Calorie Counting

[uptherebels]

Anyone know about this, as I'm as thick as *!*!*.

Am trying to lose weight, and am actually already losing it, but am confused by all this calorie counting.

If I have a target of say 1700 per day. Is that meant to be a total per day, or the nett amount only?

Using an app, it seems pretty easy to burn 1700 a day through excersize and so on. So if I do that, and consume 1700, I have a nett amount of 0. Is that OK? Is that what I am meant to be doing, or am I meant to aim at a nett amount of 1700?

[crashmonitor]

Anyone know about this, as I'm as thick as *!*!*.

Am trying to lose weight, and am actually already losing it, but am confused by all this calorie counting.

If I have a target of say 1700 per day. Is that meant to be a total per day, or the nett amount only?

Using an app, it seems pretty easy to burn 1700 a day through excersize and so on. So if I do that, and consume 1700, I have a nett amount of 0. Is that OK? Is that what I am meant to be doing, or am I meant to aim at a nett amount of 1700?

I would imagine that the calorie targets assume that you are doing a normal amount of exercise. so subtacting any energy to arrive at 1700 would be cheating IMO.

Do think that some dieters make the mistake of hard exercise in the gym or a two mile jog and don't expend much energy otherwise. Better to just keep going all day, I average about nine miles walking a day and that is 900 calories as opposed to a two mile jog, being knackerd for the rest of the day, and only having a debit of 200 calories.

[The Knimbies who say No]

Anyone know about this, as I'm as thick as *!*!*.

Am trying to lose weight, and am actually already losing it, but am confused by all this calorie counting.

If I have a target of say 1700 per day. Is that meant to be a total per day, or the nett amount only?

Using an app, it seems pretty easy to burn 1700 a day through excersize and so on. So if I do that, and consume 1700, I have a nett amount of 0. Is that OK? Is that what I am meant to be doing, or am I meant to aim at a nett amount of 1700?

The convention is to quote the total intake, the idea being that if you burn more than you take in, the difference is made up from your fat reserves, hence why you lose weight.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Anyone know about this, as I'm as thick as *!*!*.

Am trying to lose weight, and am actually already losing it, but am confused by all this calorie counting.

If I have a target of say 1700 per day. Is that meant to be a total per day, or the nett amount only?

Using an app, it seems pretty easy to burn 1700 a day through excersize and so on. So if I do that, and consume 1700, I have a nett amount of 0. Is that OK? Is that what I am meant to be doing, or am I meant to aim at a nett amount of 1700?

Something I posted on a recent thread about obesity...

This paper does a good job of laying out what happens with calorie restriction, here are the best bits.....

• There are 3 primary mechanisms how organisms cope with reduced calorie intake, increased digestive efficiency, reduced basal metabolic rate, and third, reduced activity.

• There are 2 phases to calorie restriction, first, an adaption phase, where energy parameters are adjusting ( reducing ) to match the new energy availability of the diet. And second, a maintenance phase where the adjustments are now complete and energy balance is established. ( i.e. weight loss has finished, you are now weight stable at a reduced calorie intake, welcome to hypo-metabolism )

• Body temperature declines during calorie restriction, shown for both rodents and monkeys.

• During calorie restriction, not all weight lost is fat mass, a significant amount is also fat-free mass.

• Different things happen depending on the severity of the calorie restriction. For example in rats, 25% reduction allowed only temporary weight loss before compensatory mechanisms adapted and body mass increased again. Meanwhile 50% reduction wasn't able to be compensated for and body mass continued to decline.

• In Monkeys, After 30% calorie restriction for 5 years only fat-free mass showed reductions, fat mass was comparable to controls.

And lets not forget our 5% calorie restricted mice that straight out gain fat mass. In general it appears mild calorie restriction serves only to increase fat mass.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Living things are not quite as straightforward as people who try to apply the Law of Thermodynamics to weight loss make out.

Restrict your calorie consumption moderately and there's a possibility your metabolism will change in response. There's even a chance that some people might gain weight as their bodies switch into famine mode; slow down, cool down, and start to build up fat stores.

A change of diet and more exercise might be a healthier and more sustainable option.

[The Generation Game]

Anyone know about this, as I'm as thick as *!*!*.

Am trying to lose weight, and am actually already losing it, but am confused by all this calorie counting.

