Re: calories in/out [How much was she paid to WRITE THIS CARP??? HFCS]

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> We will never have the bicohem totally unravelled, so when we make a

> hypothesis based on biochem, it's imperfect knowledge, and it needs

> to be compared to the in vivo experimental data. Those experiments

> have been done -- Colpo cites something like 26 metabolic ward

> studies in Fat Loss Bible showing that calories-in calories-out

> controls weight loss and low-carb or high-carb makes no difference.

IIRC we had some discussions about these metabolic ward studies

a few months ago. Seems like I remember they pretty much were made

with individuals who were screened to have " normal " metabolic rates.

What about all those people who don't have " normal " metabolic rates?

I don't think we can safely assume the results will be the same for

everyone.

I have a worksheet in my dietary nutrition calculator that calculates

the Benedict Basic Metabolic Rate for given sex, age, and height.

Here's what I get for a 200 lb male, 72 inches (6 feet) tall,

assuming moderate exercise/sports 3-5 times a week:

Age - BMR (calories)

20 - 3,240

30 - 3,135

40 - 3,029

50 - 2,924

60 - 2,819

70 - 2,713

What if someone who is 40 has the BMR of someone who is 70 for

whatever reasons? If they ate the Benedict expected 3,029

calories for a 40 yo, they would have a 10% surplus in calories every

day and gain weight.

My point is that how can you really know what is the real BMR for any

individual? It would be interesting to see some metabolic ward

studies done with people who have hypothyroid.

[Guest guest]

,

> IIRC we had some discussions about these metabolic ward studies

> a few months ago. Seems like I remember they pretty much were made

> with individuals who were screened to have " normal " metabolic rates.

I don't recall that.

> What about all those people who don't have " normal " metabolic rates?

> I don't think we can safely assume the results will be the same for

> everyone.

Well no. If someone has a subnormal metabolic rate, hypothyroidism is

probably the first thing to check, and any dietary intervention that

resolves it will cause bodyfat loss regardless of calories.

> I have a worksheet in my dietary nutrition calculator that calculates

> the Benedict Basic Metabolic Rate for given sex, age, and height.

>

> Here's what I get for a 200 lb male, 72 inches (6 feet) tall,

> assuming moderate exercise/sports 3-5 times a week:

Well that's a suboptimal equation if you go by poundage instead of

lean body mass. Also, BMR shouldn't be taking activity into account.

This must be an equation for total daily energy expenditure. Colpo

gives two equations in FLB for BMR, the latter of which takes into

account fat mass and is superior to the former if you know your level

of bodyfat. Then a second formula to estimate total daily energy

expenditure based on physical activity. He says that he substantially

simplified the determination of total daily energy expenditure based

on reader feedback.

[snip]

> What if someone who is 40 has the BMR of someone who is 70 for

> whatever reasons? If they ate the Benedict expected 3,029

> calories for a 40 yo, they would have a 10% surplus in calories every

> day and gain weight.

>

> My point is that how can you really know what is the real BMR for any

> individual? It would be interesting to see some metabolic ward

> studies done with people who have hypothyroid.

You can't know exactly, but what does that have to do with whether

calories-in/calories-out is true? That just means some people have a

lower calories-out than one would predict based on the information you

took into account. They will still gain weight if eating more

calories than they expend and lose weight if eating less than they

expend.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> > IIRC we had some discussions about these metabolic ward

> > studies a few months ago. Seems like I remember they pretty much

> > were made with individuals who were screened to have " normal "

> > metabolic rates.

>

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> I don't recall that.

actually I think it was me who was speculating that the

metabolic ward studies were screened to have people with " normal " ,

more predictable, metabolic status. I'm not sure if that speculation

is true, but I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe you can answer that

question now that you've read Colpo's review of the studies.

Here's a piece of an earlier related thread:

/message/97710

Where you said:

> I haven't read Colpo's book yet, but his apparent position that " a

> calorie is a calorie " just doesn't make any sense from a biochemical

> perspective. I agree that the main determinant will be calories in

> versus calories expended (this, of course, HAS to be true), but the

> composition of what you eat affects not only your satiety, but also

> what your body does with those calories -- stores them or uses them.

