Calories in are not calories out.

Alle_Gory · Jan 13, 2011

To all you people who insist that calories in = calories out. You are wrong and just perpetuating the urban legend. Please stop. The human body is not a mechanical engine. The work coming out of it, is not the same as the energy going in.

This is due to the contents of the food and how your body responds. 1000 calories of pure sugar is not the same as 1000 calories from coarsely ground oats. You will shock your body with the sugar putting it into storage mode. Chances are if you eat 1000 calories of sugar in one sitting most of it will go to fat. 1000 calories of oats is impossible to process in one sitting because it takes a long, long time to metabolize. You won't feel hungry for awhile. If you eat the sugar, I guarantee that in 30 min you will be hungry, and ready to devour something. So not only did you put on a bunch of fat by just eating that sugar, but now you want more because you are hungry.

The same effect will happen with proteins. Simple proteins like whey vs more complex proteins from tough meats. Simple proteins will get used to build muscle after a workout, and the rest that are not needed are burned for fuel. Meats on the other hand take a long time to fully digest and you get a steady drip of proteins coarsing through your veins. There is very little extra and most gets puts to use.

This is why diets like the warrior diet work. You can have a huge meal in one sitting provided it's made of complex foods and your body will feed off it for an entire day. This is how warriors back in the day could function for an entire day despite their odd eating patterns. The food was complex, and that's a good thing. If they had the same diets we have sugars and simple proteins they would have been just as fat and sloth-like.

If you want to see the warrior diet, or the single meal per day in action look at buddhist monks. They follow the tradition of eating one meal per day at noon and wear that orange sash. This is one thing The City of Ten Thousand Buddhas is known for... among many other things.
One source out of many: http://www.advite.com/sf/cttb/cttb5.html

Here's a nice video explaining this more in depth. It deals mostly with sugar but he covers fats as well and many other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Sugar: The Bitter Truth
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology

P.S. There's another reason why calories in are not calories out. Certain foods can be metabolized differently. If you drink lots of ethanol (booze), the body doesn't know what to do with it and treats it like a toxin. Ethanol can be metabolized not into energy but into junk like plaque that coats your arteries. Then your body has to use more energy to clean that sh*t up out of your arteries. So the 100 calories of ethanol you just drank, you use like 40 calories and the rest is junk that needs to be cleaned which takes more energy btw. This one fact disproves calories in = calories out by itself.

We don't burn our food 100% efficiently, we are living organisms not perfect engines. Calories in cannot be calories out.

escobar04 · Jan 14, 2011

Alle_Gory said:
To all you people who insist that calories in = calories out. You are wrong and just perpetuating the urban legend. Please stop. The human body is not a mechanical engine. The work coming out of it, is not the same as the energy going in.

This is due to the contents of the food and how your body responds. 1000 calories of pure sugar is not the same as 1000 calories from coarsely ground oats. You will shock your body with the sugar putting it into storage mode. Chances are if you eat 1000 calories of sugar in one sitting most of it will go to fat. 1000 calories of oats is impossible to process in one sitting because it takes a long, long time to metabolize. You won't feel hungry for awhile. If you eat the sugar, I guarantee that in 30 min you will be hungry, and ready to devour something. So not only did you put on a bunch of fat by just eating that sugar, but now you want more because you are hungry.

The same effect will happen with proteins. Simple proteins like whey vs more complex proteins from tough meats. Simple proteins will get used to build muscle after a workout, and the rest that are not needed are burned for fuel. Meats on the other hand take a long time to fully digest and you get a steady drip of proteins coarsing through your veins. There is very little extra and most gets puts to use.

This is why diets like the warrior diet work. You can have a huge meal in one sitting provided it's made of complex foods and your body will feed off it for an entire day. This is how warriors back in the day could function for an entire day despite their odd eating patterns. The food was complex, and that's a good thing. If they had the same diets we have sugars and simple proteins they would have been just as fat and sloth-like.

If you want to see the warrior diet, or the single meal per day in action look at buddhist monks. They follow the tradition of eating one meal per day at noon and wear that orange sash. This is one thing The City of Ten Thousand Buddhas is known for... among many other things.
One source out of many: http://www.advite.com/sf/cttb/cttb5.html

Here's a nice video explaining this more in depth. It deals mostly with sugar but he covers fats as well and many other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Sugar: The Bitter Truth
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology

P.S. There's another reason why calories in are not calories out. Certain foods can be metabolized differently. If you drink lots of ethanol (booze), the body doesn't know what to do with it and treats it like a toxin. Ethanol can be metabolized not into energy but into junk like plaque that coats your arteries. Then your body has to use more energy to clean that sh*t up out of your arteries. So the 100 calories of ethanol you just drank, you use like 40 calories and the rest is junk that needs to be cleaned which takes more energy btw. This one fact disproves calories in = calories out by itself.

