calorie deficit question

[anubus84]

i am kind of confused on the whole calorie deficit thing. i know that if you burn more calories than you consume, you lose weight. but as with yesterdays workout, daily burn said that i only burned around 350 calories. at this rate, i don't see me ever losing fat. does the calculation for calorie deficit also include calories that you burn throughout the day and is there any easy way to track this so that i have a better idea at how many calories i'm actually burning?

[67alecto]

That was probably the calories you burned solely from the workout (and most likely the net of what you would have burned in that same time).

Diet will be key - it's a lot easier to create a 500 calorie deficit from food choices than it is to burn 500 calories from exercise. Consider this - 300 calories could equal a cheeseburger from McDonalds eaten in 5 minutes, or it could equal 1 hour on the treadmill at a moderate pace.

[anubus84]

So I do need to factor in calories burned throughout the day to figure out if I'm in a deficit then? If I'm understanding correctly.

[CraftingFish]

Yes, you need to look at your BMR as well; Basal Metabolic Rate. If you do a quick Google, you can find a bunch of different calculators that will give you a ballpark estimate based on your gender, weight, and activity level (which for most people trying to lose weight, tends to be "sedentary").

[Hermione Gainser]

Just be sure to take into consideration how much you're cutting. You can't just cut 1000 calories a day and expect to do yourself any favors (this actually depends on how much weight you have to lose). The ACSM recommends men and women eat a minimum of 1800 and 1200 calories, respectively. That number is NET and includes what you've burned.

I went far too long not seeing results because I was eating too little.

[TibbyUK]

Where you calories are coming from are a lot more important than how many. This is one area that the Paleo diet provides massive benefits.

Also one of the big benefits of gym sessions for weight loss is that it raises your RMR - Resting Metabolic Rate, meaning that you burn off more calories during the day compared to a scenario where you had not gone to the gym.

[Timmy M]

ooooor just don't count calories... never have never will, just eat right (paleoish) and you're body'll do the rest and tell you when it's hungry, it'll take some getting used to but perseverance is the key to it

[67alecto]

ooooor just don't count calories... never have never will, just eat right (paleoish) and you're body'll do the rest and tell you when it's hungry, it'll take some getting used to but perseverance is the key to it

Any change in diet that results in you focusing on what you are eating will give you results, and they all do this because you are burning more calories than you consume.

Atkins works because you cut out 1000+ calories of bread, etc each day. Paleo works because cutting out the processed stuff will do the same. If you eat 4 more ounces of meat at your meal instead of 3 dinner rolls, you'll probably save 400+ calories, for example.

Counting calories is a great way to get started - it will help you learn portion sizes. Your goal is intuitive eating as Timmy is alluding to - eating what and how much your body needs rather than mindlessly snacking all day.

[halftruths]

What Alecto said. The portion control aspect of calorie counting can be very important, especially if you have difficulty identifying true hunger between meals and satiety when you are eating. If you are accustomed to eating quickly and feeling full based on belly distension, then controlling the amount you eat at each meal by going for a certain caloric target can be extremely useful; you learn other body satiety signals, and rapidly learn what is physical hunger vs. just being "snacky". If calorie counting helps you get there and helps you determine how much and what type of food you need, go for it. It actually works extremely well for me, regardless whether I'm trying to cut or trying to gain.

[anubus84]

thanks for all the information everyone. i think i am understanding a little better now. that is one reason why i like the idea of paleo, no counting. i'm going to do alot of research this week and see what i can figure out would be best for me! Thanks again!!!

[macnip78]

Counting calories is a great way to get started - it will help you learn portion sizes. Your goal is intuitive eating as Timmy is alluding to - eating what and how much your body needs rather than mindlessly snacking all day.

Not 100% sure about this. Counting calories is usually what drives people away from changing their eating habits. It is a tedious process (most people claim they don't have time to make changes as it is) and doesn't have the best benefit. To use your red meat to dinner roll example. You could 100 calories of both, but one will fill you up and is much more nutritional than the other. Counting calories only tells you that you 'ate 100 calories.' Eliminating processed carbs, grains, etc. and replacing them with healthy alternatives (meat, fish, eggs, veggies, etc.) will eliminate excess consumption and naturally adjust portion sizes for someone as it is VERY hard to overeat beneficial food. Just my 2 cents

[67alecto]

Not 100% sure about this. Counting calories is usually what drives people away from changing their eating habits. It is a tedious process (most people claim they don't have time to make changes as it is) and doesn't have the best benefit.

What drives people away are the excuses they make to themselves. I had glanced at calorie counting "diets" before, but I used the excuse that all of the sample meal plans I saw included variations of brown rice, cottage cheese, plain chicken breasts, and salads. When I was ready to set aside the excuses, I saw I could still eat steak, eggs, pizza, etc at 1600-2000 calories a day.

And now, 2 years later, I am better equipped to know how many calories are in things when I have no control over the menu...I know that grilled tilapia is ~100 calories for 4 ounces, I know that steak is around 60-75 calories per ounce (assuming not drowned in butter), etc.