Here's another piece of the thread:

/message/97743

> Well that's a suboptimal equation if you go by poundage instead of

> lean body mass. Also, BMR shouldn't be taking activity into

> account. This must be an equation for total daily energy

> expenditure.

Yes, after reading the definition of BMR, you are quite right

.... as usual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_rate

=============================================

Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the amount of energy expended while at

rest in a neutrally temperate environment, in the post-absorptive

state (meaning that the digestive system is inactive, which requires

about twelve hours of fasting in humans). The release of energy in

this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs,

such as the heart, lungs, brain and the rest of the nervous system,

liver, kidneys, sex organs, muscles and skin. BMR decreases with age

and with the loss of lean body mass. Increased muscle mass can

increase BMR. Aerobic fitness level, a product of cardiovascular

exercise, while previously thought to have effect on basal or resting

metabolic rate (RMR), has been shown in the 1990s not to correlate

with RMR, when fat-free body mass was adjusted for (see following

section " Aerobic vs. anaerobic exercise " for references). Illness,

previously consumed food and beverages, environmental temperature, and

stress levels can affect one's overall energy expenditure as well as

one's BMR.

=============================================

> > My point is that how can you really know what is the real BMR for

> > any individual? It would be interesting to see some metabolic

> > ward studies done with people who have hypothyroid.

>

> You can't know exactly, but what does that have to do with whether

> calories-in/calories-out is true? That just means some people have

> a lower calories-out than one would predict based on the information

> you took into account. They will still gain weight if eating more

> calories than they expend and lose weight if eating less than they

> expend.

What I meant was that the uncertainties in knowing the " calories out "

portion of the equation may be so large as to make it very difficult

to determine how much calorie intake is required for maintenance or

for weight loss. And these uncertainties could also easily obscure

effects of different macronutrient ratios on an isocaloric diet.

We can fairly accurately estimate the caloric intake if the amount of

food intake is monitored, although I'm guessing the uncertainty here

could be easily 10% when a large variety of real foods is involved.

However, the calorie out portion would involve tracking the amounts of

the food intake that are:

absorbed

not absorbed and excreted

absorbed but excreted without use

stored (in cell structures or as fat)

expended (burned for energy)

Did I leave anything out?

I expect that the uncertainties on this side of the equation are much

larger. How well can we predict that absorbed food energy will be

stored rather than excreted if it is not used for energy? For all

health situations?

I suspect that a variety of different health problems could affect

each of these " calories out " categories and in different ways for

different problems. I would also not be surprised if the weight loss

outcome of differing isocaloric macronutrient ratios might be affected

by a variety of health problems. Has this really been tested in

metabolic ward studies?

The wiki article on BMR cited above also says:

" From a basal metabolic or resting metabolic perspective, more energy

is needed to burn a saturated fatty acid than an unsaturated fatty acid. "

If this is true, then depending on how much difference is involved,

the simple assumption that all fat has 9 calories per gram may be off

a bit. I still have trouble believing that the amount of calories

determined by burning food in a calorimeter is always going to reflect

how that food is handled in the body in every health situation, even

if it is fully absorbed. I can see how it relates to food expended

for energy, but not how it relates to food that is stored or excreted

without being burned for energy.

[Guest guest]

> I still have trouble believing that the amount of calories

> determined by burning food in a calorimeter is always going to

reflect

> how that food is handled in the body in every health situation, even

> if it is fully absorbed. I can see how it relates to food expended

> for energy, but not how it relates to food that is stored or

excreted

> without being burned for energy.

>

>

My favorite study of problems on the burn side of the equation, just

because for once they are down at the cellular level, measuring

things:

" Normal mitochondria react to insulin by boosting production of an

energy-carrying molecule, ATP, by 90 percent. But the mitochondria

from the insulin-resistant people they tested only boosted ATP

production by 5 percent.

" These data demonstrate that insulin-stimulated rates of ATP

synthesis are reduced in the insulin-resistant offspring of parents

with Type 2 diabetes, " the researchers wrote in their report. Their

work offers new insight into the early steps in the development of

insulin resistance, and offers important clues to where the problem

lies.

