The 3 variables to weight loss/gain

[juice]

And if your takeaway from all of our comments above is that we think counting calories can never work, then you’re really not paying attention.

It doesn’t fit the narrative of being oppressed.

[gitanacv]

You point out the generally agreed upon presumption that a calorie is a measure of energy. In a way, yes I agree with you. It is a measure of how much food you need to burn in a fire to raise the temperature of water 1 degree C. This is certainly a measure of “energy.” But what this has to do with how our body uses food is beyond me - I cannot see how anyone could have made the jump from thermal output to food energy… (I mean, I can see because the steps are apparent, but it makes no logical sense).*

Wait, you say, but those are not issues that “normal” people deal with, and we are talking about the idea of a calorie. And, Emma (that’s me), you even stated in your sentence “how much energy we can store/use from food,” which implies that there is energy in food - in other words, a calorie!! Yes, there is energy in food - I just don’t think the “calorie” is the correct way to measure this energy… And, yes, it is correct that I am talking about malfunctioning systems, but I think that my bodily system, and the systems of many people here, demonstrate the truth of the idea that calories are not an accurate measure of the nutritional energy in food. If a calorie was a calorie was a calorie, and we could accurately determine the measure of energy in food by burning it, then it wouldn’t matter how healthy our various hormonal, endocrine, digestive and para-sympathetic nervous systems were. That is basic assumption of a calorie - that the energy available in a food is pre-determined and completely divorced from the biological processes inherent in a human body… I think we can see through many examples that people can put on weight by eating a caloric deficit (case in point: me with thyroid problems), and lose weight eating at a caloric surplus (case in point: many people on this forum).

I think many of us are doing the opposite of making this an exact science - we are pointing out that the human body is so complex that we cannot reduce it to a mathematical equation (calories in/calories out). I think you would agree with the complexity part.

You ask how we estimate what we need to burn ten pounds - and my answer is: “no” (this is me attempting to be funny, which my husband will tell you is always a disaster). I think the question is rather: how do we eat in a way that works in harmony with our bodily systems, and therefore heals these systems and/or does not trigger the systems that store fat? The answer that many of us have stumbled upon is keto (and lots of us on here are happy to admit that other people have found other ways to do this). Keto makes intuitive sense given the hormonal systems that govern fat storage and fat burning. Keto has been demonstrated to work for many of us here - I have lost almost 20 pounds eating quite large quantities of food.

Many of us have been overweight and have spent hours tracking calories. Many of us have bemoaned our willpower, assuming that we weren’t losing weight because we just weren’t cutting back enough. And, like me, many of us have wondered in the back corner of our brain why there is any connection between burning food and eating it.

Sorry, for some reason I just happened to see this. I am getting closer to my weight target each day by carefully monitoring what I am eating and what I am burning. Of course, it is not exact but it tells me where I stand each day and night, when I may wish to have another grape or bowl of soup. The whole calorie equation is not that important. Whether it is 3500 calories for a pound of FAT or whether it is something else depending on how efficient your body is, is relevant, though. So, for example, 3500 calories per pound of fat has worked to the T for me. For someone else it may not BUT there is a way to determine what your CICO rate is. You can “reverse engineer” YOUR numbers. If you carefully record all of YOUR data for month, let’s say, and you know exactly what you are eating and burning, and you determine that you have only lost X number of pounds instead of Y number of pounds, you see that 3500 is not correct for your body. Instead you may need to CICO 4000 calories to lose a pound BUT this does not mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. CICO at some rate works for everyone. Yes, you can feel your body and all that but if you really want to hit targets/goals you have to track it. Some will say, “no, I don’t, no, I don’t have to track it” and of course that is true. No one has to do anything. I am just saying if you are really serious about knowing where you want to go you have to have a map, a plan that can be followed. CICO is specific, keto without knowing what you are eating may or may not get you there. The choice is for each person to make. I understand that people who have been frustrated being obese their whole lives often times don’t want to measure because that makes it all the more frustrating when they don’t hit targets. But I believe you need to track what you are doing. For me, personally, I think I would be much more frustrated if I didn’t know what I was consuming and then not losing the weight in the time frames I wanted. But that would be on me since I would have no idea what I am actually consuming.

[OldDoug]

CICO at some rate works for everyone.

I agree - we just need to include energy storage and excretion on the ‘Out’ side, rather than just looking at how much gets used for energy right away.

[gitanacv]

CICO at some rate works for everyone.

I agree - we just need to include energy storage and excretion on the ‘Out’ side, rather than just looking at how much gets used for energy right away.

Please expound so I understand what you mean. What is “out” side?

[OldDoug]

Bill, within the “calories in/calories out.”

[gitanacv]

I use two programs (Cron-o-meter and Precor built-in program) that tell me what I am burning based on time of exercise and my personal stats. I’m sure not 100% accurate but I assume reasonably so. People who are doing other exercises, like lifting weights, HIIT, or running up and down stairs, it can be difficult to calculate.

