Calories

[imoldernu]

The word itself strikes terror into the minds of "we the guilty".

The moment of truth comes around two or three times a year, and in lieu of other crises, becomes a miserable obsession that invades the peace and quiet of an otherwise happy existence.

So, to involve you into some shared misery, a calculator that tell you how many you can eat each day, just to maintain your current weight. Takes into account your sex, height, weight, and lifestyle.

Calorie Maintenance Calculator - Daily Calorie Requirements

After you get your number, look at the nutrition box on your favorite foods, and the serving size.

As for the idea of just eating ramen soup? Forget it! Although the calorie count on the package is 190... that's only the half of it. That little noodle pack is two servings... so figure on 380...

Good luck, and enjoy that Easter Dinner.

 

[Amethyst]

I have no idea how many calories I consume, except that ever since I cut out most sweets, I seem to eat an awful lot of food...by volume. And am not overweight. This morning, I ate 2 PBJ sandwiches, a handful of almonds, a handful of dried fruit, 2 apples, and a banana. And I'm now thinking about lunch

a calculator that tell you how many you can eat each day, just to maintain your current weight.

 

[Chuckanut]

I understand Calories In Calories Out thinking. And, if it works for a person, I certainly would not encourage them to change. We each have to do what works for us when it comes to health.

But, for many of us it is more complicated than CICO. We don't eat calories, we eat foods that contain calories. And, there is a considerable body of evidence showing that the modern diet - high in sugars, highly processed foods and low in fat - tells our bodies to store the calories as fat instead of leaving the available to provide energy. And then these same foods cause us to be hungry sooner than we should be. Not so good.

As some have said - We don't gain weight because we eat to much, we eat to much because we are gaining weight.

This book explains it much better than I can. Warning! The first half is loaded with geeky science that lays the groundwork for the author's conclusions and plans.

Always Hungry?: Conquer Cravings, Retrain Your Fat Cells, and Lose Weight Permanently by David Ludwig, Author | | 9781455533862 | Hardcover | Barnes & Noble

Like many I have lost a good amount of weight (25 pounds) and kept it off by significantly reducing the amount of sugar and highly processed carbs, and replacing them with real foods (meats, veggies, fruit, whole dairy products, beans and legumes, and so on).

 

[RonBoyd]

Calories don't count. Well... not in the way that you are using the word. In (very) simple terms: There are two kinds of calories; those your body uses for energy and those that it stores as fat. When you eat too many (relatively) of the second kind, your body "hungers" for the first kind.

Therefore calories don't count... hunger does.

This is a very complicated issue and there is no "one size fits all" solution. (See note.)

A good place (of several) to start your personal research is at https://freetheanimal.com/. And more specifically, https://freetheanimal.com/2016/02/t...fast-with-high-energy-and-without-hunger.html.

Notice potato chips way down there on the bottom, both predicted and experimentally. “You can’t eat just one” was indeed a prophetic marketing slogan. But then, to see how experimentally, boiled potatoes blow everything else out of the water—including the prediction—is truly a remarkable finding that’s largely ignored in general, and derided and scoffed at by the low-carbohydrate community.


So, the takeaway is that boiled potatoes as a single food source are the most satiating food ever tested. That means that when eaten by themselves—compared with equivalent calories of anything else—test subjects waited longer to eat again and consumed less when they did eat, compared to any other single food. But that’s not all. When boiled potatoes are included as part of a meal (even mashed with sane amounts of butter & milk), test subjects consume far fewer calories overall in the meal, compared with any other starch…and I’d bet that would hold for any side dish. Your plate full of “leafy greens” that’s always all the rage in LC, where LCers eat more “leafy greens” than literally anyone else on the planet, including raw vegans? It’s a badge of honor; and plus, it allows them to up that steak from 6-8 oz. to 16 oz., thereby tripling the calories over a meal of mashed potatoes and a 4-6 oz. steak.

NOTE: I have mellowed considerably from my earlier position of insisting that LCHF was the only weight-loss diet. This came about from the statement that went something like "Science is not about true or false but simply a search to be less wrong." Yes, I now believe that we are individuals... <sheepish grin>

 

[W2R]

I gain weight if I eat the calories supposedly needed for me to maintain my weight. My internist says I have no thyroid issues. I work out more than many seniors.

