Calories In / Calories Out Paradigm

It really is as simple as calories in < calories out and you lose weight.

The problem people have is that they often don't accurately count their calories in (underestimate portion sizes, don't account for some snacks, etc.) or they overestimate calories out.  The latter is virtually impossible to measure accurately and it can change as you alter your eating and exercise habits.  If you cut calories very severely, for instance, your body will slow its metabolism in order to protect itself.  Therefore, you will have to slash calories even further to continue losing weight (or to continue at the same rate at least).

So it's simple, but often gets more complicated. 

Well, yes, at that level of description, I'd say it really is that simple.

The complexity comes in when you try to deal with the 'calories out' part.  That's where issues about not slowing down your metabolism come into play.  But if you burn more than you consume -- however you achieve this -- you will lose weight.

It really is that simple, for the majority of the population.  but like anything moderation is the key. You wouldn't just stop eating for a couple of days and think that was healthy, even though there would be a calories deficit. nor would you eat 0% fat, there needs to be a balance. It's tough since it's so easy to eat more than you can burn.

I'll be getting my metabolic rate tested again most likely in a couple of months since I've been losing 1-2 lbs a week for a bit now.   WHen I started my rate was 2610 calories a day, that is what my bodies needs just to function in a healthy normal state,  Depending on what type of exercise I'm doing that day, my goal is 2100- 2400 calories a day. 50% from carbs 25% from protein, 25% from fat.   I also monitor how I feel if I feel too tired I know I need a little extra, but by "a little extra " I mean maybe 100 calories. which is a glass of OJ.  Also you don't want to attempt to replace the exact amount of calories you burned during exercise. If a 6 mile run for me burns apx 900-1000 calories I might increase that days calories by 200. But only if I feel that it's needed.

  I can get a fairly accurate measure of how many calories I burn while biking since I have a power meter. While running I have a HR monitor with my LT zones and I'm not sure just how accurate it is. It will always give me a number lower than any treadmill at the gym, or any generic website on the net but I'll still subtract about a 100 calories from it. But what works for me is to be a few hundred calories under my metabolic rate so it, while burning a few hundred more, so my weekly calorie deficit is 7,000 calories or two pounds.

There are lots of therorys out there but most of them build on the concept of burning more than you take in. That article also reads that you need to take in less calories, or burn more. It's just saying that it believes you need to exercise at a lower rate to burn a higher percentage of fat.
From what you've mentioned in the other thread you have been doing a GREAT JOB !!!! of losing weight.  Have you hit a stalemate for a bit.  As you body gets used to the activity it gets more efficient so you might not be burning as much as you used to.  

But again ... great job on the sucess you have had already,, you will keep losing, just keep moving.  

My body is so efficient at using and storing fat that I once passed a Dominos Pizza delivery car and gained 2 lbs!  On the large scale, yes, it is a mass-balance thing.  However, certaily the chemistry of our bodies is complex and people's bodies do some weird things so not much suprises me.  Everytime I think I've got it all figured out I go back and read about the Arctic swimmers who swim in 32 degree water that would kill 99+ of people who tried that w/i a few minutes!

~Mike

Which is a myth. Yes, at lower intensities you burn a higher percentage of fat. But at higher intensities, you burn more calories. So the amount of fat burned ends up being the same. Plus you've burned more calories so you'll lose more weight. Working at higher intensities also helps build your endurance.

Speaking of myths, most of what people believe about "starvation mode" is also a myth. For one thing, it hasn't been clearly established that it even exists. There is one famous study that showed that if you eat 50% of your resting metabolic rate for a long period of time, the study participants did experience a lower metabolism, some as much as 40%. But the participants continued to lose weight even with lowered metabolisms. So the study doesn't support the commonly expressed idea that "if you don't eat enough calories, you won't lose weight."

As long as you operate at a calorie deficit, you'll lose weight. It's physics.

Unequivocably yes and no! 

Calories in < calories out will result in weight loss as the body tries to make up the deficit. 

Now not all calories in are the same, so eating a 250 calorie candy bar is not the same for your body as eating an apple and some tuna.  If you want to lose fat, make sure that your consuming nutritious calories to properly fuel your body at some small deficit. 

They make raw veggies?

If you take in fewer calories than you burn, even if all those calories are from ice cream and cake, you will lose weight.  It may not be the healthiest way to achieve weight loss and certainly may not help you over the longer term, but if you consume fewer calories than you burn you lose weight.  Period. 

As noted by others, your metabolism counts for how many calories you burn along with any exercise you do on top of that base rate.  And, yes, that base rate can change so you may have to alter your intake to keep it lower than your burn rate at times.

