eat things with sugar and wonder if its worse than other things. But I realize if I am getting my caloric intake for a good deficit than I am fine. It is interesting to know they do different things while in the body but will still result in a loss (especially when I eat my Kashi Cereal for snack or Skinny Cow Ice Cream bars). It's about planning and good choices... which have been explained here several times in various forms.

The one I like the most... a calorie is a calorie.
 
Thank you so much Camy! You are correct!
Insulin resistance was mentioned in the thread so I looked it up and within it, it explained how the fat storage worked, which 2 of the 3 of my nutritionists and my personal trainer had said. I have no freakin clue if I have it.
I know that technically one calorie = one calorie. I was saying that if something was eaten that had loads of sugar and was 200 calories (for instance) vs something that was eaten that was, say, a veggie and was 200 calories...it was to my knowledge that the former could possibly make you retain fat b/c of the insulin cycle thing. This was basically the question/point of my post. I don't know how many times or ways I can say the same thing..Are they really equal in terms of fat storage? So I am completely on topic.
From what I understand, Steve is saying our bodies do not work that way. I posted the article I found explaining how the storage process works, according to the article. So is this article WRONG? Is this misinformation? If it is RIGHT, it may account for my problem. If it is wrong, then I'd like to find out what the problem is so I don't pull my hair out. I am just trying to find an answer (three pages later!). I'm sorry if I cannot word myself as spot on and technical as Steve does, but thought I was clear enough as to avoid confusion and make people think I was going on a tangent. I just want to lose fat like a lot of people on here..not be put down. As far as I know, being positive is what helps people.
Btw, I have had my sugar tested a few weeks ago, due to a suggestion from a nutritionist, and I believe it was around 80. My mom has type 2 diabetes, though no one (docs included) can understand why. She doesn't eat junk, she exercises, no history of it, and has never been overweight. Just unlucky.

I haven't followed the whole thread but I think phix was not insinuating anything, she/he had a valid question: if Steve knows (which from what I have read about steve he probably does) why her article and what he says clash the she/he is asking for an explanation for this.
Phix even said he/she was not insinuating to have IR, just couldn't understand why Steve says if you eat 1500 cals you won't put on weight and the article says if you have this condition you may.

I do not know the answer, I am to no extent a nutritional expert and I hope we can resolve this without being rude or judgemental.
Camy
 
Last edited:
How do the doctors not understand it? Is there not a complete family history? Even so, it could be a new mutation with her (which def sucks) and is still explainable.
 
I really don't know anything about weight loss. But, what if you looked at it this way. Lets say arbitrarily that you had three columns which your body stores food. Column Fat, Column Protein, and Column Carbs.

And that every time you burn or eat a calorie, lets just say….
10% of the total is goes to the fat column,
20% to the protein column
70% to the carbs column
(Not real numbers or anything)

Lets say you eat 500 Calories…

And lets say you just burnt 400 Calories. Meaning…

40 Calories from Fat
80 Calories from Protein
280 Calories from Carbs
Total = 400 Calories

500 intake – 400 Burnt = 100 Left

You have 100 Calories still left right? And no matter how your body stores it, you’re still going to have 100 calories left if you’ve burnt 400 calories if you intake 500. The extra calories, are just going to stay there until your body decides how to use it right? It isn’t just going to make energy out of nothing… right?
 
Thank you so much Camy! You are correct!
Insulin resistance was mentioned in the thread so I looked it up and within it, it explained how the fat storage worked, which 2 of the 3 of my nutritionists and my personal trainer had said.

I have no freakin clue if I have it.

This is why you need to go to a DOCTOR and ask for blood work done on you to TEST for it.


I know that technically one calorie = one calorie. I was saying that if something was eaten that had loads of sugar and was 200 calories (for instance) vs something that was eaten that was, say, a veggie and was 200 calories...it was to my knowledge that the former could possibly make you retain fat b/c of the insulin cycle thing.

It doesn't make you fat.

It creates a fat storage. But if your body is at equilibrium -- in other words, you're not consuming more than it needs, even as it creates the new fat storage -- you will be spend another fat storage to give your body the energy it needs.

I believe this makes it a wash.

Any other medical or scientific professionals can jump right in.


This was basically the question/point of my post. I don't know how many times or ways I can say the same thing..Are they really equal in terms of fat storage? So I am completely on topic.

If you are a NORMAL human being, yes, it's equal.

If you are IR, it's not.


From what I understand, Steve is saying our bodies do not work that way. I posted the article I found explaining how the storage process works, according to the article. So is this article WRONG? Is this misinformation?

This article is for INSULIN RESISTENT PEOPLE... like me. But to a certain point that I will try to explain later.



If it is RIGHT, it may account for my problem. If it is wrong, then I'd like to find out what the problem is so I don't pull my hair out.

You problem is that you don't know if you are IR. Get tested. Get tested. Get tested.


Btw, I have had my sugar tested a few weeks ago, due to a suggestion from a nutritionist, and I believe it was around 80.

This sounds like a perfectly normal blood sugar test -- it was the pin prick, right?

But this is only testing your sugar at that moment in time. Were you fasting? Did you just eat a meal? How much sugar was in that meal? etc. Without that information, it's hard to determine if it is.

It doesn't sound like you've done a lot of research on the web about this -- google insulin resistance. It will give you millions of website -- hit the medical ones.


My mom has type 2 diabetes, though no one (docs included) can understand why. She doesn't eat junk, she exercises, no history of it, and has never been overweight. Just unlucky.

No, not unlucky. Diabetes comes from the pancreas breaking down. Her pancreas could have broken down because of medication, genetics, or other problems.

People that get Type II in the "standard" way have overworked their pancreas to the point of exhaustion.

From what I understand, if you take all those years of eating whatever you want, not necessarily exercising, not necessarily taking care of your body, your organs will try to desperately reach that perfect balance again -- the body wants to be healthy, it's not choosing to be fat or sick or whatever. But after years of this lifestyle, the pancreas poops out, and that's how diabetes begins -- the pancreas starts failing to produce the right amount of insulin needed for the body's consumption of carbohydrates.

There is one thing I will add -- it is fundamental to understand that for someone who is IR, it isn't only about creating fat storage. Eating empty carbohydrates makes the insulin in your blood stream go nuts. That causes a feeling in your brain of being "high" as the insulin gets there, your may feel "hunger" because your body is now asking for MORE food so the extra insulin in the blood can bind to, etc. It's a vicious cycle, because if you don't consume the right foods, you'll have the tendency to eat more.

When you get these feelings -- and I do -- you feel like shit. You know it's happening to your body. You get cranky, you continue to eat, you're "hungry" again later.... it just keeps going. So, clearly, if you're supposed to be eating 1600 calories a day, you've now found yourself eating 1600 calories in one sitting.

This is why your nutritionist will probably tell you that you should eat carbohydrates with protein -- and WHOLE carbohydrates -- because the protein and the "wholeness" will take longer to digest and not send a spike of insulin into your bloodstream. Not because it's necessarily creating a fat storage.

You need to figure this out with your nutritionists. They should be aware of it. Without knowing if your mom's diabetes is hereditary, you don't know if you need to be vigilant about heading on that path.
 
Back
Top