All science seems to suggest that you can lose weight by counting calories, but that it's not the only or even most important factor. Let me qualify. I hate the Eating for Life cookbook because although many things are "authorized", most are not best options. Better, more clean options will yield better results. What's the factor? Well...in most cases, calories.
That being said, you can manipulate how your body uses those units of energy.
I know what it says in the book, but you are over simplifying. I don't disagree that at the end of the day, what matters is those units of energy. What I'm saying is that to make it sound like only the number of calories is wrong and has been proven as such. It matters when you take them in and in what amount and in what combination.
The 3500 calorie per pound had been accepted for a long time and is now being heavily debated.
You missed my point. We are not disagreeing as much as you would think. I'm not saying you can or can't gain a pound of fat in a day. I'm saying you can do things that make your body more or less efficient, that would have the same effect.
I would agree you really can't make yourself gain 4 pounds of fat during free day, but you can ruin good progress with your body and cause it to be far less efficient.
I'm at work and trying to type fast and make so many mistakes! Sorry
Live life with passion!
As said Jessica,
BFL "manipules" how the body uses the energy to maximize calories out while keeping constant calories in. It is still calories out vs calories in
Yes, I suppose technically it's calories in calories out (kinda), but it's harmful to over simplify like that. It can be inferred when someone says "calories in calories out" that it's all about the number of calories you eat and that would be wrong. So... all the factors impact the calories out so at the end of the day I suppose about calories in / calories out, but again, the inference is wrong. I'm at about 1250 calories per day. That's my best guess. What I eat in those 1250 absolutely matters and can have a drastic impact on fat release, production or stagnation.
A diesel engine can run on water for a while before it breaks down. Cals in vs cals out does work but BFL is about eating nutrient dense foods. Free days can set us back in fat loss but the scale weight is mainly digesting food and water retention. Do not fear free day but also to go out on an all day food benge.
“"Success is the sum of small efforts, repeated day in and day out..." - Robert J. Collier”
"Manipulates" means: how you take the calories, when you take the calories, how oyu use the calories, when you use the calories etc etc. But in the end it is in vs. out to lose weight. Now you can count calories all you want and lose lost of weight but you will not gain an ounce of muscle and probably lose muscle if you do not workout. That's for sure.
You are making 1 point while trying to make another. If you consider all factors to include food intake and all the variable with that, exercise, physiology, etc then yes, it's ultimately calories in calories out, as defined by units of energy. I have a lot of muscle. I naturally burn more calories and have a faster metabolism, so yes, the science still works.
The point you are accidentally continuing to try and make is that it's about physical calories in and that's only 1 of many variables. If that were true, there would be no need for BFL and WW would work, which it ultimately doesn't.
I agree Jessica and Brian,
The quality of food does matter and free day is not a day to "go all out"
No no Jessica. I am talking about all the calories going to all the places that they must.
Calories in are basically everything we eat.
Calories out is: all calories we burn due to metabolism and/or exercise, all the calories we lose becuase of body excretion.
Then I guess there is a third group calories that stay in the body: as stored energy body --> FAT (mostly), as new tissue (muscle included) etc etc. I guess this could belong to calories pout group or be its own group.
The fact is that to store a pound of fat you need 3500 calories (or so, I would say that the scientific community would not disagree on this one when talking at our level of knowledge).
Yes, I believe we agree.
Alcohol holds up the metabolism for as much as 3 days. That's why bodybuilders usually won't drink, but would have a cheeseburger on their free day. Assuming by some odd coincidence that a burger is the same calories precisely as a drink, it would still be different.
I think what you are saying (and we would agree) is that calories out in this case would take into account that the metabolism is held up and therefore the calories out would be less for the alcohol.
When most people use the expression "calories in, calories out" they are saying it to mean the burger and drink, being the same caloric value are equal.
You are saying it's not because the body processes differently, therefore making it different for the calories out. Yes?
On that we would agree fully.
Yes. That's the law of conservation of energy.
But I have to add that "calories in vs calories out" as most people say it still work on average. And you can definetly lose weight by counting calories and limiting your intake.
MyDecade, Yes that is a good rule of thumb to estimate but I agree with Jessica in that the number is not set and varies per person just as how RDAs use 2000 cals as an average person.
The bottom line is that the "rule of thumb" works. I've seen it work. To lose weight. The problem with this is that you lose muscle weight AND fat weight.
That's why I love BFL. It makes more sense to me.
Agreed and Agreed! I halted my muscle loss when I switched to doing BFL. I lost 10 lbs of LBM the year and a half before I found BFL.
Yay muscle mass! Skinny fat is not fun...
Agree 100% Bryan! Muscle is hte way to go even if you do not want to get to look as a body builder (which is my case - I want lean and definition but not huge! No way!) :)
© Abbott Laboratories,2013