What you eat, when you eat, how you exercise, etc. may impact the calories out part more than people appreciate and help account for why it can be very challenging for people to lose weight.  But in the end it really is as simple as calories in < calories out. 

Lots of folks are saying what they know to be true for them.

For me I've been believe that Ken's article is dead on. If you want to learn more a whole chapter in Ken's book Evolution Running is about how to lose weight doing it the smart way and it is very informative.

I've been working on losing weight since 4/03. I started at 253 and at IMLP this past July I weighed 157. I have spent a lot of time studying weight loss, working on it, and training. It didn't come easily to me.

For those who have been slim all their lives may see this as simple calories in vs. calories out. But I think those who have experienced and live through losing weight have some insight that those who haven't ever struggled with weight don't have.

I don't think it is as easy as calories in and calories out. Yes calories are a big factor but what you eat, when you eat it, how you workout all play into the equation as well. Metabolisms are different between people, our genetics and how we have eaten over the years play into how our body handles food.

Example from Ken's book is that being cold makes you tend to eat more. Guess what studies show folks who swim for excercise tend to eat 300 calories more than folks that do different types of exercise. Our bodies when cold have a desire to add fat. Swim in 80 degree water while working out you are comfortable but when after you swim, you are hungry. Easy thing to do is get hot after your swim..take a hot tub or go in the sauna and it helps curb the typical post swim huger caused by being cold.

I gave up eating white stuff and processed food years ago. All that food high on the glycemic index spikes your blood  sugar and insulin making me hungry quite soon afterwards. Food in its natural form doesn't do that. Eat lean meat, veggies and fruit and for me my body and my huger work better.

Ken's article and book can help those wanting to lose weight do it in a smart way. Why fight our bodies to lose weight when we can work with our body and retrain it to not store fat?

Everyone finds their own way and through the years I have learned that Ken's methods work well for me.

I don't think if I ate 1500 calories of ice cream or 1500 calories of healthy food for a month I would lose the same amount of weight as my body handles the calories differently. But I'm not going to test that theory if someone else wants to go ahead.

What you eat, when you eat it all effects how your body handles food and if it is stored as fat or not.

My one and only post since my post is what prompted this thread.

It IS about calories in vs. calories out.  For everybody.  This is simply physiology and is backed up by the available research.  If you think you're in a negative caloric balance, and you're not losing weight, then you're not.  

Is that all there is to it?  Of course not.  We're trying to lose fat preferentially, and there are a few things that you can do to assure that that's the case, but you're going to lose muscle when you lose weight.  You cannot avoid it.  Keep your protein at adequate levels (and I'm not getting into what that means as that's an entirely different subject) and do some resistance training to best keep your muscle.  Other than that, it doesn't really matter where your calories come from.  Your body doesn't know the difference in terms of energy from a Snickers bar or an orange.  If you eat 1500 calories a day in Snickers and burn 2000, you will be losing weight.  Is that optimal for health?  Obviously not, but it's an example used to make a point.

I realize this shatters tons of myths and an entire diet industry that makes its money by making things sound as complicated as possible for you.  Most of the major diets out there are simply calorie restriction in disguise.  That's why Weight Watchers tends to work well for people who stick to it.

I don't discount the fact that people here are fueling themselves for endurance sports, so we can't be at big deficits for any length of time and have good workouts.  I also don't think that you should attempt to lose significant amounts of weight and try to get a whole lot faster at the same time for the very same reason.  Can it be done?  Sure, to an extent, but you hit the point of diminishing returns fairly quickly.  I prefer people take a dedicated period of time for each, but that's just my opinion.

Basal metabolic rate does change over time as well, but you just have to adjust your intake to those levels.  "Starvation mode" also is way overstated.  The associated hormonal changes return to your baseline rather quickly when intake is increased.  Take a diet break periodically both for physical as well as psychological reasons.

Lots of people have tried to justify every manner of diet via independent studies, and they've simply not panned out vs. simple caloric restriction (with similar levels of protein intake).  Not sure why this is so controversial.

BTW, I've never met a person who couldn't lose weight/fat when monitored and directly appropriately.  That includes myself as I'm 55lbs under my heaviest weight from a few years ago.  I don't say that to make anybody mad.  It's just my honest observation.

Not picking on JohnnyKay, just chose to quote this post because it contains 2 points that I find interesting or relevant to this thread and the article.

On the one hand it does seem as simple and take in less than you expend ... BUT ... what happens (I believe - and what this article seems to state) ... is that depending on the type of calories, or time of days ... or if you take in too many carbs and not enough protein of vice-versa ... then it can alter how your body will try to burn or store those calories in and can affect your metabolism as well ...