OMG, does this mean.... do you suppose that maybe... life isn't fair?

 

[RonBoyd]

I gain weight if I eat the calories supposedly needed for me to maintain my weight. My internist says I have no thyroid issues. I work out more than many seniors.

If the calories are from the "wrong" source, of course, you will gain weight. Finding the sources that are "right" for you is the hard part.

BTW, here is an interesting article that may give insight into your relationship with the Internist. Why Your Doctor May Question a Low Carb Diet

OMG, does this mean.... do you suppose that maybe... life isn't fair?

<Big chuckle>

 

[MRG]

I've been logging all my and DW'S food that we eat for over 250 days now. When we started I believed a lot of stuff about "starvation mode", "bad foods/calories", and insulin sensitivity and a whole bunch of other woo that food bloggers like to promote. Now it's all science based for me; that means calories as an estimate of my bodies energy requirements, period! It's not always exactly correct but it's fairly repeatable.

Looking at the link the calculations produce numbers that are much higher than what I've been logging for maintaining or weight reduction than our numbers suggest. We'd be gaining 1- 2 pounds weekly with the numbers produced by the first two methods. So for us the estimates are 250-700 calories over what our bodies consumed daily. There's a number of estimators out there, we're using MyFitnessPal to log calories and nutrition. They have a default energy expended calculator that worked well for us.

 

[MuirWannabe]

I use my fitbit to track calories consumed and calories burned. While I agree with all the caveats mentioned above that losing weight is more than just about counting calories, I do find it a useful exercise in monitoring daily balances. And there is no question when I successfully create a sustained calorie deficit across a few days I will lose weight. That works both ways of course gaining weight when consuming a surplus.


The calories burned is of course just an estimate from fitbit. The calories consumed is also an estimate as exact calorie counts are difficult to come by on many foods. To me that is the toughest part. Getting reasonably accurate calorie counts and being honest with oneself.


Muir

 

[MRG]

One gadget I bought was a food scale. I never knew how inaccurate measuring cups were! My breakfast Oatmeal the cup is over by 25%! Most everything else is too.

 

[dixonge]

My long, tortuous, sad journey to true, lasting weight loss was unsuccessful until I finally grokked the truths in this one article. It's a bit tongue in cheek, but full of hard truths. Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat

 

[Chuckanut]

.
The calories burned is of course just an estimate from fitbit. The calories consumed is also an estimate as exact calorie counts are difficult to come by on many foods. To me that is the toughest part. Getting reasonably accurate calorie counts and being honest with oneself.

+1

IIRC, one thing I read is that even a highly trained dietician/nutritionist can only estimate total calories to about plus/minus 180 calories per day in real world conditions.

 

[MRG]

+1

IIRC, one thing I read is that even a highly trained dietician/nutritionist can only estimate total calories to about plus/minus 180 calories per day in real world conditions.

Makes sense, I believe the USDA says their data can be off by 20%. That makes sense I guess, individual samples have some variation in sweetness and flavor so there's probably a difference in calories.

 

[zinger1457]

If you're looking for a more in depth calorie counter tool take a look at myfitnesspal.com. You create a profile and set goals, like lose 1 lb a week or maintain a certain weight, and it will do the calculations for you. You need to input daily what and how much you ate, amount of exercise, and it will calculate how you're doing toward your goal. They have a pretty extensive library of common foods to select from and once you get your your typical meals/foods in the system it doesn't take much effort to maintain it.

 

[Options]

I have had a problem with keeping weight on all of my life. I positively hate to eat, and view it as a burden, a task, and something I have to do. If I could get my nutrition by simply drinking it, I would. Years ago, when I was young and stupid, over time I ate at most of the best restaurants in Los Angeles. To this day, I don't remember a single dish that stood out. I haven't wasted money on "fine dining" in years as it's just as tasteless to me as eating at McDonald's (which I never do because I almost never eat processed foods).

