Let's revisit calories in, calories out and all that diet goodness

There is some good info in this thread if I remember correctly.

It really is an individual thing. I am insulin resistant, and that formula just doesn't work for me. I've tried and nearly gave myself an eating disorder, trying to eat less and less and watching my body adapt to every change I made so I did not lose weight. 

For me, it's quality and the right carb/protein/fat ratio, and pairing of protein and carbs. 

I think there is no magic bullet, I think every person who is trying to lose weight needs to educate themselves and do a little experimentation to figure out what will work for them.

I hate to be the one to open the can of worms, but...

It does work for you.  The laws of physics are the laws of physics.  Period.  It's just that things get messier for some people than others, because the number of calories burned can fluctuate.  Let me put it another way:  It's hard to shoot a moving target, but that doesn't mean the target doesn't exist.

If you found a way to eat that allowed you to lose weight, then you were in caloric deficit, so it does work.  ALL weight loss diets that work do so by putting you in caloric deficit.  The only thing that varies is the means, not the end.

I'm with TriMyBest on this.  Calories in, calories out.  If you are like me, you can sit down and eat 1500 calories of candy bars in one sitting.  Not good.  But, I know for a fact I can't sit down and eat 1500 calories worth of apples in one sitting.  It just isn't possible.

So, long story short, plenty of raw fruits and veggies.  Plenty of lean meats and/or legumes for protein.  Keep the junk to a minimum...voila, you'll lose weight once you're taking in less calories than you're burning.

Staying properly hydrated helps a ton too.  Our bodies often respond to thirst by eating.  If you stay properly hydrated, you won't get that "false hunger" signal.

A fun article about "calories in - calories out" would be found by googling "Twinkie Diet."  The guy had a protein smoothie for breakfast, and then proceeded to eat junk food snack cakes the rest of the day.  He kept a food log and whaddaya know?  He lost weight, brought his cholesterol down, etc.  

If you want to impress your friends or want a jazzy name for it, call it the "Thermodynamics Diet".

Complete agreement with calories in and calories out. Law of thermodynamics as was already stated.

1g of carbs = 4cal, 1g protein=4cal, 1gfat=9cal

A calorie is a calorie, it's a unit of measurement. The energy required to raise 1g of water 1 degree Celcius. A food calorie, which is what we are talking about here, is 1000 small calories, or the energy required to raise 1kg of water 1 degree C.

Unfortunately it is difficult to know exactly what calories out will be on any given day. There are published metrics but they do not account for individual variation. It's also pretty hard to track EVERY calorie you take in. That squirt of milk in your coffee, for example.

If adding calories to compensate for activity keep in mind many of the published tables do not give actual calories burned. In other words if you figure on a given day you need 2400 calories but then run for an hour you would have burned 100 calories anyway, so actual calories burned would be less.

Now, even though a calorie is a calorie, the source and quality of those calories matters a great deal, as the other posters have pointed out.

You and your doctory science and evidence and logic. Silly. May I have some of that popcorn?

Oh no ... oh nooooo ... I'm falling ... drat.

Okay, I'm with the calories in/out crowd. My n=1 street cred is that I've lost ~140 lbs (mighta been 150, might gained back 20 this last year, ballpark. Dunno.) Oh, and I have a couple of science degrees and stuff.

And any kind of effect from the energy it takes to break different foods down (e.g., ice rather than water, crunching on celery) is negligible.

How one FEELS and how one can PERFORM and all that jazz, yes, that is very dependent on the TYPE of packaging those calories come in. But as for weight loss ... kcal in/kcal out.

I'll regret adding my piece, but calories in does not always equal calories absorbed. If you have a malfunctioning pancreas or intestinal tract; or (on the calories outside) you have a thyroid that is not working correctly, or are on any number of meds (many of the ones I prescribe have weight gain as a side effect), what you put in your mouth and what you calculate as your expenditures may not really give you the information you want. 

I think it is better to acknowledge that there are differences in how individuals metabolize the foods they eat (even the same person at different ages), and make your own n=1 to determine what is optimal for you. I am big believer in eating real food that is minimally processed for the most benefits, with an emphasis on plants for volume. But YMMV.

No scientific evidence here, only what has worked for me. I've gone from being 5'10, 130lbs when I graduated highschool, gained 45 lbs in 6 years, and in the past 18 months, lost 40lbs. I did this all while having the same terrible diet the whole time, but I did change the amount of I was eating to match whatever my activity level was at the time and of course have a slight deficit. Now that my activity level is pretty high, I'm eating a ton more of my terrible diet than what I was when I was gaining. (I'll disclaimer this by saying I come from a pretty thin family for what it's worth). 

My husband on the other hand comes from what I call a fat family. He's been overweight (5'10, 245lbs) since he can remember. This past 18 months, he's managed to get below 200lbs for the first time in his adult life by keeping his terrible diet and matching his calorie intake to this current activity level. 

I wouldn't dare say it's only about calories for everyone because I don't like saying any kind of blanket general statement, but it does agitate me when I see certain types of food blamed by people for making them fat. 