Google " problems in the furnace ATP "

Connie

[Guest guest]

,

> actually I think it was me who was speculating that the

> metabolic ward studies were screened to have people with " normal " ,

> more predictable, metabolic status. I'm not sure if that speculation

> is true, but I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe you can answer that

> question now that you've read Colpo's review of the studies.

Ok, well I'd have to look at some of the studies. He doesn't say so,

but doesn't say otherwise.

> Here's a piece of an earlier related thread:

> /message/97710

>

> Where you said:

>> I haven't read Colpo's book yet, but his apparent position that " a

>> calorie is a calorie " just doesn't make any sense from a biochemical

>> perspective. I agree that the main determinant will be calories in

>> versus calories expended (this, of course, HAS to be true), but the

>> composition of what you eat affects not only your satiety, but also

>> what your body does with those calories -- stores them or uses them.

I've read the book now and am going to do a review on my web site. I

think Colpo more or less accounts for these things in his actual

position, with some minor caveats I'll discuss in my review.

> What I meant was that the uncertainties in knowing the " calories out "

> portion of the equation may be so large as to make it very difficult

> to determine how much calorie intake is required for maintenance or

> for weight loss.

I agree but the best approach is to, if you are not losing weight on

the estimated caloric intake, reduce it further by increments and/or

increase exercise by increments until weight loss commences.

> And these uncertainties could also easily obscure

> effects of different macronutrient ratios on an isocaloric diet.

The assumption by the metabolic advantage crowd is that if more weight

loss occurs on an isocaloric diet, BMR is being increased. In the

case of low-carb diets, this has been studied and shown to be false.

However, I still think it is possible that activity is increased on

low-carb diets.

> We can fairly accurately estimate the caloric intake if the amount of

> food intake is monitored, although I'm guessing the uncertainty here

> could be easily 10% when a large variety of real foods is involved.

> However, the calorie out portion would involve tracking the amounts of

> the food intake that are:

> absorbed

> not absorbed and excreted

> absorbed but excreted without use

I think these are all calorie-in parts of the equation.

> stored (in cell structures or as fat)

> expended (burned for energy)

I would call these calories-out, but I don't think you *necessarily*

need to measure either of these directly in order to conclude whether

everything matches up to calories-in minus calories-out = weight loss

or not. You can measure the BMR and keep reasonable track of activity

by keeping a log of deliberate exercise, wearing a pedometer, etc.

> Did I leave anything out?

>

> I expect that the uncertainties on this side of the equation are much

> larger. How well can we predict that absorbed food energy will be

> stored rather than excreted if it is not used for energy? For all

> health situations?

Excluding diabetes, you generally don't excrete energy molecules,

although ketones tend to leak into the urine somewhat because they are

small.

> I suspect that a variety of different health problems could affect

> each of these " calories out " categories and in different ways for

> different problems. I would also not be surprised if the weight loss

> outcome of differing isocaloric macronutrient ratios might be affected

> by a variety of health problems. Has this really been tested in

> metabolic ward studies?

I don't know, they probably use healthy people.

> The wiki article on BMR cited above also says:

> " From a basal metabolic or resting metabolic perspective, more energy

> is needed to burn a saturated fatty acid than an unsaturated fatty acid. "

>

> If this is true, then depending on how much difference is involved,

> the simple assumption that all fat has 9 calories per gram may be off

> a bit. I still have trouble believing that the amount of calories

> determined by burning food in a calorimeter is always going to reflect

> how that food is handled in the body in every health situation, even

> if it is fully absorbed. I can see how it relates to food expended

> for energy, but not how it relates to food that is stored or excreted

> without being burned for energy.

I'm not sure off the top of my head why that would be true. Burning

an unsaturated fatty acid requires extra biochemical reactions that

I'd think would take up more energy. But I don't think it is a major

issue. 9 calories/gm is probably a reasonable approximation, and I

don't think anyone thinks it is *exact.*

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> I agree but the best approach is to, if you are not losing weight on

> the estimated caloric intake, reduce it further by increments and/or

> increase exercise by increments until weight loss commences.

I think you're right about incrementally adjusting diet and/or

exercise to lose weight (when you want to lose weight). It doesn't

take much of a deficit to lose 10 or 20 pounds over a year or two.