We don't burn our food 100% efficiently, we are living organisms not perfect engines. Calories in cannot be calories out.

wow, strong extreme examples are strong!

of course 1000 grams of sugar isnt the same as 1000 grams of oats, who in the world is going to eat 1000 calories of sugar vs. 1000 calories of oats.

damn, you guys are so black&white when discussing this!

again, 3 rules:

1. calorie deficit
2. watch protein intake
3. fill in the rest of the calories however you want

so if you cut on 2000 calories at a bodyweight of 200lbs, means you need to consume 200 grams of protein which comes out to (4 calories per gram of protein X 200) 800 calories of protein

the rest of the 1200 calories can be filled with anything (not pure cane sugar like the OP brings up)

that means you can successfully cut on 800 calories of protein and a Burrito/Burger/Sammich consisting of 1200 calories

just an example!

runner83 · Jan 14, 2011

Alle_Gory said:
To all you people who insist that calories in = calories out. You are wrong and just perpetuating the urban legend. Please stop. The human body is not a mechanical engine. The work coming out of it, is not the same as the energy going in.

This is due to the contents of the food and how your body responds. 1000 calories of pure sugar is not the same as 1000 calories from coarsely ground oats. You will shock your body with the sugar putting it into storage mode. Chances are if you eat 1000 calories of sugar in one sitting most of it will go to fat. 1000 calories of oats is impossible to process in one sitting because it takes a long, long time to metabolize. You won't feel hungry for awhile. If you eat the sugar, I guarantee that in 30 min you will be hungry, and ready to devour something. So not only did you put on a bunch of fat by just eating that sugar, but now you want more because you are hungry.

The same effect will happen with proteins. Simple proteins like whey vs more complex proteins from tough meats. Simple proteins will get used to build muscle after a workout, and the rest that are not needed are burned for fuel. Meats on the other hand take a long time to fully digest and you get a steady drip of proteins coarsing through your veins. There is very little extra and most gets puts to use.

This is why diets like the warrior diet work. You can have a huge meal in one sitting provided it's made of complex foods and your body will feed off it for an entire day. This is how warriors back in the day could function for an entire day despite their odd eating patterns. The food was complex, and that's a good thing. If they had the same diets we have sugars and simple proteins they would have been just as fat and sloth-like.

If you want to see the warrior diet, or the single meal per day in action look at buddhist monks. They follow the tradition of eating one meal per day at noon and wear that orange sash. This is one thing The City of Ten Thousand Buddhas is known for... among many other things.
One source out of many: http://www.advite.com/sf/cttb/cttb5.html

Here's a nice video explaining this more in depth. It deals mostly with sugar but he covers fats as well and many other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Sugar: The Bitter Truth
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology

P.S. There's another reason why calories in are not calories out. Certain foods can be metabolized differently. If you drink lots of ethanol (booze), the body doesn't know what to do with it and treats it like a toxin. Ethanol can be metabolized not into energy but into junk like plaque that coats your arteries. Then your body has to use more energy to clean that sh*t up out of your arteries. So the 100 calories of ethanol you just drank, you use like 40 calories and the rest is junk that needs to be cleaned which takes more energy btw. This one fact disproves calories in = calories out by itself.

We don't burn our food 100% efficiently, we are living organisms not perfect engines. Calories in cannot be calories out.

Thank god for this post.

Hopefully it will shut up some of those raving idiots on here who think all calories are created equal.

Alle_Gory · Jan 15, 2011

escobar04 said:
of course 1000 grams of sugar isnt the same as 1000 grams of oats

Wait, did you just agree with me that it's more than calories in = calories out? You just said that not all calories are created equal.

OzyBoy · Jan 15, 2011

I feel bad now. I just had a couple of beers. Oh well.