If I have a target of say 1700 per day. Is that meant to be a total per day, or the nett amount only?

Using an app, it seems pretty easy to burn 1700 a day through excersize and so on. So if I do that, and consume 1700, I have a nett amount of 0. Is that OK? Is that what I am meant to be doing, or am I meant to aim at a nett amount of 1700?

The average male requires 2500 calories a day to function normally (no weight gain, no weight loss). For a woman this figure is 2000.

You do NOT want to net it at 0 or you will be in trouble pretty quickly.

Ignoring the exercise portion for now, if you are a man taking on 2000 calories a day you will have a deficit of 500 for the day (3500 for the week). 3500 calories is supposedly how much is required to burn 1lb of fat so having a 500 calorie daily deficit will mean that a typical male will lose a pound a week. If you consume 2000 calories and burn 500 calories a day through exercise, that will give you a weekly deficit of 7000 calories (out of a typical 17500 that is the suggested amount), leading to 2lb loss of fat per week.

Obviously there will be a lot of muscle wastage if you don't exercise and just consume less than your body needs.

[57percent]

Anyone know about this, as I'm as thick as *!*!*.

Am trying to lose weight, and am actually already losing it, but am confused by all this calorie counting.

If I have a target of say 1700 per day. Is that meant to be a total per day, or the nett amount only?

Using an app, it seems pretty easy to burn 1700 a day through excersize and so on. So if I do that, and consume 1700, I have a nett amount of 0. Is that OK? Is that what I am meant to be doing, or am I meant to aim at a nett amount of 1700?

From my own personal weight loss experience, calorie intake is much more important than net.

I'm fairly active, so getting the net level down is quite easy (yesterday was around -5000KCal), but I only lose significant weight when I keep the intake well below 2000KCal, regardless of exercise.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

If you consume 2000 calories and burn 500 calories a day through exercise, that will give you a weekly deficit of 7000 calories (out of a typical 17500 that is the suggested amount), leading to 2lb loss of fat per week.

Would that be in theory, or practice?

[frozen_out]

Living things are not quite as straightforward as people who try to apply the Law of Thermodynamics to weight loss make out.

It pretty much is. Input-output=accumulation (class 1, term 1 lecture of every chemical engineering degree) is pretty much inviolable as far as I can work out.

Show me a fat guy who runs 20km a week. They've got to be very few and very far between.

[The Generation Game]

Would that be in theory, or practice?

Don't know; I don't calorie count. However I have shifted 15kg over the last 6 months by doing moderate exercise 6 times a week and trying to eat healthier.

Which side of the equation that has brought about that change is unknown (I have no control case of doing just the exercise or the healthier eating).

[Fully Detached]

Remember that not all calories are created equal. You could walk into MacDonalds, eat 2000 calories and gain virtually no nutritional value from it whatsoever. Or you could eat 1000 calories worth of nutritionally dense food and by comparison get a hell of a lot of benefit from it.

The best thing anyone can do IMO is to learn about protein, carbs and fats, and then understand the differences between each - particularly with carbs (see low / high glycemic index) and fats (some of which rock, some of which suck). With this knowledge you can start to look at what your body actually requires (we don't all need the same ratios of the protein, carbs and fat). It's surprisingly easy to do it by feel once you understand what you're doing.

There's a book called "How to Eat, Move and Be Healthy" by a guy called Paul Chek, which will teach you pretty much everything you need to know about the food groups and what you need.

As for losing weight, you could do worse than google a guy called Lyle MacDonald, and buy his e-book on weight loss - not because it will help you shed pound after pound, but because it will help you understand the mechanics of what happens to your body, hormones and metabolism when you embark on a calorie restricted diet. Understanding this will help you to learn how to go about it with the maximum long term benefit.

I go through regular cycles of bulking and cutting, and I've come to believe that your dietary intake is probably 80% of your body composition - exercise or training are merely the catalyst for change, and account for the other 20%. That's not to say exercise is not important though. And finally, as somebody else posted, permanently keeping the weight off requires lifestyle change, rather than periodic calorie restriction. That probably sounds like a life sentence of misery, but a change that is better for your body will make you feel much better both physically and mentally.

Hope that's of some use

[SarahBell]

1700.

don't fool yourself into thinking you can earn an extra biscuit or 12.

