Quick one?

Richard tea

Quick one for ya, Myself and a pal decided to calorie count to help with weight loss. I must consume 1800 calories or less per day which should have me down by 2lbs per week. All going well so far. The confusing thing is this though, Not that we would but if I was to consume 1800 calories worth of mars bars or chips or beer etc etc, would I still loose weight?
Its just a comical conversation we got into that neither of us could answer.

Mason Storm

Yes.

Mellor

Quick question, quick answer.
Yes, you would still lose weight. If you measured it and took in a strict 1800 calories of sweets and junk would still lose weight.

The reason bad food like that results in weight gain is because nobody measures it, and over eats. Sugar causes cravings which heads to more over eating, etc

markomuscle

i have always thought that myself, you would feel terrible eating a diet like that though

nearlythereacca

I disagree, the body is much more complex than calories in calories out and eating 1800 calories worth of crap (although it creates a calorie deficit) may not result in weight loss.

The body will not feel nourished, will not function optimally, weight loss will be inhibited and blood sugar imbalances can occur which will not promote eight loss either.

thegreatiam

nearlythereacca wrote: »

I disagree, the body is much more complex than calories in calories out and eating 1800 calories worth of crap (although it creates a calorie deficit) may not result in weight loss.

The body will not feel nourished, will not function optimally, weight loss will be inhibited and blood sugar imbalances can occur which will not promote eight loss either.

that will only affect the time it takes.

Mellor

nearlythereacca wrote: »

I disagree, the body is much more complex than calories in calories out and eating 1800 calories worth of crap (although it creates a calorie deficit) may not result in weight loss.

You can disagree if you like. But you are wrong. If you are using more energy than you take in, the body needs to find that energy somewhere. It's a basic law of physics.

It's been proven to be true in practise too. Last year, a professor at a US university ate a diet of mostly twinkles, and similar junk for a 10 weeks, but stick to a strict deficit. Even though his diet was predominantly processed sugar, he lost weight, 27lbs. Which easily equalled the predicted calorie deficit.

The body will not feel nourished, will not function optimally, weight loss will be inhibited and blood sugar imbalances can occur which will not promote eight loss either.

I agree you won't feel nourished. You'll like crap, probably craving food all the time. Blood sugar levels and various others will be all over the place. It's nowhere near optimum in terms of function or health. But nobody is saying it is. Nobody is talking about all the areas where is dreadful, it's just a hypothetical regarding calories and weightloss.

Hatfry

Read on BB.com a guy promoting a diet based on the assumption that "carbs are carbs" and says eat icecream everyday.

I'm sure some people would love to believe this is perfectly fine and I'm sure it is to a certain extent but my god wouldn't you be sick as a dog after a week of it.

Transform

a caloire is just a calorie i.e. cutting back on calories to promote fat loss, will work for those starting out and especially in those that have e.g. 1-2stone+ to drop but when you have less than that to drop i have never seen it work until the individual clears up their carb intake, takes proper exercise and ensures adequate fat and protein intake

e.g. in Sweden - the swedish council on health recently concluded in an extensive report for the treatment of obesity that -

"…a greater increase in HDL cholesterol (“the good cholesterol”) without having any adverse affects on LDL cholesterol (“the bad cholesterol”). This applies to both the moderate low-carbohydrate intake of less than 40 percent of the total energy intake, as well as to the stricter low-carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrate intake is less than 20 percent of the total energy intake. In addition, the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides".

"Advice on a low-carbohydrate diet is however very rare, if we look at the practice survey. It’s not clear how common it is to actively discourage patients from the strict low-carbohydrate diet. A low-carbohydrate diet, even the stricter form, will lead to a greater weight loss in the short term than the low-fat diet, and studies have indicated no adverse effects on blood lipids, provided that the weight stays low. One possible consequence of this report will therefore be an increased use of a strict low-carbohydrate diet for short-term weight reduction."

Nice to see a government taking a stand on how to properly tackle obesity rather than just pushing the same old eat less fat, consume more carbs and be more active. irish government will get there in about 10years

Alf Veedersane

Transform wrote: »

irish government will get there in about 10years

Spot the optimist!

