• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Calories in....Calories out

Baruney

BANNED
Messages
928
Location
Hythe
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
Hola

On the off chance of sounding a bit dim but bearing in mind there is no such thing as a stupid question (plus not sure if it should be on this thread or exercise one) so here goes.....

Lets say for example that I want to consume total 1700 cals per day which should entail weight loss - so I eat say 1800 cals and put that into myfitnesspal and then lets say I go for a long run which expends 2000 cals. In mfp it then says I am under budget and can have 1900 more cals and that if everyday were like today I'd weigh 13 stones in 5 weeks! (I take this with a large pinch of salt)

So what am I doing wrong as I'm bouncing between 15 and 15.5 for the last 2 months?

I know I haven't been totally accurate over this time (missed out a few binges) but have logged diligently from this week on.

Am I overestimating the value of exercise or am I just not logging food correctly?

Any pointers gratefully received.
 
I recall reading in the last month about exercise has less impact on weight loss than previously thought. It's what you eat that's more important. Exercise is excellent for toning up & fitness levels, but not necessarily for weight loss.
 
I think myfitnesspal overstates the amount of calories used up in exercise. I use mfp but don't calculate anything for exercise, just food. I have found the food carb count to be wrong on 1 or 2 occasions as well.

Are you just counting calories? I tend to count carbs and then just glance at the calories because I find not all calories are equal.
 
Weight is regulated by extremely complex hormone systems and has nothing to do with the apparent logic of calories in and out. And as said above, exercise has very little impact and rather tends to increase weight as muscles are heavy.

LCHF seems to work very well for weight loss, maybe not for all though but worth trying. All calories aren't created equal and carbs tends to help you put on weight while eating fat can help normalise weight.

Then there are thyroid hormones too. If low there it may impossible.
 
RobOwen said:
I recall reading in the last month about exercise has less impact on weight loss than previously thought. It's what you eat that's more important. Exercise is excellent for toning up & fitness levels, but not necessarily for weight loss.
Click to expand...
Yes I read that too - good for blood levels as well though.
 
Hola Zand

Usually I do not count calories but as mentioned perhaps I was eating too much after running and not adding the, say, peanuts or pork scrathings or wine! so vastly underestimating cals in. When running I wear a heart rate monitor so know that an 8 mile run on Monday was 2000 cals and a 15 mile run yesterday was 4000 Cals expended.

As I've spiked my bloods dramatically with a carb creep ending in a carb fest I am 2 days into a fat fast. So on this occasion I am counting calories at circa 1000 to 1200 for 5 days. as I have some mega miles planned for the weekend my concern would be that, lets say I have 1200 cals on saturday but run 16 miles at 4400 cals. The calculated deficit may be too large. On fast fasts I have seen the various methods and implementations but I haven't been able to find anything on adjusting to accommodate for exercise aprt from it not being highly recommended during a ff.
 
The calories should only be looked on as a kind of approximate "budget figure" only. The nitty gritty is the propertional distribution of the macro nutrients.
ie around 5% carbohydrates 15 % protein and 80% fat. That would be 25 grams carbs, 75 grams of proteins and 178 grams fat for a total of 2000 calories. you just choose the propertions to make the compromise between weight loss and satiety during weight loss. In the beginning you will feel hungry as you get used to your new portion sizes, this will soon pass.
For me it worked, lost around 45 Kg. This can be difficult in the beginning, but with determination I am sure that you will reach your target.

Exercise is great for general good health, I found that for me at least, it doesnt have much to do with weight loss.
 
Hmmm do you know why exercise isn't recommended on a fat fast? I would have thought that if someone is trying to lose weight and is stuck then this might just do the trick? But hey, I'm guessing, my own exercise is limited to walking a few miles and I haven't yet tried a fat fast, but might in the future.
 
Cheers Pasha

Preferred your first answer though.

Testicle Nutrition
The nutrition data on testicles was a bit hard to track down (not surprisingly), but here’s what I found.

  • Serving Size: 100g (3.5oz)
  • Calories: 135
  • Protein: 26g
  • Fat: 3g
  • Cholesterol: 375mg
  • Carbohydrates: 1g
I found some more data concerning a ram testicle, which had similar macronutrients to the beef and pig, but additionally listed the mineral components.