JustLurk · Jan 15, 2011

Who would eat a thousand calories of pure sugar? That's taking like filling a cup with half sugar and eating just that. The post itself is true enough, though.
Even if two foods are the same amount of calories they could take vastly more energy/time to break down and be digested.

synergy1 · Jan 15, 2011

this thread is basically a rehash of the second law of thermodynamics. Irreversible losses via entropy exist in all systems, be them mechanical or biological.

escobar04 · Jan 16, 2011

Alle_Gory said:
Wait, did you just agree with me that it's more than calories in = calories out? You just said that not all calories are created equal.

well of course, when you put things in impossible terms (this being a consumption of 1000 grams of sugars) then yes, I do agree on that part

will any human being do this for any reason? Probably not.

thats why I said that this was a stupid example to begin with.

I feel like you want to argue for the sake of argument, you dont even reply to my breakdown of the diet but you do point out the obvious part.

escobar04 · Jan 16, 2011

Alle_Gory said:
Wait, did you just agree with me that it's more than calories in = calories out? You just said that not all calories are created equal.

well of course, when you put things in impossible terms (this being a consumption of 1000 grams of sugars) then yes, I do agree on that part

will any human being do this for any reason? Probably not.

thats why I said that this was a stupid example to begin with.

I feel like you want to argue for the sake of argument, you dont even reply to my breakdown of the diet but you do point out the obvious part.

escobar04 · Jan 16, 2011

Alle_Gory said:
Wait, did you just agree with me that it's more than calories in = calories out? You just said that not all calories are created equal.

well of course, when you put things in impossible terms (this being a consumption of 1000 grams of sugars) then yes, I do agree on that part

will any human being do this for any reason? Probably not.

thats why I said that this was a stupid example to begin with.

I feel like you want to argue for the sake of argument, you dont even reply to my breakdown of the diet but you do point out the obvious part.

Pimp-sicle · Jan 16, 2011

Good post, I agree with the main points, but still will NEVER be a fan of the Warrior Diet. I'm sure there's an adjustment period and then your body gets use to it, but for me eating every 3 hours is a staple and keeps mean lean with good muscle mass.

PIMP

Alle_Gory · Jan 16, 2011

escobar04 said:
well of course, when you put things in impossible terms (this being a consumption of 1000 grams of sugars) then yes, I do agree on that part

Good I'm glad we agree. That was my entire point. Not all calories are created the same and you should take care to put more good calories into your body than sh*t calories like simple sugars and simple proteins. In the long run, it only helps you.

Also, another reason that I'm a huge cheerleader for fiber is that I've been including it in my diet and it works. It keeps me full, and it prevents me from over eating. I don't have the patience and self control you do when it comes to diet so I try to make things as easy as possible.

you dont even reply to my breakdown of the diet but you do point out the obvious part.

I didn't think it was relevant. I'm arguing for how your body processes various foods not how someone should go about their day.

Pimp-sicle said:
Good post, I agree with the main points, but still will NEVER be a fan of the Warrior Diet. I'm sure there's an adjustment period and then your body gets use to it, but for me eating every 3 hours is a staple and keeps mean lean with good muscle mass.

I don't agree with it either. I'm a three meals a day kind of person. I was explaining how it works and how a person could live off that.

escobar04 · Jan 16, 2011

~Vortex~ · Jan 16, 2011

Nice, I think i'll try the warrior diet sometime, makes sense to me.

Tesl · Jan 17, 2011

Calories are not all equal I agree, for all the reasons you outlined. However I'm not sure how important some of this is to know, depending on your goals, I think you can often think of them as equal enough and not worry about it.

For example, if a person is trying to lose weight, you can be pretty much 100% sure that if they burn more calories than they intake, they will lose weight over time. Even if they were able to somehow live eating 1000 calories of sugar a day (obviously they are missing tons of nutrients here, less ignore that for now) they would lose weight over time. Their mission would become much harder than it should be of course, because they would be super hungry all the time. That's why it's important to eat right, but its not such a necessity.

I'm not trying to lose weight right now (opposite actually, gained 6kg in 4 months, get in!) but when I had tried to lose weight in the past, I'd only concentrate on calories. If I was a bit hungry and wanted some chocolate or other crap, I'd still eat it as long as I was sure I was gonna end the day under my calorie limit. Worked for me.

I'm not too sure what my point is actually. Just wanted to respond to this

Thank god for this post.

Hopefully it will shut up some of those raving idiots on here who think all calories are created equal.

I think both people are right really, and the arguments are over semantics more than anything else.

Alle_Gory · Jan 18, 2011

Tesl said:
I think you can often think of them as equal enough and not worry about it.

So a potato is the same thing as a handful of corn syrup? No?

Then you can't think of them as equal. Different foods have different properties and some are beneficial while others are not. You need to know what kind of calories you need and which foods have them.

