PDA

View Full Version : Agree or Disagree?



Maki Riddington
04-02-2004, 09:28 AM
Dr Atkins says that calories do not matter. However the rule, "calories in vs calories out" states otherwise.

What do you say?

This is what I believe. Agree or disagree?

As for the calories in vs calories out rule, I believe that it is regulated by metabolism. In other words the relationship between energy expenditure and food intake is dependant on the body's metabolism and the signals it sends to the brain.

What this means is that even though you should in fact gain bodyfat when you eat more then you can expend, this does not always happen. This is due to the way the body metabolizes certain nutrients. Ultimately, if we eat too much it will end up being stored as fat.

ElPietro
04-02-2004, 09:35 AM
Yeah, I think the calories in/out only applies in a case where everything else remains equal. There are many things that can boost metabolism for periods of time, which means that magical line we always refer to as maintenance is always moving around somewhat. I'm sure that certain foods would also have impact on metabolism either boosting or stagnating, but that can probably get pretty complicated, especially when some foods may be catalysts, or synergists. Personally my head would explode, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I do think that most people can track calories and weight/bodyfat over time and come to a rough estimate on what works for them in shedding bodyfat though. Which in general will be based on a relatively specific macro ratio, and caloric total.

AllUp
04-02-2004, 10:04 AM
Dr Atkins says that calories do not matter. However the rule, "calories in vs calories out" states otherwise.

What do you say?

This is what I believe. Agree or disagree?

As for the calories in vs calories out rule, I believe that it is regulated by metabolism. In other words the relationship between energy expenditure and food intake is dependant on the body's metabolism and the signals it sends to the brain.

:thumbup:




What this means is that even though you should in fact gain bodyfat when you eat more then you can expend, this does not always happen. This is due to the way the body metabolizes certain nutrients. Ultimately, if we eat too much it will end up being stored as fat.
Yep. But wont that take a while?. One would imagine Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis would kick in eventually assuming there were somewhat frequent feeds daily, >as in food coming from good dietary sources(hopefully preventing insulin spikeage), eating every 2-2.5h.

But how long can your body do this before you start storing fat?. As one would imagine and you have stated, you would eventually have to start storing some of the cals as fat assuming surplus calories, right?.

galileo
04-02-2004, 10:19 AM
If we're talking about calories being used for other things, metabolism increases, or any other case discussed, it does not change the fact that those calories are being used.

When people argue about calories in vs. calories out, the people who are for this rule state thermodynamics rules everything and that you can't change physics. They are correct.

When people argue against calories in vs. calories out, they talk about changing circumstances with how calories are used and other metabolic phenomena. They are correct.

In the end, there is no argument. You eat X calories and you burn Y calories you end up with X - Y at the end of the day. The way you eat could affect Y to a varied degree, but X - Y still applies.

So both sides are correct, they're just looking at the argument from different perspectives.

Note: Atkins' use of "calories do not matter" is ridiculous, in my opinion. He's relying on people regulating themselves because they are ingesting foods that cause less of a hunger response. The reason most people are obese is because they can't control themselves when it comes to food. If you eat more than you burn on a ketogenic diet, you'll put on weight. Nothing magic about that.

AllUp
04-02-2004, 10:37 AM
Note:He's relying on people regulating themselves because they are ingesting foods that cause less of a hunger response.
:thumbup: The Atkins answer summed up in 1 sentence. :)

DoUgL@S
04-02-2004, 11:57 AM
I second Allup. Restricting carbs and eating more fats keeps you fuller, you do not eat as much, hence you loose weight. But the Atkins people skirt around the issue. Here is a quote directly from the Atkins people,

"There is no need to count calories. Gaining weight results from taking in more calories than you expend through exercise, thermogenesis (the body’s own heat production) and other metabolic functions. Research has shown that on a controlled carbohydrate program, more calories are burned than on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, so there is a certain metabolic advantage to the controlled carb approach. But understand that this does not give you a license to gorge.
If you are used to counting calories and it makes you uneasy to not do so, know that women usually can safely consume 1,800 calories a day and still lose weight; men can typically take in 2,000 calories, and in some cases more.

Sincerely,
Melanie*Hand
Customer Support
Atkins*Nutritionals, Inc.
1-800-6-Atkins"

No license to gorge?! DOH! I thought we could eat as much as we wanted.If I was taking in 2000 calories I would be very calorie restricted.
Cals in <<Cals out. Just my $0.02.

Ebu
04-02-2004, 02:54 PM
Atkins is dumb. Money making scheme if you ask me. Remember the "Fat Free" era a couple years ago? Yeah, that's come and gone...

JustinASU
04-02-2004, 05:16 PM
Atkins is smelly

Mostly cause he's dead.

chris mason
04-02-2004, 06:33 PM
I am in the calories are calories camp. Now, different foods might satiete one better etc., but if you eat more than you burn you lose weight, and vice-versa. This is, of course, true over time. In the short term the body can adapt.

ogarchamplin
04-03-2004, 05:45 AM
To me if you eat
6000 calories a day all low carb and only burn 4000 calories a day guess what? YOU WILL GAIN WEIGHT

ectx
04-03-2004, 07:34 AM
My problem with the literal definition of this is simple. Like Gal said, thermodynamics says that we will only expend as many calories as we have to expend. The problem is that caloric expenditure is variable. This is where metabolic rates come in to play. Everybody's metabolism is different. While more activity and certain supplements will affect it, the bottom line is that running 3 miles for you will be different than running 3 miles for me. Chances are, our basal metabolic rates are different too....so the question one then has to ask is this... How many calories am I burning during a given activity. Aside from this, take into account caloric reserves, and the whole issue becomes very complicated. With that said, I don't think you can eat as much as you want (as Atkins suggests) because you will out-eat what you expend, however, what you expend is also governed by a variety of factors. and blah, I ramble.

DoUgL@S
04-03-2004, 08:41 AM
The reason Atkins works is because people end up eating less calories during the day than they were eating before and usually below what they expend. I think the reason the Atkins camp says you can eat all you want is because by limiting carbs and eating more satiating foods you will eat all you "want" and still be below maintenance.

ogarchamplin
04-03-2004, 09:54 AM
we touched on this very subject last week on this thread

http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=45221

galileo
04-03-2004, 11:05 AM
The reason Atkins works is because people end up eating less calories during the day than they were eating before and usually below what they expend. I think the reason the Atkins camp says you can eat all you want is because by limiting carbs and eating more satiating foods you will eat all you "want" and still be below maintenance.

Yes and we all know how well people regulate themselves with food.