  • Sodium: 171mg
  • Potassium: 380mg
  • Iron: 6%
  • Phospherous: 26%
  • Magnesium: 3%
  • Zinc: 13%
Testicles are promoted as an aphrodisiac because they are supposed to also contain testosterone. However, from what I read, you would have to eat them raw to get the benefit. Information on testosterone injections says that the syrum has to be kept away from heat as this will break down the hormone.
 
Due to energy level and more aimed at someone going straight in to LCHF rather than someone on it in the first instance. I'm FF not for weight loss but to bring down my blood level which spiked and concurrently brought my blood ketones below 0.5.

You do lose weight on a ff and you can expect to put 40% so best to look at the bigger picture in regards to weight loss. Primary aim of ff in this instance is bloods and ketones - weight is important but not the main reason for the ff.

Like @Pasha I believe that there is a positive correlation between good Bloods and good ketones on, for sake of argument. LCHF. Blood levels are coming down and got blood ketones up to 0.9. Would like it higher but will get there. So....my question is will my body be running on it's internal fat by this coming weekend or if I add a cpl thousand cals of fat during a long run will that still fir in with a ff of 1/2000 cal ff.
 

It was my understanding that its most important to keep carbohydrates as low as possible ex 12 grams/day and protein to around 0.8 gram/kg body weight and not to starve ones self. ie something that can be maintained from day to day
 
I read somewhere, possibly in Body by Science, that a mile run only burns 100 calories extra, so you may be overestimating your calorie deficit. [Not saying that BBS is absolutely true, just that there is a variety of starting points and even more variables in calculating the calorie expenditure]. Also, endurance running can catabolise muscles, leaving you with a lower metabolic rate overall (opposite of weight training). Exercise is important for health, but not directly responsible for weight loss.
 
Cheers. I do use a heart rate monitor when running and as it is calibrated to my age fitness etc should be fairly accurate. Might be a bit higher by a couple 100 cals but can live with that when burning 3000 cals plus on a long run. Likewise probably underestimate cals in (though don't usually cal count just carbs). Suppose the best thing to do is carry on experimenting and not go nuts on the nuts and pork scatchings after a run!
 
Late, as usual, to some threads. I would suggest your title is the basis of the equation and the evidence would suggest under estimates for inputs over estimates for outputs and a balance is being set. I always thought exercise moved things around the body but did little for weight.... them post run snaffles might be the ones to cut back on..
I'm at the other end, can't lose any more and wanting to replace some of the middle bits that have gone with stuff on shoulders and arms.... sand could be kicked into my face and I would not be able to respond... and now I get bruises on my back where my spine comes into contact with enamel bath.... so thinking about some dumb bells.... but I digress.....
 
Perhaps the title is a bit confusing regarding traditional thoughts on calories aka there being an equilibrium between in and out. Yet as t2's know not all calories are the same, arguably on both sides of the fence but predominately on the in side.

I'm coming to the conclusion that a bit of resistance training is in order. Something I have always been resistant to - don't know why!
 
My experience is that we over estimate the calories in and out. Then there is the fun part which is the impact of hormones, macro-nutrients and "other things". What do I mean?

Keeping insulin levels lower helps to reduce fat uptake, for example, as insulin is key to getting fat into cells (and stopping it from being used as a fuel). Eating the right macro-nutrients helps to manage this.

Macro-nutrient split also affects calories in, e.g. if you eat a higher protein diet and excess protein is converted to glucose, the calorific value of protein is more like 3.2 cals per gram than 4 cals per gram due to the energy required to undertake gluconeogenesis.

Intake of things like caffeine can also affect how your body metabolises the available fuel sources.

For me, for example, when properly keeping the carbs low and consuming 800 cals per day from protein, 200 from carbs and 1,000 from fat, I lose weight. Push that split to 500 protein, 600 carbs and 900 fat and I don't lose weight. There are a number of comments in various places about not all calories being created equal, and my experimentation seems to see the same conclusion.
 
late to the party...
to each his own..whatever works, i say...but..for me, that calorie equation means absolutely nothing.
lost 83lbs as of this morning, in the last 11 months, without a lick of exercise & i am ridiculously sedentary.
that does not mean exercise is not good. in fact, i hope to start some resistance training in about a month's time.
 
Hola @tim2000s

Can you point me in the right direction regarding caffeines affect. Most places just say it can affect someone but don't give an explanation why.

Much appreciated.
 
If you search for it via Google there are a number of scholarly articles looking at this. The basics seem to be that caffeine acting as a stimulant increases the metabolic rate and as a result, higher energy expenditure occurs. I need to read some more though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…