Calories In, Calories Out

Nutrition
41

So whats more important, net daily, weekly, month or yearly calories. If I eat +500 calories on monday, but -500 the rest of the week do I still lose weight? And cant the body easily switch between building muscle and losing fat?

If you agree that it can, then it makes sense that cycling calories, carbs, protein, fat would be somewhere near the optimal method for most people.

You can create a calorie deficit throughout the week, except for right before, during and after workouts, and be able to build lose fat throughout the week, and build muscle as well. There may be no weight change, but this is still very possible. And if there is no weight change, then this means the law of thermodynamics isn’t the end all be all method.

I think its a nice law, but VERY impractical out of the lab. Like I mentioned earlier your calorie intake and expenditure are going to vary on a hourly, daily and weekly basis. The only way to know if you had a surplus is to monitor weight gain, and the only way you know you were in the negative is weight loss. Wouldn’t it be much easier to just learn how much to eat, to achieve the same results. Why try to assign set numbers to something that isn’t set?

The calories in vs. calories out is a nice method for people that are eating too much calorie dense foods, that are empty calories. It will teach them portion control, but like I said, its not the end all be all. You could just go straight to portion control, and monitor your progress to see if your eating the right amount.

Asside from that, the whole thing about eating enoug protein to spare muscle. How do you know how much protein is enough? You dont until you lose weight and dont lose muscle. Why not just keep your protein portions where they are and decrease carbs and fat? You dont have to count calories you just eat 3/4 or a potato instead of a whole potato. And you get rid some of the butter.

42

Pretty interesting article.

http://www.salsastories.com/stories_c-d/calories.htm

43

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Once again, many of you are missing the point. Eating 6-7 small meals per day? Why? Will eating 7 meals per day at 2,500 calories and 200g protein magically make you lose more fat than 3 meals per day at 2,500 calories and 200g protein? No.

Why should it, the calories are the same therefore, assuming an energy deficit exists ad protein is sufficient, muscle will be spared, and fat will be burned to make up for a lack of energy intake.

THERE IS NO MAGIC INVOLVED IN EATING 6-8 MEALS PER DAY! You will not lose fat eating 6 times per day if you are OVER eating by 500 calories (even if it’s 500 calories of “clean” foods, which I have yet to hear a reasonable definition of, but that’s beside the point…)

Face it, it still boils down to this simple fact: the body has no need to use up energy stores, if it’s energy needs are met. Period.

It does not matter if you eat 3 meals per day or 10, low fat or high fat, or whatever. All diets work. If you do not believe me, read this:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/
No matter how complex or how simple your diet may be, if you are eating more than you expend, you will gain weight.

ADDITIONALLY if you eat less than you expend, AND ensure enough protein to spare lean tissue, you will lose fat. It really is as simple as that.

Finally the point of refeeds, or cycling calories, is this: to keep expenditure high enough by keeping the metabolism revved up that one can to eat enough protein while still remaining in a (weekly) deficit. Diets like the UD2 wont work if you are in a net (read: weekly) caloric SURPLUS.

P.S. while over consuming protein will lead to less fat gain than carbohydrates, this is only because of the Thermic Effect of Food, therefore it increases ones caloric expenditure in a roundabout way, but calories in vs calories out STILL holds true.

Can this thread please be closed now?[/quote]

The type and timing of the food matter as it has an effect on the percentage of fat and muscle gained (or lost).

44

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Once again, many of you are missing the point. Eating 6-7 small meals per day? Why? Will eating 7 meals per day at 2,500 calories and 200g protein magically make you lose more fat than 3 meals per day at 2,500 calories and 200g protein? No.

Why should it, the calories are the same therefore, assuming an energy deficit exists ad protein is sufficient, muscle will be spared, and fat will be burned to make up for a lack of energy intake.

THERE IS NO MAGIC INVOLVED IN EATING 6-8 MEALS PER DAY! You will not lose fat eating 6 times per day if you are OVER eating by 500 calories (even if it’s 500 calories of “clean” foods, which I have yet to hear a reasonable definition of, but that’s beside the point…)

Face it, it still boils down to this simple fact: the body has no need to use up energy stores, if it’s energy needs are met. Period.

It does not matter if you eat 3 meals per day or 10, low fat or high fat, or whatever. All diets work. If you do not believe me, read this:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/
No matter how complex or how simple your diet may be, if you are eating more than you expend, you will gain weight.