However, lowering the calories can be a challenge if it leaves you

hungry. I had that problem big-time when I tried to do a low-fat diet

many years ago. So, I think ultimately, satiety with an ideal calorie

intake for the individual level of exercise and metabolism is the real

key. If we eat foods that don't provide satiety at the ideal calorie

level, then we will over-eat and gain weight.

I suspect that some processed foods may have ingredients that turn off

the proper signals for satiety and cause people to over-eat and that

eventually leads to obesity. For me, sugar is definitely one of those

foods that causes me to over-eat. Exactly how, I'm not sure, though I

suspect it has something to do with the blood sugar rush high (which

can be addicting for many people) and subsequent insulin spike

followed by a blood sugar low that fairly quickly stimulates hunger

again. Maybe the blood sugar rush tends to delay satiety and/or the

blood sugar low stimulates appetite too quickly so you eat too much

and/or more often. Others have mentioned MSG, although I don't eat

out enough to get much, so I'm not sure how it affects me.

[Guest guest]

> The assumption by the metabolic advantage

> crowd is that if more weight

> loss occurs on an isocaloric diet, BMR is being increased. In the

> case of low-carb diets, this has been studied and shown to be false.

> However, I still think it is possible that activity is increased on

> low-carb diets.

Although one of the outcomes of the Stephanson study was that the two

people who lived low carb for a year, increased their BMR. I thought

that was mildly interesting.

In practical use, the calorie-counting approach is so flawed for some

of us that those of us for whom the numbers were not designed, have

to come up with our own income-and-outgo strategy anyway. Not only

are there flaws with the BMR and TDEE equations for insulin resistant

middle-aged women, so many of the lists of " 30 minutes of walking

will spend X calories " were done with college age males with no

metabolic syndrome.

In other words, yes, weight change will be the difference between

food intake and metabolic expenditure, but if formulas like they use

in Fitday don't match personal experience, people don't think to

blame the formulas first, assuming they were done with the same wide

range of people to derive the formulas, as the wide range of people

who are using them.

Tom Venuto mentions a client he had once in " Burn the Fat, Feed the

Muscle " who showed no fat loss, despite the numbers that should have

said differently, and he believed her reporting, for 2 or more

months - he speculated it was something about her personal history of

eating disorder that meant she was unable to burn properly for a

while.

Connie

[Guest guest]

> I think you're right about incrementally adjusting diet and/or

> exercise to lose weight (when you want to lose weight). It doesn't

> take much of a deficit to lose 10 or 20 pounds over a year or two.

Man, I don't. Thousands of women try that every year. They reduce

calories and increase cardio, and then wonder why nothing is

happening. That's why people like Colpo have to write books to splain

it - if it was that obvious there would be more successful people.

[Guest guest]

,

> I think you're right about incrementally adjusting diet and/or

> exercise to lose weight (when you want to lose weight). It doesn't

> take much of a deficit to lose 10 or 20 pounds over a year or two.

> However, lowering the calories can be a challenge if it leaves you

> hungry. I had that problem big-time when I tried to do a low-fat diet

> many years ago. So, I think ultimately, satiety with an ideal calorie

> intake for the individual level of exercise and metabolism is the real

> key. If we eat foods that don't provide satiety at the ideal calorie

> level, then we will over-eat and gain weight.

I think the fact that you tried to eat a low-fat diet while

restricting calories is key. People who eat low-carb diets often

spontaneously restrict calories because they are much more satiating.

I think the " ideal " caloric intake would be the maintenance level. If

you want appreciable weight loss, you want to go at least a few

hundred calories under this. You'd need to watch your food intake,

but shouldn't feel like your starving. I think playing with the level

of fat and the level of bulk should produce maximal satiety -- eating

things with more fiber, more water, and more fat should all help.

Fiber and water doesn't provide calories, but they can't entirely

replace fat for satiety, so adding fat is necessary, but if one needs

to restrict calories even more, one might need to add more fiber- and

water-rich foods on top of it.