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Spot the optimist!

Lol! Well 10 years as long as the public are driving the change and not the actual government

rubadub

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/04/health/why-the-body-may-waste-the-calories-from-alcohol.html

chronic heavy drinking can prime certain metabolic processes and, in effect, train the body to waste the seven calories a gram that alcohol ordinarily provides.

For example, weight gain was negligible in alcoholics who were given 2,000 calories of alcohol daily on top of the 2,500 calories from foods they consumed to maintain their weight. But when the same number of additional calories were fed as chocolate, a steady weight gain resulted.

Thus, the energy waste associated with a heavy intake of alcohol cannot be attributed to a reduction in the intake of other foods. More likely, it results from interference with the body's ability to derive energy from other foods.

According to Dr. Lieber's report, experiments in laboratory animals and in heavy drinkers found that alcohol calories did indeed count for animals and people who consumed a very low-fat diet.

Other factors can effect how much energy you absorb from foods, you will get more energy from 500kcal of peanut butter than 500kcal of barely chewed peanuts, which will pass through a bit less digested. Same with over cooked or undercooked rice.

If you eat foods with no nutrients you might have a much harder time sticking to 1800kcal a day, as your body will want them from somewhere. Most people are not living like lab rats, and can choose to feed themselves.

Mellor

rubadub wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/04/health/why-the-body-may-waste-the-calories-from-alcohol.html



Other factors can effect how much energy you absorb from foods, you will get more energy from 500kcal of peanut butter than 500kcal of barely chewed peanuts, which will pass through a bit less digested.

That's still calories in/calories out if you think about it.


Re:Alcohol, I think one of the issues the issue* there is how we calculate colourific content. Alcohol is a flammable liquid, which attributes to it energy content when tested in a lab. But our bodies are machines, we can't necessarily extract this energy. For example, petrol is presumably very high in calories, yet I doubt you'd get fat from drinking it.

*another one is that when the body breaks down alcohol, your body temp rises increasing your BMR, which offsets some of the calories we manage to absorb.

rubadub

Mellor wrote: »

That's still calories in/calories out if you think about it.

Yes, but it shows that what you take in is just an estimate of what you get out, many think its an exact science.

As you said its the laws of physics, in my job I work with calories & kilojoules all the time, and it IS an exact science, in the physics lab, not in the biology lab though.

Calories are just an estimate, instead of saying the average man needs 2500kcal of food, they could have said 1kg of food or 1.5 Litres of food, calories are a better estimate in most cases.

If you are eating a "recommended quantity" some substance and still getting fat then congratulations, you are an efficient machine and can make do with eating less.

Mellor wrote: »

For example, petrol is presumably very high in calories, yet I doubt you'd get fat from drinking it.

+1, I mentioned this in another thread to make one poster see sense, but he actually did expect you would put on just as much fat drinking 500kcal extra as petrol each day as if you ate 500kcal of sugar water extra.

I have never found drink to effect my weight much, nor other people I know who are heavy drinkers.

Alf Veedersane

rubadub wrote:

As you said its the laws of physics, in my job I work with calories & kilojoules all the time, and it IS an exact science, in the physics lab

Ah,physics! The beautiful science.

El_Dangeroso

If you ate 1800 cals of low-protein junk then yeah you'd probably lose weight, but you'd feel like crap (no energy) and you'd be very hungry most of the time.

Also, remember the goal is not to lose weight, but fat. And here is where calories are not in fact equal. Adequate protein spares muscle and increases the proportion of weight lost as fat.

Also sleep factors in here big time, they did a study that placed two groups on identical diets, but one group was sleep restricted and the other not. They lost the same amount of weight but the sleep restricted group lost more muscle and less fat than the adequately rested group.

Sleep is so so so important and if you want to succeed in losing weight you need to prioritise it.

Alf Veedersane

rubadub wrote:

As you said its the laws of physics, in my job I work with calories & kilojoules all the time, and it IS an exact science, in the physics lab

Ah,physics! The beautiful science.