Jaffa cakes are 47 calories each. Or were last time I checked.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

It pretty much is. Input-output=accumulation (class 1, term 1 lecture of every chemical engineering degree) is pretty much inviolable as far as I can work out.

Show me a fat guy who runs 20km a week. They've got to be very few and very far between.

With respect, you're assuming the organism's metabolism is fixed, regardless of calorie intake and the form those calories take (sugars vs fats vs proteins).

This is not a straight in vs out situation.

I've linked to a study above which indicates that moderate calorie restriction causes fat build up in test animals. Severe calorie restriction leads to decrease in muscle mass.

If someone can point me to some research that demonstrates that short-changing yourself 100 calories a day results in 100 calories of fat being burned off a day I'd be genuinely delighted to hear about it.

[Fully Detached]

With respect, you're assuming the organism's metabolism is fixed, regardless of calorie intake and the form those calories take (sugars vs fats vs proteins).

This is not a straight in vs out situation.

I've linked to a study above which indicates that moderate calorie restriction causes fat build up in test animals. Severe calorie restriction leads to decrease in muscle mass.

If someone can point me to some research that demonstrates that short-changing yourself 100 calories a day results in 100 calories of fat being burned off a day I'd be genuinely delighted to hear about it.

Agreed.

Here's an interesting article which begins to discuss the impact of the hormone Leptin, which is one of the factors that means that, after a few days of calorie restriction, 100 cals less input will not equal 100 cals less fat (if it ever did).

Lots more interesting stuff in the "Articles" section of that site.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Don't know; I don't calorie count. However I have shifted 15kg over the last 6 months by doing moderate exercise 6 times a week and trying to eat healthier.

Which side of the equation that has brought about that change is unknown (I have no control case of doing just the exercise or the healthier eating).

I did something similar a while back. One thing I didn't bother doing was to try slowly starving myself as a passport to long-term healthy weight loss. Had been there before. It didn't work. Which is pretty much the same story for everyone I've even known who's tried calorie counting.

Strangely enough, people I know who changed what they ate rather than the quantities and did some quality exercise have had miles more success.

[frozen_out]

With respect, you're assuming the organism's metabolism is fixed, regardless of calorie intake and the form those calories take (sugars vs fats vs proteins).

This is not a straight in vs out situation.

I've linked to a study above which indicates that moderate calorie restriction causes fat build up in test animals. Severe calorie restriction leads to decrease in muscle mass.

If someone can point me to some research that demonstrates that short-changing yourself 100 calories a day results in 100 calories of fat being burned off a day I'd be genuinely delighted to hear about it.

I'm not assuming a fixed metabolism, I'm just stating a fact:

Input - output = accumulation

What you input is very controlled, you can control the energy that goes in.

What you output can only be partially controlled. This is a function of diet and variables such as metabolism etc.

Given the same calorie excess or deficit, the rate of accumulation between individuals will differ. But if there is an excess or deficit then weight loss or gain MUST occur at some rate. Otherwise you're circumventing thermodynamics.

In the studies you quoted the gain of mass was caused by a change in metabolism i.e. the 'calories out' changed. in order to continue to lose weight simply by calorie counting the calories should have been further restricted. If the calorie restriction had been accompanied by an increase in exercise to maintain the metabolism at the pre-diet level then weight-loss would have been guaranteed.

That's why if you want to lose weight diet and exercise have to go together. It's really not complicated. At all.

[Goat]

The average male requires 2500 calories a day to function normally (no weight gain, no weight loss). For a woman this figure is 2000.

Be careful with that figure, there's a lot of variation depending upon height and other factors.

[Fully Detached]

I'm not assuming a fixed metabolism, I'm just stating a fact:

Input - output = accumulation

What you input is very controlled, you can control the energy that goes in.

What you output can only be partially controlled. This is a function of diet and variables such as metabolism etc.

Given the same calorie excess or deficit, the rate of accumulation between individuals will differ. But if there is an excess or deficit then weight loss or gain MUST occur at some rate. Otherwise you're circumventing thermodynamics.

In the studies you quoted the gain of mass was caused by a change in metabolism i.e. the 'calories out' changed. in order to continue to lose weight simply by calorie counting the calories should have been further restricted. If the calorie restriction had been accompanied by an increase in exercise to maintain the metabolism at the pre-diet level then weight-loss would have been guaranteed.