> I suspect that some processed foods may have ingredients that turn off

> the proper signals for satiety and cause people to over-eat and that

> eventually leads to obesity. For me, sugar is definitely one of those

> foods that causes me to over-eat. Exactly how, I'm not sure, though I

> suspect it has something to do with the blood sugar rush high (which

> can be addicting for many people) and subsequent insulin spike

> followed by a blood sugar low that fairly quickly stimulates hunger

> again. Maybe the blood sugar rush tends to delay satiety and/or the

> blood sugar low stimulates appetite too quickly so you eat too much

> and/or more often. Others have mentioned MSG, although I don't eat

> out enough to get much, so I'm not sure how it affects me.

Those might be factors, but I think one key thing is that sugar

provides calories with no volume and little satiety value. For

example if you look at low-fat yogurt and full-fat yogurt, the low-fat

yogurt has a lot more calories in the same 8 oz due to a higher carb

content and has less satiety value. If you get a flavored kind, it

packs even more sugar into the same 8 oz but since the fat content and

the volume is the same, it's extra calories with virtually no extra

satiety value. Perhaps most importantly, the perception is that

you've eaten the same amount of food. If you eat 8 oz of one, it

doesn't feel like you've eaten any more or less food than 8 oz of

another, even though the one with sugar has more calories.

If you drink drinks with sugar in them, they have virtually no satiety

value and no " perception of food " value.

So sugar is an easy way to sneak in extra calories.

Fat isn't, because even when you aren't increasing volume, you are

slowing gastric emptying and increasing satiety signals.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> Although one of the outcomes of the Stephanson study was that the two

> people who lived low carb for a year, increased their BMR. I thought

> that was mildly interesting.

I don't know what study you're referring to.

> In practical use, the calorie-counting approach is so flawed for some

> of us that those of us for whom the numbers were not designed, have

> to come up with our own income-and-outgo strategy anyway. Not only

> are there flaws with the BMR and TDEE equations for insulin resistant

> middle-aged women, so many of the lists of " 30 minutes of walking

> will spend X calories " were done with college age males with no

> metabolic syndrome.

>

> In other words, yes, weight change will be the difference between

> food intake and metabolic expenditure, but if formulas like they use

> in Fitday don't match personal experience, people don't think to

> blame the formulas first, assuming they were done with the same wide

> range of people to derive the formulas, as the wide range of people

> who are using them.

>

> Tom Venuto mentions a client he had once in " Burn the Fat, Feed the

> Muscle " who showed no fat loss, despite the numbers that should have

> said differently, and he believed her reporting, for 2 or more

> months - he speculated it was something about her personal history of

> eating disorder that meant she was unable to burn properly for a

> while.

Well these formulas are just estimates and a lot of the formulas are

better or poorer than others. And a guarantee of weight loss is not a

guarantee of fat loss. Dietary composition determines the composition

of weight loss.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> > I think you're right about incrementally adjusting diet

> > and/or exercise to lose weight (when you want to lose weight). It

> > doesn't take much of a deficit to lose 10 or 20 pounds over a year

> > or two.

>

--- Connie <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> Man, I don't. Thousands of women try that every year. They reduce

> calories and increase cardio, and then wonder why nothing is

> happening. That's why people like Colpo have to write books to

> splain it - if it was that obvious there would be more successful

> people.

Connie, I'm sure you've heard the theory that if you reduce calories

too much, the body goes into " starvation mode " and conserves energy, I

guess effectively lowering the BMR. If that's true, it might explain

at least part of what you're describing.

I'm sure you also know that in theory, dropping just 100 calories per

day below a maintenance diet should cause one pound of weight loss

about every 36 days, or about 10 pounds a year. That's 50 pounds in

five years. Although, as weight decreases, the number of maintenance

calories also decreases, so you might have to drop another 100

calories each year to keep up the long-term weight loss.

The big difficulty is figuring out what that maintenance calorie

intake is. If you try to drop too much too fast, you may go into

" starvation mode " . I'd guess that makes you feel more tired than

normal since your body is conserving energy, which is also not good.

It's also difficult to make sure you've got that 100 calorie deficit

every day. Gaining weight is so easy and losing so hard

That's my biggest problem lately as I think I have deficits on some

days but overages on others, so I net nothing. My weight crept up

about 5 or 6 pounds last year after initially losing about 30 pounds

over the year or two before that. My weight has been pretty stable

this year so far. I still want to drop 20 pounds from my present

weight, however, from 220 to 200 pounds.

