Calorie count really not making sense to me


(Doug) #1

Thinking about weight gain and weight maintenance, things are not adding up for me.

During 30 years of often horrendous excess, I “only” gained an average of 5 lbs. per year. At 3500 calories per pound of body weight, that would total 17,500 calories. Or – an average of 335 calories per week. Wow – that seems so little to me. As in would I have actually stayed the same weight had I merely consumed 335 less calories per week?

“Excess” – a big day for me would be something like having 4 bacon, egg and cheese breakfast sandwiches, no lunch, and then 2 large pizzas for supper. Wouldn’t eat all the pizza at one sitting, but by 9 or 10 p.m. it would all be gone. That’s an 8000 to 8500 calorie day. Didn’t average that, but a “small” day would still usually feature 3000+ calories, often with an abominable amount of carbohydrates.

Normal digestion, normal metabolism, normal activity level for a non-working-out adult with a usually not-very-physical job. I know that as we gain weight, our resting metabolism usually burns more calories per day, but not nearly enough to account for what I’m thinking – that cutting out an average of 335 calories per week would have made no appreciable difference at all, rather than a constant weight being maintained. Seems to me that many, many calories must have been “wasted” somehow, and that they did not actually go into the bottom-line of my weight.

The same for maintaining my desired and hoped-for weight, should I get there. If it would only be a matter of taking in 335 calories less per week, that seems too easy. And the same for 500 calories or 1000 or 1500 per week. Fasting works almost perfectly for me and to just miss one day per week of eating is not a problem. That should take care of less calories per week, certainly up to 1500 or so. It feels like there must be more to it than that – as with the seemingly “slow” weight gain while eating very large numbers of calories per day – the equations are not making sense to me.


(Crow T. Robot) #2

That’s because treating calories like a simple equation is not how things work.

People try to tell you that it’s like this:

…but, human metabolism and fat storage is controlled by hormones, not CICO.


(Keto in Katy) #3

I think we have all heard this, that there are 3500 calories in a pound of fat — so for example, if you reduce calorie intake by 500 per day you will lose a pound in a week. But Zoe Harcombe mentioned this is a presentation a while back and said she never could find a source for the claim. In her post below she explains.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/04/where-does-the-3500-calorie-theory-come-from/

In any case forget about calories and focus on keeping your total carbohydrates to 20 grams per day or less. This is the foundation of a ketogenic diet. I have been keto for four years and I have never once thought about my calorie intake. I keep carbs very low, eat quite a bit of fat (my weight is where I want it) and however much protein I feel like eating, and my weight and energy levels remain steady. I think this is fairly common with the fat-adapted.

Essentially replacing carbs with fat will reduce hunger and, most likely, you will naturally consume fewer calories because you will not be hungry as often.


#4

Yes, if the math doesn’t add up, it’s probably because of one of these. Or something we don’t even know about yet.
http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1


(Doug) #5

Thank you all for your replies. If anything it’s comforting to think that “calorie counting,” per se, may not mean much.