Calories In/Calories Out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as nutrition/health, yes the calories are different.

As far as weight goes though, it's the same -- at least overwhelmingly so.

Agree.

No one is going to become obese eating 1000 calories per day. Regardless of it it is 1000 calories worth of steak, avocados, or oreos.

Anyone remember this guy http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html A professor lost 27 pounds in 2 months on a convenience store diet and improved his cholesterol numbers. Probably not healthy in the long run, but it worked from a weight loss perspective

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the head’s up that you, anonymous user, will not be clicking on any more posts.

Your welcome! For an educated crowd, your dietary knowledge is embarrassingly antiquated.

I think people have a real emotional investment in the thing they learned 20-30 years ago, and if it’s a thing that has worked for them, they’ll make the assumption that it works for everyone.

I like how they jump immediately to a 1000 calorie diet for what someone allegedly couldn’t be obese on. Not many adults follow a 1000 calorie diet, so it’s not really a realistic example.

Fine. Double that calorie count and you still won't become obese from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the head’s up that you, anonymous user, will not be clicking on any more posts.

Your welcome! For an educated crowd, your dietary knowledge is embarrassingly antiquated.

I think people have a real emotional investment in the thing they learned 20-30 years ago, and if it’s a thing that has worked for them, they’ll make the assumption that it works for everyone.

I like how they jump immediately to a 1000 calorie diet for what someone allegedly couldn’t be obese on. Not many adults follow a 1000 calorie diet, so it’s not really a realistic example.

No, it’s not realistic in our current world, but I think we could all agree that if an adult was forced to only eat 1000 calories a day, they would lose weight (and eventually starve to death) because it’s less calories than they are using. There’d be variations, but the ultimate end result would be the same.

It’s bleak, but it’s also CICO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the head’s up that you, anonymous user, will not be clicking on any more posts.

Your welcome! For an educated crowd, your dietary knowledge is embarrassingly antiquated.

I think people have a real emotional investment in the thing they learned 20-30 years ago, and if it’s a thing that has worked for them, they’ll make the assumption that it works for everyone.

I like how they jump immediately to a 1000 calorie diet for what someone allegedly couldn’t be obese on. Not many adults follow a 1000 calorie diet, so it’s not really a realistic example.

No, it’s not realistic in our current world, but I think we could all agree that if an adult was forced to only eat 1000 calories a day, they would lose weight (and eventually starve to death) because it’s less calories than they are using. There’d be variations, but the ultimate end result would be the same.

It’s bleak, but it’s also CICO.

It's not just bleak, it defeats the purpose. Why a person wants to lose weight to begin with? There are many answers, but I bet starving to death or wracking health to the point of no return is rarely on the list
So yeah, CICO works if the number on the scale for the short period of time is the only thing that matters

[Anonymous]

No one is going to starve to death on a 1000 calories a day!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the head’s up that you, anonymous user, will not be clicking on any more posts.

Your welcome! For an educated crowd, your dietary knowledge is embarrassingly antiquated.

I think people have a real emotional investment in the thing they learned 20-30 years ago, and if it’s a thing that has worked for them, they’ll make the assumption that it works for everyone.

I like how they jump immediately to a 1000 calorie diet for what someone allegedly couldn’t be obese on. Not many adults follow a 1000 calorie diet, so it’s not really a realistic example.

No, it’s not realistic in our current world, but I think we could all agree that if an adult was forced to only eat 1000 calories a day, they would lose weight (and eventually starve to death) because it’s less calories than they are using. There’d be variations, but the ultimate end result would be the same.

It’s bleak, but it’s also CICO.

It's not just bleak, it defeats the purpose. Why a person wants to lose weight to begin with? There are many answers, but I bet starving to death or wracking health to the point of no return is rarely on the list
So yeah, CICO works if the number on the scale for the short period of time is the only thing that matters

CICO also works for weight maintenance. If CI = CO you get maintenance. If CI > CO you get gain. If CI < CO you get weight loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is going to starve to death on a 1000 calories a day!

nobody could stay healthy on 1000 cal diet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is going to starve to death on a 1000 calories a day!

nobody could stay healthy on 1000 cal diet

Well duh. Health and weightloss are different things. Eating only 1000 calories of anything will result in weightloss, but that doesn't make one healthy.

[Anonymous]

People didn't starve on it before, on these 1000 calories and sorry we are not that different from our ancestors. The reason our ancestors needed fat when they could get it is that they were famished for much of their lives.
As for the morons on the other keto thread claiming that Innuits eat so much fat, sure, their life span is 43 years, more in Canada. Very few Innuit live as they did in the times long gone. I do no doubt that they did not have long lifespans even when living their nomadic lives. Hence calories in and calories out is not the same when it comes to health. Cue in, fat is good for you. Sure, if you are hunting buffalo to seals, but none of you is nor is anyone here freezing their arses off and needs brown fat to protect you.

[Anonymous]

In other words, you are hoping to find a way to eat more calories and not gain weight? Isn't that what got you in trouble in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In other words, you are hoping to find a way to eat more calories and not gain weight? Isn't that what got you in trouble in the first place?

If someone (OP for example) is at a stable weight (not gaining, not losing) then adding/increasing exercise will result in weightloss, even if they make no dietary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the hardest part is figuring out what the “calories out” part is. It’s completely realistic that you can have two people, same height and build, same activity level, and one of them uses 2000 calories a day to be at stasis, and one uses 1700. Hormones can definitely play a part in how your body uses and processes energy.

I’ve had sustained success with CICO, and I have PCOS and hypothyroidism. At this point, it’s a lifestyle, I’m in maintenance. I do have to be careful though, I know I can get a little fixated on the numbers, I’m hoping to get to a place where I can maintain without so much math.

There are a lot of people who overestimate how active they are, and undercount how much they're eating/drinking.

+1. Just look at the endless posts of someone claiming they are on a 1200 calorie per day diet and not losing weight. They are most likely underestimating their calorie consumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In other words, you are hoping to find a way to eat more calories and not gain weight? Isn't that what got you in trouble in the first place?

Hoping, no. OP knows it isn’t possible. But the thought that it wasn’t them eating to much in the first place shifts blame from their choices to something else they have no control over. No one likes the thought that they contributed to their health problems.

[Anonymous]

Another study that concluded calories in calories out is old fashion and not the problem.


https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-claim-overeating-is-not-the-primary-cause-of-obesity-point-to-more-effective-weight-loss-strategies/

[Anonymous]

I’m genuinely curious if any of the posters here who think CICO is not effective have lost weight with some other type of weight loss/maintenance philosophy (such as carb/insulin like the study cited)? What worked for you and how do you maintain it? How long ago did you lose weight?