[Guest guest]

On 6/15/08, cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

>> I think you're right about incrementally adjusting diet and/or

>> exercise to lose weight (when you want to lose weight). It doesn't

>> take much of a deficit to lose 10 or 20 pounds over a year or two.

> Man, I don't. Thousands of women try that every year. They reduce

> calories and increase cardio, and then wonder why nothing is

> happening. That's why people like Colpo have to write books to splain

> it - if it was that obvious there would be more successful people.

Right, most people would do it wrong. The most common mistake is to

go from a big caloric excess to a small caloric excess, which will

only cause you to gain weight slower and not to lose weight.

Underestimating your food intake is another problem. Etc. Also,

losing 10-20 pounds a year is too slow to keep up any motivation or

vigilance. You should be able to lose 1-2 lbs/week. It should not

take more than 2.5 months to lose 10 lbs.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Okay, I've been curious about this calories in/calories out thing since

getting pregnant.

I'm eating roughly the same amount of calories as I did pre-pregnancy, yet

I'm gaining weight, sometimes at an astonishing rate for how much (or shall

I say how little) food I'm putting in. My activity level has not changed

significantly.

How does this work? Does it have something to do with the hormone changes

in pregnancy making my metabolism more efficient?

-Lana

[Guest guest]

Lana,

> I'm eating roughly the same amount of calories as I did pre-pregnancy, yet

> I'm gaining weight, sometimes at an astonishing rate for how much (or shall

> I say how little) food I'm putting in. My activity level has not changed

> significantly.

>

> How does this work? Does it have something to do with the hormone changes

> in pregnancy making my metabolism more efficient?

Pregnant women tend to go in and out of ketosis, and according to in

vitro evidence, ketones make the electron transport chain more

efficient, i.e more ATP gets made with less reducing power,

effectively expanding the caloric value of your food. Of course it's

also possible that you're eating more than you think you are, isn't

it?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> Pregnant women tend to go in and out of ketosis, and according to in

> vitro evidence, ketones make the electron transport chain more

> efficient, i.e more ATP gets made with less reducing power,

> effectively expanding the caloric value of your food. Of course it's

> also possible that you're eating more than you think you are, isn't

> it?

>

> Chris

>

Interesting - but it definitely doesn't feel like when I eat low carb... (I

feel miserable when low carb).

It certainly is possible that I'm eating more than I think, but I honestly

think it is impossible that I'm getting the whole supposed 3500 excess

calories per pound gained. I've gained 35 lbs and I'm 35 weeks along. I

didn't really gain anything until I was at least 8 weeks - which figures out

to be roughly 648 extra calories per day. By my best estimate I'm getting

at most 200 extra calories per day and not anywhere near consistently.

There have even been a few days I have ended up nearly fasting (outside of

my normal milk intake - about a half gallon a day), simply because my body

didn't want much - and I still had 3 lb gains on those days.

My best guess is either there's something severely wrong with the 3500

calories per pound figure, or there's something the hormones are doing

extra.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

> It should not

> take more than 2.5 months to lose 10 lbs.

>

> Chris

I subscribe to Lyle Mc's blog and recently he wrote that a small

woman doing everything right could still only lose 1/2 pound a week.

Which makes sense to me because fat burning is proportional to LBM.

[Guest guest]

Lana,

> It certainly is possible that I'm eating more than I think, but I honestly

> think it is impossible that I'm getting the whole supposed 3500 excess

> calories per pound gained. I've gained 35 lbs and I'm 35 weeks along. I

> didn't really gain anything until I was at least 8 weeks - which figures out

> to be roughly 648 extra calories per day. By my best estimate I'm getting

> at most 200 extra calories per day and not anywhere near consistently.

> There have even been a few days I have ended up nearly fasting (outside of

> my normal milk intake - about a half gallon a day), simply because my body

> didn't want much - and I still had 3 lb gains on those days.

>

> My best guess is either there's something severely wrong with the 3500

> calories per pound figure, or there's something the hormones are doing

> extra.

