Just thought I'd try to blow everyone's mind early this morning

morningstar

morningstar

Cathlete
Lately this recurring thought has been running through my head- what if all we've been told about calories is wrong? What if 3500 calories doesn't actually translate to 1 pound of weight in our actual bodies? What if a calorie deficit isn't actually the catalyst for weight loss? What if a calorie surplus doesn't actually cause weight gain? What if calories have nothing to do with it?

This is something I've heard all my damned life, and yet, I have no idea who determined this or how. I certainly don't know who did the original studies that everyone (EVERYONE) bases that premise upon. I don't know if they have been consistently replicated, or if there was a definite cause and effect found, not just a correlation, if double-blind testing was used, if they were large studies, etc.

There are so many complicated, inter-related systems in the human body, and so many things we are finding out every day. It strikes me as very odd that a long time ago it was somehow determined DEFINITIVELY that a calorie deficit would produce weight loss and a calorie surplus would produce weight gain. There's too many factors to consider.

Thoughts, anyone?
 
My 1st thought is ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Been doing it all wrong!! I do think a lot of it is body chemistry and genetics. I know plenty of very thin (not fit, just thin) people who eating nothing but fast food and swill beer like it is going out of style (men and women). But I also know plenty of very overweight people who do the same thing. Then there are people like me, who eat reasonably well, workout, and still have some extra fluff. I do think there is something else going on, but I don't know what. I'd personally rather be a bit fluffy around the edges and fit, than rail thin with Burger King, Bud, and Nicotine flowing thru my veins waiting for a coronary. At this point, who really knows? And who's to say that all the chemicals we put into our food, containers, and cleaners coupled with the toxic fumes we spew in the air hasn't thrown our bodies all out of whack, even just at the cellular level?

Nan
 
Except for the rare people that can eat anything they want, I beleive that it all does come down to calories in/calories out.

The problem that I see is that we've gotten a completely warped idea of what a real serving size is. Our parents and grandparents didn't go to gyms and din't have workout DVDs, they simply moved around more throughout the day due to necessity (even manual typewriters burn calories) and were generally slim.

Here's something I noticed in watching old movies from the 40's...even the martinis were smaller! Seriously, Bette Davis was drinking a martini last night in Dark Victory, and it was tiny, like 1/2 the size of the martini glasses in the restaurants now!!

I thnk we've just gotten a little piggish in our expectations of how much we need to eat in order to maintain our weight. I know I have anyway. It's an eye opener.....for me to maintain 130 pounds (which is 7# more than where I want to be) I can't eat more than 1800 calories a day. That's really not than much food. Dang it!
 
Govtgirl said:
Except for the rare people that can eat anything they want, I beleive that it all does come down to calories in/calories out.
Click to expand...

See, that's the thing. You BELIEVE. I want to know, where's the proof? WHY do we all believe this? Who said this was true, way back when? How did they know? What kind studies did they do? Were those studies replicated? What were the quality controls on the studies? Where were those studies published? Etc.

When it comes to fitness, we all believe different things at different times in history, and even right now, there are a bazillion competing theories about the best way to get fit. How did this one theory take such prevalence, and gain such widespread devotion? Why do we believe this one thing, when we all know that all the rest of our beliefs about fitness change every few days, months, years?
 
Last edited:
Kimenem said:
I've been working out with Cathe since 2007, I think, and used other fitness DVD's. gym classes, etc. before that. I think I can say that except for the 2 times when I hurt my back, I'ven been pretty consistent about it (at least 4-5 days per week). I still have the extra fluff because my eating has never been what it should be for more than about 3 weeks at a time. I also think my thyroid is on it's way out. My endo said once I get 2 readings between 2.5 - 3, I'll start meds. :( The thing is, with all that working out, I don't FEEL fit because of the fluff.
Click to expand...

Uuuummm, okay.
 
Morningstar - Seriously, if you get the chance, check out the movie Fat Head. It touches on the history of the "studies" that seem to be the basis for all of the nutrition info that's out there.

Its not too long, and does it in an un-dry, entertaining way. Netflix has it.

My take? Well, you know what I eat. ;) As for how much, I eat when I'm hungry, stop when I'm not hungry, then repeat as necessary. Regardless of any beliefs, I know this works for me. :)
 
morningstar said:
See, that's the thing. You BELIEVE. I want to know, where's the proof?
Click to expand...

The proof is for me, when I eat more I gain weight. When I eat less I lose weight.

And when I see overweight people in my office eating potato chips and soda for breakfast, I can only imagine what they eat the rest of the day, and at home. They say to me (A) "wow, you're always on the go!" or, (B) "is that all you're going to have for lunch?" and then (C) "how do you stay so slim?"