That's why if you want to lose weight diet and exercise have to go together. It's really not complicated. At all.

He is making a distinction between fat and muscle, whereas you are talking more generally about weight. Yes, calorie restriction will result in an overall reduction in weight, but not necessarily in fat. The article I linked to discusses this, and how to encourage more of your overall weight reduction to come from fat burning rather than muscle wastage.

The body hasn't changed much at all from our caveman days. In a severe calorie deficit situation, it's first priority is to ensure a food supply, so it will burn muscle instead of fat, and immediately convert any subsequent surplus to fat in order to fend against similar episodes of starvation in the future. This is what causes people who yo-yo diet to get fatter and struggle harder with every cycle.

As far as I can see, three things determine whether you burn fat or muscle during a moderate restricted diet - genetics, leptin levels, and testosterone levels. The more testosterone you have, the greater the body's tendency to favour muscle over fat. Testosterone rapidly diminishes in men over 30, with a direct correlation to rapidly expanding waistlines.

[winkie]

Anyone know about this, as I'm as thick as *!*!*.

Am trying to lose weight, and am actually already losing it, but am confused by all this calorie counting.

If I have a target of say 1700 per day. Is that meant to be a total per day, or the nett amount only?

Using an app, it seems pretty easy to burn 1700 a day through excersize and so on. So if I do that, and consume 1700, I have a nett amount of 0. Is that OK? Is that what I am meant to be doing, or am I meant to aim at a nett amount of 1700?

Calorie counting is a very good way of losing weight 1700 means consuming 1700 calories a day.....what you will require is a book/list containing all food items and the amount of calories each item contains usually by weight say 25g..........when cooking or making a sandwich everything has to be weighed and totalled up making a running total as you eat it, from the teaspoon of sugar, to the tea bag, dash of milk and biscuit.....some pre prepared foods have the calorie contents on the packaging.

The good thing about calorie counting is you can eat what you want but if you want to eat more you have to choose foods with a lower calorie count against weight.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

I'm not assuming a fixed metabolism, I'm just stating a fact:

Input - output = accumulation

What you input is very controlled, you can control the energy that goes in.

What you output can only be partially controlled. This is a function of diet and variables such as metabolism etc.

Given the same calorie excess or deficit, the rate of accumulation between individuals will differ. But if there is an excess or deficit then weight loss or gain MUST occur at some rate. Otherwise you're circumventing thermodynamics.

In the studies you quoted the gain of mass was caused by a change in metabolism i.e. the 'calories out' changed. in order to continue to lose weight simply by calorie counting the calories should have been further restricted. If the calorie restriction had been accompanied by an increase in exercise to maintain the metabolism at the pre-diet level then weight-loss would have been guaranteed.

That's why if you want to lose weight diet and exercise have to go together. It's really not complicated. At all.

'Input - output = accumulation'

is useless in the context of the question of dieting, unless those variables are more explicitly defined and understood.

It's like asking someone why a room is full of people and being told 'because more people came into the room than left'. Correct but, at the same time, useless.

What's usually implied when putting down chunksters is that the equation boils down to

'Calories consumed - Your fixed calorie requirements for the day = Lard'

which is nonsense.

In practice, I haven't seen any research which supports that allegedly straightforward application of the Laws of Thermodynamics to living things, with all their complicated biochemistry and feed-backs. I'd be happy to be put straight if such research exists.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

The article I linked to discusses this, and how to encourage more of your overall weight reduction to come from fat burning rather than muscle wastage.

Yes, an interesting article with a couple of snippets about the concept of a 'P-ratio' of fat/ muscle gain or loss I hadn't encountered before, thx

[Spot]

So what's the considered opinion from the diet "experts" here at HPC on the best way to lose weight?

I'm 15kg overweight (mainly belly) and when I asked my doctor the best way to shed it he said "Eat less & do more excerise".

Thanks for that wisdom doc.

Previous calorie restriction diets have see me lose the weight but then once my eating returns to "normal" I get it all back plus a little bonus.

And all the time i'm dieting i'm so fekking hungry. I mean really hungry.

I work in IT and sit at a desk all day. Excerise for me is a 1 mile walk into work and then back and sometimes I don't even do that as I might have to take the kids to nursery.