... so it's not as simple as looking at a food label and say, okay I'm going to eat 400 calories of this food item ... and if I go out and run for 60 minutes the calories-burned chart says that will burn 600 calories ... so I'll be -200 calories ....   

... cause it very well may be that they type of calories or time of day or how your body might respond to protein vs. carbs ... it may not process that 400 calories like normal ... instead of digesting and going into the bloodstream (and eventually to muscle cells) your body may instead try to efficiently store it as fat ... and/or it may trigger something in your metabolism to make it slow up a bit ... and so what might could be happening is that the 400 calories in end up being more like 450 and your 60 minute run might end up only burning 450 or 500 calories ...

.... so hence, it is still simple as calories in minus calories burned ... but a more accurate statement might be more along the lines of "effective calories in minus effective calories burned.

Meaning, I might think I ate 400 and expended 600 ... but maybe the way my body processed both the calories in and then how much got burned during exercise, is maybe more like 450 in and 500 out ...

... but how would one know that? .... that is the boat I'm in and I guess I've learned I can go get my BMR tested by breathing into a tube for 5 minutes ... but it would be harder to figure out how much I actually burn for various activities ...

... I'm just saying math-wise and in theory - yeah it's as simple as calories in minus calories out ... but the body does not always follow the normal standard ... there are factors that affect both the in and the out ....

I know for myself ... in Jan08 I weighed 313 lbs. .... and started walking everyday ... and lifting weights nearly every day ... was taking in large quanties of protein, from meat and shakes ... was on a Testosterone patch ... and was dropping weight like clockwork ...I got real motivated and started charting my food intake and my exercise.  By the end of Apr08 I had lost 45 lbs.

Then I started eating better, more fruits and veggies .. and the weight still came off, by the end of Jul08 I had lost a total of 65 lbs....

Then I came off the patch, stopped the protein shakes, cut my weight-lifting to a Third or a Fourth of what I was lifting ... almost stopped eating meat and protein altogether ... my kidneys were being overloaded and having high creatinine and albumin levels ... to the point that my doctor said if it got much worse I might have to go on dialysis ..

... so I cut out protein almost altogether ... then did this 7 day food journal for a Nutritionist I was seeing ... she said I wasn't getting enough carbs ... that is why I was so fatigued after my workouts ... and I started on more complex carbs just before workouts and after ... still lots of fruits and veggies ... and they montiored my kidneys for several months and they came within normal ranges ... so I slowly added back SOME protein ... but not a lot ..

... but I ate about the same 10-15 items everyday/every week ... and when my weight loss stopped I cut back on how much I ate ... was the same thing before that I was losing 2 lbs or mre per week .... but just a little less now .... what I cut out in protein I was instead eating carbs ... now had good energy for my workouts .... but no weight loss ....

I think I may have caused my system to think it was starving ... and lowered my BMR ... and because I changed the type of workouts and the intensity level ... and the foods I was now eating (although the calorie values were the same or less) ... and the exercise should have been burning more  ... my weight loss stopped ....

That is my experience ... that is why I'm confused and searching these articles and asking what others experience .... it confuses me ... what seems simple ... for some reason is not so simple for me.

I've been trying to get back to more weight-lifting ... and slower, lower intensity workouts ... and I'm going to cut out a lot of the carbs and go back to more protein ... to see that will put me back into losing weight again.

2 things:

1st: I found when I was actually weighing my food it measured differently by the cup (a 1/2 cup serving of oatmeal was different from a 56g serving of oatmeal) this could easily mislead someone watching what they eat for whatever reason.

 2nd: Calories in vrs calories out...let's say I'm in the negative for a whole month, does that mean I can eat that much more extra calories without gaining a pound? Or does your body somehow reset itself? Or, do we even know?

I'm not a nutritionist, but here are some things that I found out last year when I went on a successful weight loss journey.  There is research to back this up, I guess I'm just too lazy to find links.  But I relied on info from the Mayo Clinic, the Zone Diet and common sense among other things.

 Weight loss is due to burning more calories than you consume.  There are also more efficient ways to consume calories to help the process.

 By choosing the right calories (protein, fiber, low GI foods) you will feel more full and less inclined to overeat.  Also, your body processes different types of foods differently.  For example, high GI foods tend to be stored for emergency situations, like starvation. 

 If you consume the majority of your calories in a short period, say one meal for example, your body can only process so much and the rest gets stored as fat.

  So the moral to the story is to eat often, reduce the consumption of high GI foods, and increase the consumption of protein and fiber all while burning more calories than you consume.  This won't sell any diet books, but it is what works.  A person just needs to CHOOSE to do the right thing.