See: (A) and (B) :eek:
 
Originally Posted by Kimenem
I've been working out with Cathe since 2007, I think, and used other fitness DVD's. gym classes, etc. before that. I think I can say that except for the 2 times when I hurt my back, I'ven been pretty consistent about it (at least 4-5 days per week). I still have the extra fluff because my eating has never been what it should be for more than about 3 weeks at a time. I also think my thyroid is on it's way out. My endo said once I get 2 readings between 2.5 - 3, I'll start meds. :( The thing is, with all that working out, I don't FEEL fit because of the fluff..

morningstar said:
Uuuummm, okay.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this response to Kimenem's post.....was there a problem?

And Kim, I feel the same as you...I know I am pretty fit (especially for my age given what I see) but if I feel "fluffy" I don't feel that way.
 
Morningstar...I tried to PM you but no luck. :( I wanted to ask you a question about another topic...is there a way to get in touch? An e-mail maybe?

:) Jonezie
 
Gayle said:
Morningstar - Seriously, if you get the chance, check out the movie Fat Head. It touches on the history of the "studies" that seem to be the basis for all of the nutrition info that's out there.

Its not too long, and does it in an un-dry, entertaining way. Netflix has it.

My take? Well, you know what I eat. ;) As for how much, I eat when I'm hungry, stop when I'm not hungry, then repeat as necessary. Regardless of any beliefs, I know this works for me. :)
Click to expand...

Gayle...I Netflixed it. :)
 
I completely agree with you! I mean, 'logically' calories surplus vs. defecit seems right, but only because that is what is ALWAYS drilled into us. I eat about 1500 calories a day. I exercise INTENSELY 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week. And I have not lost a pound in about a year. Neither, have I put one on (except mid week fluctuations, but if I weight same time of the day, same time of the week, this is about correct) So... something not 'calorie defecit-ish' is going on here.
I also vomited everything I ate for about three months: and my weight didn't even flicker away from usual. And I mean EVERYTHING I ate. And I didn't stop exercise!

I think... we should try and come up with a new theory.. and see if people follow it as intently... how about: chocolate=weight loss. Or maybe not.. but something similar...
 
My husband has always argued the 3500 calories = a pound. He is very lean and struggles to keep weight on. He believes that the more he eats, the more he burns - like his metabolism works harder to burn off the extra calories so he doesn't gain weight.

As far as kimenem's post...I don't understand why you wouldn't just ignore it if you didn't feel like it related to your original post. :confused:

Erica
 
I have proven at least with myself that calories in does equal weight loss. Nothing seemed accurate until I got my GWF armband. I looked at Cathe's workout manager and thought I was using tons of calories. Unfortunately I was not. Most dvd's run about 200 calories for me. In a day without exercise I use about 1400 calories with exercise it is 1600-1800 calories. Logging calories eaten I also found that while I do eat 1200-1300 calories most days, on weekends that can go much higher and then the average calories for the week is higher.

But if you do find that chocolate = weight loss I'm in.
 
Zozo said:
I completely agree with you! I mean, 'logically' calories surplus vs. defecit seems right, but only because that is what is ALWAYS drilled into us. I eat about 1500 calories a day. I exercise INTENSELY 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week. And I have not lost a pound in about a year. Neither, have I put one on (except mid week fluctuations, but if I weight same time of the day, same time of the week, this is about correct) So... something not 'calorie defecit-ish' is going on here.
I also vomited everything I ate for about three months: and my weight didn't even flicker away from usual. And I mean EVERYTHING I ate. And I didn't stop exercise!

I think... we should try and come up with a new theory.. and see if people follow it as intently... how about: chocolate=weight loss. Or maybe not.. but something similar...
Click to expand...

Zozo...you threw up for 3 months straight? Yikes! I can't stand to throw up. There's always lots of crying involved. I can't imagine it for 3 hours, let alone 3 months.
 
All I was trying to say was that despite the working out, if I feel "fluffy," I don't feel fit. Even though I didn't comment on the calorie portion of the post, she did mention "fluff." BUT, I don't want her response to my comment to become the focal point here. Back to the original discussion.
 
I just found this and started reading it and it looks like it could be helpful here! I've had my mind-blowing metaphysical debate already with my DH last night and have nothing left for this more scientific one! I'm mentally spent! LOL! :confused:

I'm going to keep reading this article. If I have to recant it's usefulness later, I will with a complete apology for not reading the whole thing first! :eek:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/62/5/1034S.pdf
 
syzygy314 said:
I just found this and started reading it and it looks like it could be helpful here! I've had my mind-blowing metaphysical debate already with my DH last night and have nothing left for this more scientific one! I'm mentally spent! LOL! :confused:

I'm going to keep reading this article. If I have to recant it's usefulness later, I will with a complete apology for not reading the whole thing first! :eek:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/62/5/1034S.pdf
Click to expand...

Tricia...love that you used "metaphysical" (one of my favorite words), love the article, and LOVE that you've lost 28.4 pounds! I keep looking at your weight loss ticker...it gives me something to aspire to. Thanks for the post!

:)Jonezie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top