I must monitor my weight three times a week at the end of my workouts, because once I start losing even 3 pounds, it's a downward spiral of weight loss. A couple months ago I was sick for 3 weeks, lost 10 pounds, and it took 3 weeks of absolute force feeding to gain it back. Calories are meaningless to me, as I can eat 2 medium pizzas trying to gain weight and still lose 4 pounds overnight, which is what happened while trying to gain it back last month.

People say I'm lucky but they have no idea how oppressive it can be having to eat when you don't like it and don't want to.

 

[Derslickmeister]

My long, tortuous, sad journey to true, lasting weight loss was unsuccessful until I finally grokked the truths in this one article. It's a bit tongue in cheek, but full of hard truths. Why Am I Not Losing Weight: 11 Reasons You're Failing To Lose Fat

Yep, calories in/calories burned. Pretty much all there is to it. Use Fat Secret or some other calorie tracker for a few months, be honest and track every single thing that goes into your mouth, you will be shocked and amazed at the same time...

 

[MuirWannabe]

I have had a problem with keeping weight on all of my life. I positively hate to eat, and view it as a burden, a task, and something I have to do. If I could get my nutrition by simply drinking it, I would. Years ago, when I was young and stupid, over time I ate at most of the best restaurants in Los Angeles. To this day, I don't remember a single dish that stood out. I haven't wasted money on "fine dining" in years as it's just as tasteless to me as eating at McDonald's (which I never do because I almost never eat processed foods).

I must monitor my weight three times a week at the end of my workouts, because once I start losing even 3 pounds, it's a downward spiral of weight loss. A couple months ago I was sick for 3 weeks, lost 10 pounds, and it took 3 weeks of absolute force feeding to gain it back. Calories are meaningless to me, as I can eat 2 medium pizzas trying to gain weight and still lose 4 pounds overnight, which is what happened while trying to gain it back last month.

People say I'm lucky but they have no idea how oppressive it can be having to eat when you don't like it and don't want to.

Options,
That is certainly hard for almost anyone to relate with. But I believe you. My wife genuinely hates to eat as well. She is 'saved' by her exceptions of chocolate, ice cream, and queso.
It is tempting to say you are lucky but I'm sure that's not the case. Hating to eat is like hating to breathe. There's no getting around it.
Don't know how young you may be. If you are younger perhaps it's the type of thing that improves with age. What does your doctor say?
Muir


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[AllDone]

I've been logging all my and DW'S food that we eat for over 250 days now. When we started I believed a lot of stuff about "starvation mode", "bad foods/calories", and insulin sensitivity and a whole bunch of other woo that food bloggers like to promote. Now it's all science based for me; that means calories as an estimate of my bodies energy requirements, period! It's not always exactly correct but it's fairly repeatable.

Looking at the link the calculations produce numbers that are much higher than what I've been logging for maintaining or weight reduction than our numbers suggest. We'd be gaining 1- 2 pounds weekly with the numbers produced by the first two methods. So for us the estimates are 250-700 calories over what our bodies consumed daily. There's a number of estimators out there, we're using MyFitnessPal to log calories and nutrition. They have a default energy expended calculator that worked well for us.

Yep.

This question always results in people talking past one another. Weight loss really is calories in vs. calories out. There are a bunch of (good) studies that show that's true and that macronutrients or food categories don't matter for weight loss. That doesn't mean that some people won't feel less hunger on one diet than another or that some calories aren't associated with more nutritious foods than other calories or even that you have to count calories to achieve a caloric deficit for weight loss. However, to lose weight, you absolutely need to establish and maintain a deficit until you reach your target. It's equally true that if you lose weight on a given diet, you established a calorie deficit. Name a popular diet and I've talked to somebody who thinks it worked wonders for them.

Pop diets cycle in and out of favor. One particularly prominent pop diet book author has essentially recycled some ideas about weight and insulin that were considered in the 1970s and 1980s, tested, and discarded. He has invested a considerable amount of money (his and some billionaire sponsors) to prove his beliefs. However, it appears that he's not getting the results from his studies that he wanted and won't be publishing them.

Calorie counting in the form of Weight Watchers points is what finally worked for me.