Some foods as in the case with those containing trans-fats, high fructose corn syrup (it's made with meeercuryyyy! no seriously mercury), copious amounts of alcohol... etc. are poison to the body and should be limited as much as possible if you want to reach your health goals.

For example, if a person is trying to lose weight, you can be pretty much 100% sure that if they burn more calories than they intake, they will lose weight over time.

Exercise burns very little calories. An hour run burns off like half a candybar. What exercise does is keep the muscles in good condition (muscles affect insulin) and exercise also increases metabolism. Your body burns far more energy producing heat than it does when you exercise. But exercise has benefits that it keeps you strong and keeps the body running in peak condition.

Unfortunately, if the person who is exercising has a body that is in poor condition, the exercise will probably not be very effective. Look into something called "metabolic syndrome". It happens to people who get a little too overweight. Once you get to that point, exercise no matter how intense won't help much because your body will not respond like a healthy person's. You need far more than simply exercising to get back into shape. There's many reasons for this but the biggest ones are the body-fat that secretes it's own hormones and it makes your body less sensitive to your own insulin, and muscles that are too small, weak, and in poor condition to have an effect on the body.

Even if they were able to somehow live eating 1000 calories of sugar a day (obviously they are missing tons of nutrients here, less ignore that for now) they would lose weight over time. Their mission would become much harder than it should be of course, because they would be super hungry all the time. That's why it's important to eat right, but its not such a necessity.

99.9% of people cannot do the starvation diet because they don't have the willpower. This is completely unrealistic, and in the long run putting your body in starvation mode for an extended period can be very damaging if you don't know what you're doing, especially when you try to eat a normal diet after.

I think both people are right really, and the arguments are over semantics more than anything else.

What you do with the information is up to you. If you think it's only semantics then great but it has many applications once you realize that not all foods are created equal and that different diets can meet different goals.

Tesl · Jan 20, 2011

Heh, my last post for the most part was trying to say "There are differences, they aren't the same, but its not worth dwelling on. Too many people argue about it for the sake of arguing". Dare I say it but reading your post it seems exactly that way

Before I go any further let me just say that you are probably one of my favourite posters on this board. I'm not trying to to fight over semantics, I've better things to do with my time. Just an opinion:

Alle_Gory said:
So a potato is the same thing as a handful of corn syrup? No?

Then you can't think of them as equal. Different foods have different properties and some are beneficial while others are not. You need to know what kind of calories you need and which foods have them.

Is a Russet potatoe the same as a Fingerling potatoe? It's not, but who really cares. For most people on this board, they aren't body builders that are trying to shave off one more percentage of bodyfat - they are either skinny wippets that need to work out or obese disasters that need to slim down.

Is it worth knowing the ins and outs of everything to progress? I'd say no. For a fatty you should just concentrate on calories being less than you use, for slim guys putting on weight you just need to focus on eating a ton whilst working out. Anymore info and it becomes hard to manage, and people quickly give up.

Exercise burns very little calories. An hour run burns off like half a candybar. What exercise does is keep the muscles in good condition (muscles affect insulin) and exercise also increases metabolism. Your body burns far more energy producing heat than it does when you exercise. But exercise has benefits that it keeps you strong and keeps the body running in peak condition.

Unfortunately, if the person who is exercising has a body that is in poor condition, the exercise will probably not be very effective. Look into something called "metabolic syndrome". It happens to people who get a little too overweight. Once you get to that point, exercise no matter how intense won't help much because your body will not respond like a healthy person's. You need far more than simply exercising to get back into shape. There's many reasons for this but the biggest ones are the body-fat that secretes it's own hormones and it makes your body less sensitive to your own insulin, and muscles that are too small, weak, and in poor condition to have an effect on the body.

When did I mention exercise burns more calories? I didn't. For losing weight, diet is king. Exercise is always important to feel better, but not so important to shed the fat. We aren't really disagreeing here.

99.9% of people cannot do the starvation diet because they don't have the willpower. This is completely unrealistic, and in the long run putting your body in starvation mode for an extended period can be very damaging if you don't know what you're doing, especially when you try to eat a normal diet after.

When did I talk about starvation diets? I was just trying to highlight that if you eat fewer calories than you lose you ultimately have to lose weight. Again, it looks like we aren't disagreeing and you are trying to argue a nothing point...

What you do with the information is up to you. If you think it's only semantics then great but it has many applications once you realize that not all foods are created equal and that different diets can meet different goals.

I think the arguments that sprout up are over semantics, or just over nothing at all and only a will to argue/debate (much like your last post).