[VirginiaEdie]

Biochemical processes all obey the laws of physics, certainly, but that is far from saying we can directly apply the laws of physics to complicated physiologic pathways and predict what an outcome will be, like a calculator spitting out an answer to an equation. It just doesn’t work.

Maybe the processes of our bodies need chaos theory to explain them.

[Ohioms]

Two other issues that you might consider: Are you one
of those people who produce more or excess insulin? As
you lose weight it can be unmasked and it affects weight
loss. The other is medication to incude supplements. If
the medication or how it is manufactured possesses in any
way a degree carbs, the carb creep can definitely have an affect
on weight loss. Both will become more and more apparent
with weight loss specially when nearing a goal.

[Janie]

So… @gitanacv

How has your theories of calories, carbs and keto worked for you?

Anyone can lose weight in the short haul. We are here for … let me borrow a buzzword… sustainability. Permanent weight loss.

Just curious!

[juice]

How has your theories of calories, carbs and keto worked for you?

Just change your profile name to say dragon-poker, will you?

[Janie]

Just because I think he is full of shit and I want Baytowvin back has NOTHING.TO.DO.WITH.IT (she lied)

[Justin_Jordan]

Ah, some thread necromancy.

But this interests me, so I’m going to poke the corpse.

Some personal experiences:

1. I am totally capable of maintaining a (fat) 280 pound body just eating meat. I know this, because I’ve done it. In order to actually lose weight, I actually did/do have to consciously calorie restrict, because satiety for me is a magical unicorn.

2. Buuuuut the weight loss isn’t especially predictable. For one thing, there’s a lag. Which in terms of losing, isn’t especially surprising, but it continues for a bit even when calories increase. Which is to say, when I throttle back my calories, it takes about a week for the weight loss to start, and when I stop, I keep losing for a week or so.

3. And I get weights that are sticky. So right now, my low is 218, and my walking around weight is 225 or so - the low being what I get when I get up in the morning after not eating much. And that weight is hard to either lose further OR gain. I spent basically a month not working out and eating tons of crap, and my weight stayed the same. For me, these happen every twenty pounds of weight loss or so.

4. So it’s a pattern of plateaus and losses.

5. Crucially, I don’t actually mind keeping an eye on calories. A lot of people seem to have a really visceral reaction to doing so, which I get. But since I eat roughly the same half dozen things it’s not a big deal for me to calculate the calories and keep an eye on them. Likewise, most chain restaurants (which is mostly what we have around here, alas) are easy to look up.

6. I suspect people underestimate psychology. I LOVE to eat until I’m stuffed. If I don’t set out a predetermined amount of stuff, it’s what I default to. I don’t keep large packages of nuts around, for instance, because those in particular I will plow through. So calorie counting in a rough and ready way works to keep me from doing that.

7. I also suspect calorie counting works better in the short term for people that are relatively lean and/or metabolically normal. Which the OP appears to be.

8. And lastly, if you want to get really lean, for most people, you need to be conscious of your food intake. This doesn’t have to be calorie counting, but the intuitive approach for most people isn’t going to get you to a six pack unless you’re someone who runs lean ANYWAY.

9. I am actually not tracking my weight or calories right now, out of curiosity - I’m experimenting with fasting and just eating whatever on my eating days (whatever in terms or amount - still close to zero carbs as I can manage), so I’m not weighing myself again until Thanksgiving morning.

10. I like numbered lists.

[Janie]

I didn’t resurrect this to beat a dead horse - I miss @Baytowvin!!!

[gitanacv]

I share your sentiments.

[gitanacv]

Got as low as 177 but currently am between 180 and 185. It is tough to get that small additional amount of weight off. My body seems to be telling me my natural weight should be around 185. But I have scaled back on exercise and calorie restrictions. My original goal was to get to 175 but I don’t think that is realistic. I will probably push it down to 175 in the next couple weeks but I needed a “break.” I’ll try it after Thanksgiving.

[Janie]

But I have scaled back on exercise and calorie restrictions.

Why if you still want to lose more weight?

[gitanacv]

Just to take a break from the workouts. Give the body a rest. And also I enjoy a big meal on occasion.

[atomicspacebunny]

Some dieters lost as much as 60 pounds, while others gained as much as 20.

Some of the factors of the mixed result could be genetic polymorphism variations? And types of fat used to study with?

Wonder what would happen if they took all those same participants and switched the hi/low fat diets?

[Mo1]

Isn’t some of the debate about CICO artificially inflated to some extent by a lack of definition?

E.g. the CICO that the “mainstream” promote and everyone here (including the original poster) ctiticise is the simplistic CICO which assumes that you can absolutely calculate calories in and calories burned and that there is no relationship between the 2 such as metabolic rate dropping etc.

A broader definition of CICO might be eat less than you use at a gross level for the years or months it takes. Dont control calories but control satiation/hormones etc and ur body will do the rest etc etc. A broader definition might be morw unifying for people here?

I got confused initially when people were attacking the CICO until I realised they were attacking the simplistic model.

[Janie]

Probably a good thing. Has your weight remained stable with this change?