 

[tinlizzy]

I was glad to see this topic. I have never been able to lose weight. I have weighed 135lbs (I'm 5'4") give or take a few pounds, since I was 15 - almost 35 yrs. I feel like my body burns or stores fat solely to keep me at that weight.

I was on vacation (doing nothing) three weeks ago and bought 3 medium bags of M&M's and ate them all that week - plus reg. meals. Didn't gain a pound! I've been dieting the last two weeks, 1200 cal/day, back to my strenuous job. Haven't lost a pound!

I feel like this is maybe my genetic weight?






Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[sengsational]

CICO is a poor model of reality. We don't all extract energy with the same efficiency. We all have different gut microbiota, and that's a huge factor. Dozens of studies on it. Heres one: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212877812000051

 

[Ronstar]

Finding the number of calories to eat has been difficult for me because of activity swings. So I really don't watch calories. I weighed as much as 210 pounds during the winters (little activity) and 190 lbs during the summers (lots of activity) prior to retiring 2 years ago. Since retiring, I've been more active, getting my weight down to 185 summer-190 winter. I've also been eating healthier since retiring.

I started running 3 months ago and I've dropped another 10 lbs. I'll probably start losing more during the summer when I'm active 10-12 hrs a day. I don't want to lose more than another 5 lbs. From the chart in the OP, I need 2800-3300 calories a day. I know I'm not getting that many calories, because I eat what DW fixes for herself. I think I'll start tracking calories, since I'm reading more and more how important it is to get the right kinds and amounts of food as fuel for the body.

 

[Dawg52]

For what ever reason, I always have 5-8 lbs to shed coming out of winter. Combination of inactivity and boredom I suppose. During the winter my junk food cravings increase. Time to flip the off switch on junk and get back to eating fruit for my sweet tooth. In the meantime...........

 

[dixonge]

CICO is a poor model of reality. We don't all extract energy with the same efficiency.

I'd say it is a very good model. It isn't 100% accurate (what in life *is*?) but it's the best working model available. There are many areas where it is difficult to get a firm grasp on the numbers: Calorie measurements, FDA regulations on labeling, food producer labeling accuracy, food intake estimation, energy expenditure estimation, gut flora health, genetics, etc. But the bottom line is that if you aren't losing weight, you just need to move more and eat less. If you continue to do so, you will eventually lose weight. Otherwise people could stop eating and not lose weight, or could eat 10,000 calories a day and not gain weight. Since that isn't possible, it proves the basic efficacy of CICO. Everything else from there is just working out what your body's numbers are.

 

[Bestwifeever]

CICO is a poor model of reality. We don't all extract energy with the same efficiency. We all have different gut microbiota, and that's a huge factor. Dozens of studies on it. Heres one: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212877812000051

That's it, I'm blaming any overweight on my gut microbiota from now on.

 

[razztazz]

but it's the best working model available.

That doesn't mean it's good. The best working model could still be crap. Just because it's all we have doesn't mean it's good enough.


It doesn't work for me but I am not a fta guy always trying to lose weight. 1500 cals per day would not even require exercise in a normal person (no endocrine problems etc) If I eat almost any amount of carbs, at 19000 cals per day and an hour of any exercise you wanna name the weight will not come off. On the other hand I can increase my calories substantially and reduce the exercise and watch the pounds (never more that 10 or so) come off.

And the willfully ignorant person who wrote that page about No it's the calories. Is sniffing glue. Just because he cheats doesn't mean other people cheat. I know how to keep track of my diet better than any worst case diabetic I have ever seen, and have done so for years. His theory is wrong.

As has been stated, not all calories are the same or have the same effect on a person and every person is different.

And it doesn't count to say "oh yeah! Well starve for 2 weeks and see how much weight you lose", 'cause that's just stupid and admitting defeat

 

[sengsational]

...you just need to move more and eat less.

It's that nagging "how" thing that keeps getting in the way.

No matter how much we think we are in control of what and how much we eat, that's more of an illusion than most of us think. Sure, in the short term, we can will ourselves to do about anything, but over the long-term, not so much. That's why diets that ignore satiety fail in the long run, and "move more eat less" is basically the same as saying "work-up an appetite", which is why it's not very helpful advice, imho.