Are you assuming that all the weight you gain is fat? You're gaining

a massive amount of water in a number of areas, including a huge

increase in blood volume, a growing fetus who is, like you, mostly

water, and the amniotic fluid. The little boy or girl inside you

probably has more of other important tissues like bone and muscle than

she or he has fat, etc.

So I think you should be gaining about a reserve of about 3800 kcal

for a pound of fat, but I think fat is probably a minor component of

your weight gain.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Ahhh! I hadn't realized that figure was for fat!! Duh! Water, bone and

muscle must weigh less, eh? No wonder it is easier for me to gain while

pregnant than when not!

They tell me she's a girl - but you know how that goes...

-Lana

> Are you assuming that all the weight you gain is fat? You're gaining

> a massive amount of water in a number of areas, including a huge

> increase in blood volume, a growing fetus who is, like you, mostly

> water, and the amniotic fluid. The little boy or girl inside you

> probably has more of other important tissues like bone and muscle than

> she or he has fat, etc.

>

> So I think you should be gaining about a reserve of about 3800 kcal

> for a pound of fat, but I think fat is probably a minor component of

> your weight gain.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> I subscribe to Lyle Mc's blog and recently he wrote that a small

> woman doing everything right could still only lose 1/2 pound a week.

> Which makes sense to me because fat burning is proportional to LBM.

Fat burning is proportional to your caloric deficit, not your lean

body mass. The other influences are your anabolic and catabolic

hormones that determine lean body mass loss -- if don't have the

proper hormonal profile, you can lose lean mass instead of fat.

Maintaining a high protein intake and the right exercise regime can

minimize, eliminate, or even reverse the lean mass loss and shift most

of or the entire balance of the caloric deficit towards fat-burning.

Also avoiding too large of a caloric deficit can be of use, but a

pound a week should not be too large to avoid lean body mass loss,

especially if these other factors are optimized.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 6/15/08, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> Ahhh! I hadn't realized that figure was for fat!! Duh! Water, bone and

> muscle must weigh less, eh? No wonder it is easier for me to gain while

> pregnant than when not!

I think muscle weighs more per volume, but they carry a lower caloric

density. And water doesn't pack any calories at all. So you don't

need an iota (please, pronounce it yo-dta!) of caloric excess to gain

water weight.

> They tell me she's a girl - but you know how that goes...

Congrats either way!

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Fat burning is proportional to your caloric deficit, not your lean

> body mass.

Perhaps just a difference in perspective.

Metabolism consumes the " calories burned, " and that includes muscles

and hormones and the circulatory system. Bones, connective tissue, and

water? not so much.

You think a 200 pound male with 16% bf, will lose at the same rate as a

200 pound female with 45% bf, given equal cal deficit? No, " oh but not

if the female goes below BMR " or " only until they don't hit starvation

mode " or any other qualifier?

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> You think a 200 pound male with 16% bf, will lose at the same rate as a

> 200 pound female with 45% bf, given equal cal deficit? No, " oh but not

> if the female goes below BMR " or " only until they don't hit starvation

> mode " or any other qualifier?

Absolutely... is there any evidence to the contrary?

Say they each consume 600 calories less than their accurately

calculated total daily energy expenditure. What would make one lose

more weight than the other?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Connie,

>

> > You think a 200 pound male with 16% bf, will lose at the same

rate as a

> > 200 pound female with 45% bf, given equal cal deficit? No, " oh

but not

> > if the female goes below BMR " or " only until they don't hit

starvation

> > mode " or any other qualifier?

>

> Absolutely... is there any evidence to the contrary?

>

> Say they each consume 600 calories less than their accurately

> calculated total daily energy expenditure. What would make one lose

> more weight than the other?

>

> Chris

- estrogen situation

- if the 600 calorie difference puts the woman below 1000 cals per day

- I can guess in advance what you will think about this kind of

evidence - there has never been a female Biggest Loser.