To use your red meat to dinner roll example. You could 100 calories of both, but one will fill you up and is much more nutritional than the other. Counting calories only tells you that you 'ate 100 calories.' Eliminating processed carbs, grains, etc. and replacing them with healthy alternatives (meat, fish, eggs, veggies, etc.) will eliminate excess consumption and naturally adjust portion sizes for someone as it is VERY hard to overeat beneficial food. Just my 2 cents

That is why I said: "If you eat 4 more ounces of meat at your meal instead of 3 dinner rolls, you'll probably save 400+ calories, for example."

I thought I was being clear, but what I mean was that 4 ounces of meat will fill you up much more than 3 dinner rolls, and will be less calories. It's why Atkins makes people lose weight - it's harder to overeat protein and fat because they fill you up so much more (and for longer), that carbs. It creates a calorie deficit without quantifying it. It's the same reason why people eventually gain it all back - they go back to eating carbs, never having learned how to properly gauge the serving size.

If you need to lose weight and moderately active, you can see good successes by simply cutting out things like soda, starbucks, or going fullblown paleo or atkins, etc.

Counting calories is a good step to help people put a focus on what they are eating and how it all adds up.

[Dio]

I think "counting" calories is helpful for seeing what you're doing. We're all nerds here, right? And nerds like to see hard numbers that we can compare to results.

My first week of paleo I was only eating between 1200 and 1500 calories a day (and this is for a 6'2" 230 lb guy at the time!) yet I was eating whenever I was hungry. Just ditching the bread and rice shaved a ton of calories.

Now i don't bother writing anything down. I can ballpark how many calories I have and keep a mental record of how I feel.

One of the theories behind paleo/primal as well is controlling insulin spikes. One 100 calories diet snack (that happens to be pure wheat and corn syrup) may only add a tiny amount of calories, but it could totally mess up how your body handles the rest of the calories you get in your day (even from healthy sources) and kill your energy enough that you need more sugar before you can feel right again or prevent you from doing that evening workout that was going to help you build more muscle to burn more calories.

[Hermione Gainser]

Not 100% sure about this. Counting calories is usually what drives people away from changing their eating habits. It is a tedious process (most people claim they don't have time to make changes as it is) and doesn't have the best benefit. To use your red meat to dinner roll example. You could 100 calories of both, but one will fill you up and is much more nutritional than the other. Counting calories only tells you that you 'ate 100 calories.' Eliminating processed carbs, grains, etc. and replacing them with healthy alternatives (meat, fish, eggs, veggies, etc.) will eliminate excess consumption and naturally adjust portion sizes for someone as it is VERY hard to overeat beneficial food. Just my 2 cents

I don't think that's really true. I started off counting calories (I still keep track so that I eat enough now-woot) but my diet has continually changed in a drastic and healthy way ever since. Because I became aware of what I was eating and how it broke down I made choices to eat better foods. I'm not paleo but I've been eating largely paleo for a long time (before I knew what Paleo was) because I saw that I could eat a ton of veggies and some lean protein and be full for a long time and have the energy to sustain my workouts. To me, as long as people are continually educating themselves about what they do and eat they will learn and adjust and make changes. That's what we all do here-we talk, learn and adjust. People who are serious about getting healthy will learn these things because they will be on forums, read articles, see discussions and try things out.

[macnip78]

All good points with the calorie counting and I can definitely see the benefits. I get around countiing calories knowing that if I eat well most of the time (most being 80-90%) that I will be okay. Eating well for me means Paleo.....high fat, lots of vegs, etc.

Love the insight..also love that I can make a counter point and not get hammered

[js290]

i am kind of confused on the whole calorie deficit thing. i know that if you burn more calories than you consume, you lose weight. but as with yesterdays workout, daily burn said that i only burned around 350 calories. at this rate, i don't see me ever losing fat. does the calculation for calorie deficit also include calories that you burn throughout the day and is there any easy way to track this so that i have a better idea at how many calories i'm actually burning?

You're working the problem backwards. Counting calories is trying to outsmart mother nature herself. It can't be done. We all have to play by her rules. Weight gain and weight loss is an effect of your hormonal condition. If counting calories works, we can get kids to hit puberty early simply by overfeeding them. Counting calories is a bit superstitious since the results absolutely have to be true. If one gains weight, one absolutely had to have consumed more than one expended. If one loses weight, one absolutely had to have expended more than one gained. Those are effects that had to have happened because that's what the Conservation of Energy tells us. But, it's a post hoc fallacy to attribute causality to the Laws of Science, which are constraints, aka boundary conditions.

The problem you should be working on is putting your body in a

.

http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/fatty-acid-oxidation.html#mobilization

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzA-E8zb-Ds

[67alecto]

Counting calories is trying to outsmart mother nature herself. It can't be done.

Weight gain and weight loss is an effect of your hormonal condition.

If counting calories works, we can get kids to hit puberty early simply by overfeeding them.

Counting calories is a bit superstitious since the results absolutely have to be true. If one gains weight, one absolutely had to have consumed more than one expended. If one loses weight, one absolutely had to have expended more than one gained.

Those are effects that had to have happened because that's what the Conservation of Energy tells us. But, it's a post hoc fallacy to attribute causality to the Laws of Science, which are constraints, aka boundary conditions.