I notice when i'm at work i'm always getting peckish. However... If i'm at home doing some DIY or gardening that involves a bit of manual labour i don't think about food. Very odd.

Before the kids were born I used to go down the gym 3 times a week and although i'm sure this was good for my general health I didn't notice any contribution to weight loss.

The most success i've had so far is to cut down on carb & increase protein.

I've recently read things about how wheat is bad for your belly, etc, etc. What's the story there?

I looked at a various items in my cupboards and almost EVERYTHING has wheat in it.

I wish someone could come with a guaranteed plan.

ie: Do these steps & you'll lose the weight, then do this and it'll keep it off.

I just hear so many conflicting ideas.

Suggestions please. And yes i've heard - want to lose 10kg of ugly fat? Then chop off your head!

[garybug]

This cheap, straightforward, no nonsense book is all you need:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bigger-Leaner-Stronger-Building-Ultimate/dp/1475143389/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369146955&sr=1-1&keywords=mike+matthews

Explains everything you need to know regards diet and exercise. I'd been piddling down the gym for years with no real gains, but kept the flab off. I followed this book's simple advice and could see a difference in a week. I also got a PT, and with no prompting, she said pretty much what this guy says.

[The Generation Game]

So what's the considered opinion from the diet "experts" here at HPC on the best way to lose weight?

I'm 15kg overweight (mainly belly) and when I asked my doctor the best way to shed it he said "Eat less & do more excerise".

Thanks for that wisdom doc.

Previous calorie restriction diets have see me lose the weight but then once my eating returns to "normal" I get it all back plus a little bonus.

And all the time i'm dieting i'm so fekking hungry. I mean really hungry.

I work in IT and sit at a desk all day. Excerise for me is a 1 mile walk into work and then back and sometimes I don't even do that as I might have to take the kids to nursery.

I notice when i'm at work i'm always getting peckish. However... If i'm at home doing some DIY or gardening that involves a bit of manual labour i don't think about food. Very odd.

Before the kids were born I used to go down the gym 3 times a week and although i'm sure this was good for my general health I didn't notice any contribution to weight loss.

The most success i've had so far is to cut down on carb & increase protein.

I've recently read things about how wheat is bad for your belly, etc, etc. What's the story there?

I looked at a various items in my cupboards and almost EVERYTHING has wheat in it.

I wish someone could come with a guaranteed plan.

ie: Do these steps & you'll lose the weight, then do this and it'll keep it off.

I just hear so many conflicting ideas.

Suggestions please. And yes i've heard - want to lose 10kg of ugly fat? Then chop off your head!

Drink plenty of water. A lot of the time when your body gives you pangs of hunger, it is actually thirsty.

[swissy_fit]

So what's the considered opinion from the diet "experts" here at HPC on the best way to lose weight?

I'm 15kg overweight (mainly belly) and when I asked my doctor the best way to shed it he said "Eat less & do more excerise".

Thanks for that wisdom doc.

Previous calorie restriction diets have see me lose the weight but then once my eating returns to "normal" I get it all back plus a little bonus.

And all the time i'm dieting i'm so fekking hungry. I mean really hungry.

I work in IT and sit at a desk all day. Excerise for me is a 1 mile walk into work and then back and sometimes I don't even do that as I might have to take the kids to nursery.

I notice when i'm at work i'm always getting peckish. However... If i'm at home doing some DIY or gardening that involves a bit of manual labour i don't think about food. Very odd.

Before the kids were born I used to go down the gym 3 times a week and although i'm sure this was good for my general health I didn't notice any contribution to weight loss.

The most success i've had so far is to cut down on carb & increase protein.

I've recently read things about how wheat is bad for your belly, etc, etc. What's the story there?

I looked at a various items in my cupboards and almost EVERYTHING has wheat in it.

I wish someone could come with a guaranteed plan.

ie: Do these steps & you'll lose the weight, then do this and it'll keep it off.

I just hear so many conflicting ideas.

Suggestions please. And yes i've heard - want to lose 10kg of ugly fat? Then chop off your head!

Dig out the fasting thread on this forum, and watch this.

http://vimeo.com/54089463

The list of benefits compared to ordinary dieting are enormous, but it depends a bit on your psychology, it suits me perfectly. If you like thinking about what you're eating/drinking 24/7, then there are plenty of diets that might suit you, no need to consider fasting in those circs.