ADDITIONALLY if you eat less than you expend, AND ensure enough protein to spare lean tissue, you will lose fat. It really is as simple as that.

Finally the point of refeeds, or cycling calories, is this: to keep expenditure high enough by keeping the metabolism revved up that one can to eat enough protein while still remaining in a (weekly) deficit. Diets like the UD2 wont work if you are in a net (read: weekly) caloric SURPLUS.

P.S. while over consuming protein will lead to less fat gain than carbohydrates, this is only because of the Thermic Effect of Food, therefore it increases ones caloric expenditure in a roundabout way, but calories in vs calories out STILL holds true.

Can this thread please be closed now?[/quote]

From a physiological standpoint, I agree with you. Unfortunately, the psychological aspects involved with weight loss, for most people, are every bit as important in achieving the end results. If by eating 5 or 6 times a day a person psychologically feels more full and is able to stay at a calorie deficit, then in my opinion there is merit for including this technique in to one’s diet. The same holds true for macronutrient composition. If the minimum nutrient requirements for the body are met, then whether or not one leans more towards a protein heavy diet or a carb or fat heavy diet will not make a difference in weight loss (other health aspects aside) provided the subject can maintain a calorie deficit. However, if consuming too many fast burning carbs causes the subject to consume more calories because they feel hungry and therefore add additional calories a short time after feeding, then the end result of weight loss is not realized - not because they consumed too many carbs but because the carbs they consumed did not satisfy their psychological needs and led to an increase in calories.

I’m not sure why you are wanting to shut down the post. I think discussions like this can be quite interesting and some people even learn a thing or two. Yes, there will be lots of disagreement on a subject like this but so far this has remained fairly civil.

45

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Once again, many of you are missing the point. Eating 6-7 small meals per day? Why? Will eating 7 meals per day at 2,500 calories and 200g protein magically make you lose more fat than 3 meals per day at 2,500 calories and 200g protein? No.

Why should it, the calories are the same therefore, assuming an energy deficit exists ad protein is sufficient, muscle will be spared, and fat will be burned to make up for a lack of energy intake.

THERE IS NO MAGIC INVOLVED IN EATING 6-8 MEALS PER DAY! You will not lose fat eating 6 times per day if you are OVER eating by 500 calories (even if it’s 500 calories of “clean” foods, which I have yet to hear a reasonable definition of, but that’s beside the point…)

Face it, it still boils down to this simple fact: the body has no need to use up energy stores, if it’s energy needs are met. Period.

It does not matter if you eat 3 meals per day or 10, low fat or high fat, or whatever. All diets work. If you do not believe me, read this:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/
No matter how complex or how simple your diet may be, if you are eating more than you expend, you will gain weight.

ADDITIONALLY if you eat less than you expend, AND ensure enough protein to spare lean tissue, you will lose fat. It really is as simple as that.

Finally the point of refeeds, or cycling calories, is this: to keep expenditure high enough by keeping the metabolism revved up that one can to eat enough protein while still remaining in a (weekly) deficit. Diets like the UD2 wont work if you are in a net (read: weekly) caloric SURPLUS.

P.S. while over consuming protein will lead to less fat gain than carbohydrates, this is only because of the Thermic Effect of Food, therefore it increases ones caloric expenditure in a roundabout way, but calories in vs calories out STILL holds true.

Can this thread please be closed now?[/quote]

Maybe. But your post remains completely wrong. The AMOUNT of fat loss and muscle retained varies between different DIETS (CALORIC DEFICITS)with the exact same calorie intake but different food choices, macronutrient breakdowns, and meal timing. This has been shown time and time again. You expend more calories than you take in, you lose weight. Simple. All approaches that satisfy this will work. But some approaches work BETTER than others. The fact that you’re going to gain when in a caloric SURPLUS regardless of food choice or meal timing is relevant to nothing. No one is claiming the opposite.

46

[quote]Lockwood wrote:
How, then, do you explain the meal frequency studies whereby subjects - both lean and obese - have consumed equal number of calories, following the same macronutrient profiles, and yet there is significant variance b/w groups on dependent variables of body composition and blood lipids?[/quote]

What is the effect of meal frequency specifically on fat loss (rather than body composition), controlling for calories? Body composition can be identical for people with very different fat/muscle levels because it is proportionally defined.

More to the point of my question: What is the effect size of these studies? You mention a statistically significant difference, but as a researcher I’m sure you know that effect sizes can be tiny even when statistically significant.