Yes, I agree with you there, I am in deficit now and am losing weight. BUT...I've been in deficit before and have not lost. And yes, I track every. little. bite. I'm' just saying it can be disheartening to say the least to be constantly told "eat less, eat less, you must still be eating too much" when you already eating below your BMR and just physically can't eat any less and still function, let alone still train. So then you begin to hate yourself every time you need to eat, for being unable to cut out even more food.

I agree that for most people without other issues going on, simply cutting their net calories and creating a small deficit is enough to lose. If I'm burning an average of 2000 cals/day between BMR + activity, and taking in 2500, I'm going to gain. That makes sense. But if I'm burning 2000 and taking in 1500 or even 1800 I should lose, and I wasn't. 

I just think there should be a qualifier of some sort for when the usual formula doesn't work. Because it's just not always that simple.

I think we still have a bit of a disconnect.  It's a physical impossibility to consume 1,500 calories, burn 2,000, and not lose weight.  If you thought you were taking in 1,500 and burning 2,000, but still not losing weight, then you were either burning less than 1,500, taking in more than 2,000, or both numbers were wrong.  This is what I was saying about it getting messy.

The calculators for BMR + activity are estimates that are not 100% accurate.  It's like using the formula of 220-age to calculate your max HR - For the majority of people it will give a result in the ballpark of the true number, but it's still only an estimate which could be far enough off that you don't get the desired results by using it.  Throw in a metabolic disorder too, and it can really become a challenge to balance it all out.

This is why it can take a little experimentation to get results.

How do you know your BMR?  What about your calories burned?  

I didn't see it mentioned that severely curtaining calories for an extended period of time induces the starvation response. Your metabolism WILL decrease if you starve yourself for an extended period of time. After a time you will also start losing muscle mass as your metabolism switches from using fat stores (that are depleted) to muscle.

In addition, as you lose weight you require less calories. It can be more that 100 calories for every 10 pounds you lose, depending on sex, age, weight, etc.

^^^This^^^

I have been limiting carbs to under 20-30 for over 3 years now.  Have lost over 100 pounds and all of the health problems (Hypertension, Diabetes and High Cholesterol, etc.) have dissappeared.  Low carb works by limiting insulin response when eating a diet high in sugar (grains, potato's, sugar, etc.).

I would not recommend this type of diet to everyone, it works for me and fits my lifestyle. 

Here is a recently printed article in the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=general&src=me

So there are a couple different formulas for making estimates (using metric - kg and cm):

Miffin & Jeor equation:  BMR = (9.99 x weight + 6.25 x height – 4.92 x age + s ) kcal/day
the variable s= +5 for men, -161 for women

Harris Benedict equations:

• for men: BMR = (13.7516 x weight + 5.0033 x height – 6.755 x age + 66.473) kcal/day
• for women: BMR = (9.5634 x weight + 1.8496 x height – 4.6756 x age + 655.0955) kcal/day

So your BMR is supposedly what it takes to support your body at rest - if you stayed in bed all day, you'd gain weight if you ate more than your BMR and vice versa.

Finding out home much you burn in a day could be tricky.  Option 1: wear a pedometer all the time you are not exercising.  At the end of the day you'll know you've walked x miles.  And you should be able to figure out walking x miles burns y calories per lb (times your mass to equal calories burned from living your life).  Then add exercise and that should be how many calories you burn in a day.

Option 2 uses rules of thumb for "activity levels" - low, might, moderate, heavy, very heavy.  I don't like this one because it adds a lot more guesses.

All estimates of course.

Yes, all of the above. It's been 3 years, I've tried it all and been to a few specialists. I don't like Option 2 either but have used that to try to guesstimate my "output," so to speak. One WL specialist said to ignore all activity and just go with a 500 cal deficit from my 1600 cal BMR. He said activity, both daily and for exercise, was just "bonus." As far as estimating what I take in, I don't know. I measure and weigh all portions, before or after cooking. I've used a few different calorie counting websites, the databases appear to be similar. I have assumed their calories burned to be too high, so I try not to count them.

It's OK, I know the usual formula will work for most people. I just worry about those few who might be like me.

This.

Too lazy and late for work to find it now, but there was a "gold-plated" study of studies fairly recently that looked at what was ultimately a very large population and basically showed that the ultimate correlation was to calorie deficit.  There was no statistically meaningful relative effectiveness found in any diet approach (although, iirc, South Beach was sort of ahead of the "pack" slightly).

Don't want to pile on regarding the post citing insulin resistance--as the other poster who responded earlier quite correctly noted, everyone has different factors influencing exactly how efficiently they burn calories, but burn them they still do...or die--but I have a close friend who has cited this factor (and others) as reasons why approach 'X' "can't work for her" and the reality is that she is ultimately not physically active at all (though she actually thinks she is) and drinks too much alcohol (though she has finally been pursuaded by a nutritionist to cut down).  Those sorts of overarching lifestyle issues are ultimately bigger obstacles to weight loss...and are also the obstacles that lie most within our ability to address.

Overestimating the calorie burn from physical activity and overconsumption of alcoholic beverages (which not only tend to be calorie rich, but also have negative effects on the liver's metabolic functions) are two common places where people are in denial mode about why they aren't losing weight, in my experience.  Awful lot of tendency to overlog the former and underlog the latter.