- This trial looked at equal calorie deficits from exercise only, per

week, while having men and women follow ad libitum food. " The

Midwest Exercise Trial led by ph E. Donnelly, EdD put men and

women on a 16 month-long, intensive exercise regimen (at 60 to 75% of

their maximum heart rate, to burn about 2,000 kcal per week). While

men lost about 5 kg and 3.7% body fat, women gained 0.6 kg of body

weight while losing a mere 0.2 kg body fat. It makes for some rather

interesting math, noted Gaesser. The women each burned about 138,000

total kcal during those 69 weeks, or about 313,636 kcal per pound of

fat!

It sort of flies in the face of that simplistic myth -- " burn 3,500

kcalories and lose a pound " -- doesn't it?

" At about 80 kcal/mile for a 77 kg person walking at a reasonable

speed (3 to 4 mph), " said Gaesser, the calories expended in this

study " work out to roughly 3,920 miles per pound, equivalent to

walking from New York City to Seattle, and then down to San

Diego & #65533;for one pound of fat [lost]! "

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/11/1343?

maxtoshow= & HITS=10 & hits=10 & RESULTFORMAT= & author1=donnelly & searchid=106

8209562860_338 & stored_search= & FIRSTINDEX=0 & fdate=1/1/2003 & journalcode=

archinte

[Guest guest]

Connie,

>> Say they each consume 600 calories less than their accurately

>> calculated total daily energy expenditure. What would make one lose

>> more weight than the other?

> - estrogen situation

This needs more explanation for me to understand it.

> - if the 600 calorie difference puts the woman below 1000 cals per day

Also needs more explanation.

> - I can guess in advance what you will think about this kind of

> evidence - there has never been a female Biggest Loser.

I have no idea what that means.

> - This trial looked at equal calorie deficits from exercise only, per

> week, while having men and women follow ad libitum food. " The

> Midwest Exercise Trial led by ph E. Donnelly, EdD put men and

> women on a 16 month-long, intensive exercise regimen (at 60 to 75% of

> their maximum heart rate, to burn about 2,000 kcal per week). While

> men lost about 5 kg and 3.7% body fat, women gained 0.6 kg of body

> weight while losing a mere 0.2 kg body fat. It makes for some rather

> interesting math, noted Gaesser. The women each burned about 138,000

> total kcal during those 69 weeks, or about 313,636 kcal per pound of

> fat!

I don't understand this evidence as relates to what I stated. I don't

see where they measured or even estimated the caloric deficit of

either group.

> It sort of flies in the face of that simplistic myth -- " burn 3,500

> kcalories and lose a pound " -- doesn't it?

No, and obviously this is totally misstated. A 3800-kcal deficit

should result in a pound of fat lost, assuming no lean body mass is

lost, but obviously merely burning 3800 (or 3500) calories for most

people will not necessarily result in any weight loss at all, since

most people consume an excess of calories, often larger than 3500

kcal/week.

> " At about 80 kcal/mile for a 77 kg person walking at a reasonable

> speed (3 to 4 mph), " said Gaesser, the calories expended in this

> study " work out to roughly 3,920 miles per pound, equivalent to

> walking from New York City to Seattle, and then down to San

> Diego & #65533;for one pound of fat [lost]! "

He is awfully heavy on the totally meaningless commentary -- what was

their caloric deficit?

> http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/11/1343?

maxtoshow= & HITS=10 & hits=10 & RESULTFORMAT= & author1=donnelly & searchid=1068209562860\

_338 & stored_search= & FIRSTINDEX=0 & fdate=1/1/2003 & journalcode=archinte

So the control women gained weight, because they were eating a caloric

excess. The abstract gives no indication they even measured food

intake, let alone resting metabolism, other forms of energy

expenditure, etc, or in any way attempted to estimate the caloric

deficit induced by the exercise program. The women lost 0.2 kg of fat

mass instead of gaining 2.1 kg fat mass like the control group, which

clearly suggests the lack of efficacy was due to the failure to induce

a caloric deficit of any significance among women already consuming a

caloric surplus.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> The women lost 0.2 kg of fat

> mass instead of gaining 2.1 kg fat mass like the control group, which

> clearly suggests the lack of efficacy was due to the failure to induce

> a caloric deficit of any significance among women already consuming a

> caloric surplus.

>

> Chris

No comment on the differences demonstrated between men and women with

the same exercise?