I’m asking about the incremental value of all the dieting convolutions we go through, beyond simply consuming less than we burn (assuming sufficient protein is present in the diet). Does it make that much of a difference in the real world?

As noted in the article quoted earlier:

The reason I’m asking this question is that I think many people shoot themselves in the foot when trying these tricks. They lose sight of the primary principle of calories in vs. calories out. I found myself doing this on Joel Marion’s “Cheat to Lose” diet, eating so many unnecessary calories on my cheat day in the name of restoring leptin levels.

I think it is important not to lose sight of the basic mechanism for fat loss. No matter what convolutions you go through, the bottom line is that if you are consuming more calories than you burn, fat loss is not going to happen.

47

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lockwood wrote:
How, then, do you explain the meal frequency studies whereby subjects - both lean and obese - have consumed equal number of calories, following the same macronutrient profiles, and yet there is significant variance b/w groups on dependent variables of body composition and blood lipids?

What is the effect of meal frequency specifically on fat loss (rather than body composition), controlling for calories? Body composition can be identical for people with very different fat/muscle levels because it is proportionally defined.

More to the point of my question: What is the effect size of these studies? You mention a statistically significant difference, but as a researcher I’m sure you know that effect sizes can be tiny even when statistically significant.

I’m asking about the incremental value of all the dieting convolutions we go through, beyond simply consuming less than we burn (assuming sufficient protein is present in the diet). Does it make that much of a difference in the real world?

As noted in the article quoted earlier:

All of the rules, the food combining, the elimination of carbs, the elimination of fat, don�??t eat XXX at all (where XXX is something that contributes a lot of calories to the diet), don�??t eat YYY after 6pm (where YYY is something people tend to overeat in the evenings), etc. are all just ways of tricking people into eating less without having to think about it.

The reason I’m asking this question is that I think many people shoot themselves in the foot when trying these tricks. They lose sight of the primary principle of calories in vs. calories out. I found myself doing this on Joel Marion’s “Cheat to Lose” diet, eating so many unnecessary calories on my cheat day in the name of restoring leptin levels.

I think it is important not to lose sight of the basic mechanism for fat loss. No matter what convolutions you go through, the bottom line is that if you are consuming more calories than you burn, fat loss is not going to happen.[/quote]

You should have gotten all the answers you are seeking in this thread already. 1. Calories are the MOST important. 2. Meal timing, food combination, and macronutrient manipulation are all of lesser importance but can lead to better results. A better hormonal profile. More of the weight loss being fat. Better muscle retention. Get the basics down before micromanaging. Walk before you run. Once you’re eating the proper amount of calories for loss and making healthy food choices, THEN worry about fine-tuning your approach. Not before. 3. Eating 10,000 calories in the name a ‘cheat day’ to replenish leptin is retarded. There’s leptin replenishment and there’s such ridiculous overeating such that your weekly caloric deficit is not what it should be. It should be noted, that most of the diet articles of authors here PRESUME you’ve got the basics down already and know your own body and what level of calories you are eating and what your cheats should consist of.

48

^ good post game summary.

49

Forlife, you are lean enough anyway. Time to muscle up!

50

[quote]arsenal109 wrote:
Calories in < calories out = WEIGHT LOSS, not necessarily fat loss. You don’t need to over complicate things, but going from 8% to 5% for most people will require watching where your calories come from. Insulin response to and nutrient profile of the food you consume is relevant to body composition, how is this even worth debating?[/quote]

Please elaborate on how insulin response and nutrient profile is relevant to body composition, in this particular case, fat loss. Note that I’m also assuming you’re talking about differences in micronutrition within the context of equal macros.

51

[quote]Lockwood wrote:

How, then, do you explain the meal frequency studies whereby subjects - both lean and obese - have consumed equal number of calories, following the same macronutrient profiles, and yet there is significant variance b/w groups on dependent variables of body composition and blood lipids?

And, yes, resting energy expenditure did increase significantly in the most responsive groups (btw, 6 evenly spaced meals as opposed to 3 or 9 meals/day), however, the researchers concluded that the change in body composition couldn’t entirely be explained by the change in energy expenditure alone (Farshchi HR et al. Int J Obes 2004;28:653-660 & Farshchi HR et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:16-24).
[/quote]

Farschi’s 2004 study you referenced doesn’t support your claim that body composition differences can occur despite equal calories. In fact, there were no differences in bodyweight, bodyfat percent, or waist-hip ratio between the groups.