Wow. Just wow. Forget science, this is the internet!

[bigm141414]

Wow. Just wow. Forget science, this is the internet!

Yup.

If counting calories works, we can get kids to hit puberty early simply by overfeeding them

Do you have a link to some research about this idea? And I will grant that treadmills lie about how many calories you burn, but to say that you don't significantly increase your calories out by working out is odd, if not an outright lie. The video talks about a low carb type diet, which is a good thing. I believe many people on this board will attest that it is great plan. But even if you change your diet that is only half the problem. You can't stuff yourself with meat and veg the same way to did junk food and expect to lose weight.

But, it's a post hoc fallacy to attribute causality to the Laws of Science, which are constraints, aka boundary conditions.

This is what Science does all the time. You have A, change something, then observe B, repeatable and consistent. You can make the theory that whatever the change was it caused B. Post hoc applies when you have only one or two data points. If post hoc were true then Science would never have made any progress since you can always make that argument.

Edit: Since we are posting interesting stuff, read about the twinkie diet? Granted it is one data point, but it was a controlled experiment on calorie intake, just not the kind we are used to seeing. Health issues aside the guy lost weight after two changes 1) reducing calories by 800 daily from his previous diet and 2) eating a ton of sugary crap.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

[Guest Carjack]

Starvation diets like the twinkie diet are dumb. Even the most extreme low carber doesn't denythe eat more gain weight / eat less lose weight thing.

Sure you can lose weight counting calories, but what happens after if you don't deal with the causes, i.e., fat storage and appetite regulation? You get fat again.

I think that's what JS means.

Of course, calorie restriction works better for minor fat loss.

[js290]

Do you have a link to some research about this idea?

Do you need a research study about the effects of gravity when jumping off a cliff?

This is what Science does all the time. You have A, change something, then observe B, repeatable and consistent. You can make the theory that whatever the change was it caused B. Post hoc applies when you have only one or two data points. If post hoc were true then Science would never have made any progress since you can always make that argument.

Under what conditions are the Laws of Science invalid? Post hoc (cum hoc) ergo propter hoc means "after this (with this), because of this." I lost weight after (or while) counting calories, therefore counting calories caused me to lose weight. Post hoc (or cum hoc) fallacy. Seems superstitious.

...if you don't deal with the causes, i.e., fat storage and appetite regulation? You get fat again.

I think that's what JS means.

Good observation. Fat storage and appetite regulation are completely controlled by hormones (leptin and insulin), which will not violate any Laws of Science.

http-~~-//vimeo.com/29402977

[bigm141414]

Starvation diets like the twinkie diet are dumb. Even the most extreme low carber doesn't denythe eat more gain weight / eat less lose weight thing.

Granted. And I am not a big fan of diets like this. My intention was to show that counting calories is not a waste of time. My reading of the JS post was that he was arguing against counting calories because it was superstitious and no way to prove the causality.

Also, the video posted was talking about how exercise does not play an important role in losing fat, from around the 1:30 mark "The biggest fatal flaw in the way people think about fat loss is the notion that calories in minus calories out, that this calories out component can be significantly affected by exercise." Other than this quote I generally agreed with what the video was saying.

I still assert that even with a low carb/paleo style diet, if you eat the same amount (calorie wise) as before and do not increase your activity level you won't lose weight. Portion control is key whether you get to it by counting calories or some other method.

[Guest Carjack]

Portion control matters but not necessarily in a calorie micromanaging sort of way:

The cause of increased appetite and that "calorie surplus" is hormonal. You store more fat and burn more sugar, produce insulin to control the sugar, the insulin makes you store fat and eat more, and the pounds keep piling on. Then you go on a fad diet, lose weight, gain it back, then go on another fad diet, go on Biggest Loser and drop 200 pounds, gain 250 pounds, run it off, bust your knees and gain it back, etc.

So now lets say you get on a ketogenic diet and fix this.

Now your body isn't dumping insulin to control blood sugar levels, so appetite slowly drops. By eating until not hungry, you eat fewer calories than last week, fewer calories next week, etc. By doing this and dropping a pound or two a week, you reset the weight your body is used to.

Throw in lots of weight lifting and it's a fat loss final solution.

Calorie counters aren't accurate anyway.

[Shortkaik]

I don't think calorie counting is going to cause you to lose weight. I think that most people here agree on that.

However, it can be a useful tool for those who are trying to lose weight, or just generally eat healthy. Personally, I track what I eat most days because it helps keep me mindful of what I'm eating. Sure, hormones will cause you to eat more than you should if your hormones are messed up, but equally powerful is the "Free pizza and pop at today's meeting!" effect. Tracking helps me mitigate that urge to indulge.

I also have a really difficult time reading my body's signals, I'm a bad judge of when I'm hungry or full. And until I can learn to read those signals better, using a calorie counter as a rough approximation of what I'm eating helps me not go way too low or way too high on any particular nutrient.

Counting calories isn't a "diet", it's a tool you can use to support yourself as you try to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Just like these here Nerd Fitness forums are a support tool.

[Guest Carjack]

As long as you're still eating clean, fair enough.