For most people, until they are already in shape, I don't think its worth worrying about these details. Concentrating on calories and a decent exercise routine will get anyone 90% to their target. From that point they can adjust as necessary.

Pimp-sicle · Jan 24, 2011

Tesl: The point your missing on this entire post is BODY COMPOSITION. Sure if you want to see a "number" on a scale, then your whole calorie statement is indeed true. But, most people who work out, want to look good too!

Without knowing how the different macro nutrients effect your body on the way to your goal, you will never make any REAL progress aside from when you first start lifting, exercising etc aka newbie results.

Most people aren't bodybuilders, which is true, BUT what do most people care about? Or better yet how do women judge a man's body? They judge it on if he has abs, if he has built arms etc. The point I'm getting at and Alley's point is 3000 calories on sugar and 3000 calories of clean food is and never will be the same.

Furthermore, to not get too detailed, nutrient breakdown at each meal in my opinion is MORE important than anything else in achieving your goals.

PIMP

Alle_Gory · Jan 24, 2011

Tesl said:
Before I go any further let me just say that you are probably one of my favourite posters on this board.

Thank you. I do my best to make a contribution. Even if it deals with the messy parts of conversation, like when cleaning up mis-stated facts and calling people out on bull.

Is a Russet potatoe the same as a Fingerling potatoe? It's not, but who really cares. For most people on this board, they aren't body builders that are trying to shave off one more percentage of bodyfat - they are either skinny wippets that need to work out or obese disasters that need to slim down.

I understand that. And I'm not arguing that a Russet Potato is the same as a Fingerling. The difference is too small. But compare a baked potato to a slice of white bread and you have a significant difference.

Anymore info and it becomes hard to manage, and people quickly give up.

You're right. But the way I see it, but becoming more knowledgeable you can make decisions with your diet that makes it easier overall. Self-control is one issue that most people have when it comes to eating and I don't blame them. However if you have a solid diet then it's hard to get fat if not impossible on it.

Try eating lean foods with ridiculous amounts of fiber and no sugars or alcohols. The majority of people can't get fat on it.

Obesity is a new issue, it's not something that people from ages ago suffered from. The fat lazy and well fed bastards were nowhere near as heavy as people are now. Sure you can say that people got more exercise. But what about the office workers back then? You know, the ones with money that could afford restaurant meals and didn't have to walk. Even they were much slimmer.

When did I talk about starvation diets? I was just trying to highlight that if you eat fewer calories than you lose you ultimately have to lose weight. Again, it looks like we aren't disagreeing and you are trying to argue a nothing point...

My comment was about your hypothetical 1000 calories sugar diet. Looking back, it wasn't a strong point to argue on. I guess it COULD work provided you had a way to space out the 1000 calories in sugar enough that it doesn't shock the pancreas into releasing lots of insulin.

Like through an IV drip. That could work as a sugar delivery system. But why go through all the trouble?

A healthy diet will naturally release a steady stream of glucose (sugar) into your bloodstream without any of the ill effects.

Fact of the day: Your body runs on glucose, a simple sugar. Everything you eat must be converted into glucose eventually if your body is to burn it. If all you eat are proteins, they get converted into glucose before they are burned for fuel. Too much glucose in your body too quickly (like when you eat candy or soda) puts your pancreas on alert. First you get a sugar high, but then the pancreas release tons of insulin (usually too much) to clean up that glucose from your body. Then you get the sugar crash, you feel tired and sleepy until your body regulates the insulin properly.

Where does the sugar go? Well, it doesn't get burned that's for sure. There's not enough time to burn it. It goes straight to fat storage because it's extra energy. And here is the problem with simple diets that contain lots of easy to digest carbs. They get digested too quickly!!

This ends the fact of the day.

Calories in are not calories out.

Alle_Gory

Master Don Juan

escobar04

Senior Don Juan

runner83

Master Don Juan

Alle_Gory

Master Don Juan

OzyBoy

Master Don Juan

JustLurk

Senior Don Juan

synergy1

Master Don Juan

escobar04

Senior Don Juan

escobar04

Senior Don Juan

escobar04

Senior Don Juan

Pimp-sicle

Master Don Juan

Alle_Gory

Master Don Juan

escobar04

Senior Don Juan

~Vortex~

Don Juan

Tesl

Senior Don Juan

Alle_Gory

Master Don Juan

Tesl

Senior Don Juan

Pimp-sicle

Master Don Juan

Alle_Gory

Master Don Juan