Calories in VS Calories out ??? - AnabolicMinds.com

Calories in VS Calories out ???

  1. New Member
    mmacrazy's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  182 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Age
    35
    Posts
    490
    Rep Power
    1148

    Reputation

    Calories in VS Calories out ???


    Ok so this may sound confusing but try and humor me if you will be so kind.

    Lets say we have 2 people. Both are trying to lose weight on a calorie restricted diet. For sake of simplicity we will use nice rounded numbers. Person A will be sedentary, person B will be exercising.

    Person A burns the same calories when sedentary as person b does which is 2000 a day, so to lose a pound a week he needs to be in a 500 calorie restriction making his intake at 1500 daily.

    Person B also burns 2000 calories and is on a 500 calorie restricted diet.

    Now the question is because B is working out doing cardio 3 days a week and weight training 3 days a week and burning lets say 500 calories per workout should B eat more calories than A or should they both eat 1500 a day just B will lose the weight faster and be more toned?

    Of course due to working out person B will be burning more than 2000 a day anyway due to the faster bmr, but thats delving a little deeper.

    Appreciate any input on this. Thanks.

  2. The Female Terminator
    Rosie Chee's Avatar
    Stats
    5'1"  122 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    16,156
    Rep Power
    193998

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by mmacrazy View Post
    Ok so this may sound confusing but try and humor me if you will be so kind.

    Lets say we have 2 people. Both are trying to lose weight on a calorie restricted diet. For sake of simplicity we will use nice rounded numbers. Person A will be sedentary, person B will be exercising.

    Person A burns the same calories when sedentary as person b does which is 2000 a day, so to lose a pound a week he needs to be in a 500 calorie restriction making his intake at 1500 daily.

    Person B also burns 2000 calories and is on a 500 calorie restricted diet.

    Now the question is because B is working out doing cardio 3 days a week and weight training 3 days a week and burning lets say 500 calories per workout should B eat more calories than A or should they both eat 1500 a day just B will lose the weight faster and be more toned?

    Of course due to working out person B will be burning more than 2000 a day anyway due to the faster bmr, but thats delving a little deeper.

    Appreciate any input on this. Thanks.
    There is no way that the sedentary individual is going to burn more calories daily than the active individual - unless they are extremely fat and need the calories to maintain their mass, or they are extremely muscular and are only sedentary because they cannot exercise for reasons like injury, etc.

    If the two individuals are the same sex, age, body mass, and height, they are automatically going to have DIFFERENT Maintenance caloric intakes, because activity level plays an important role in the calculation of Maintenance.

    Regardless, the individual who is actively exercising is going to be able to eat more, and will see better results re fat loss than the sedentary individual who is dieting only.

    In saying all that, weight and fat loss is not as simple as calories in versus calories out. So many other factors play a role, including but not limited to age, sex, body mass, height, activity level, etc.
    Contact Me for INDIVIDUALIZED TRAINING AND NUTRITION

    "Think like a Champion. Train like a Warrior. Live with a Purpose." - Rosie Chee
  3. Advanced Member
    russy_russ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    911
    Rep Power
    643

    Reputation

    For simplicity, if person b burns 2,000kcals after exercising and takes in 1,500kcal daily and person a burns 2,000kcals with a sedentary lifestyle and also takes in 1,500kcal daily, then person b's metabolism will increase with exercise.

    Cardiovascular/respiratory training will induce biochemical adaptations to muscle fibers. These adaptations (increase: mitochondria, capillary beds, myoglobin, etc) primarily occur in type I fibers, but can be seen in type IIa fibers with this type of training. The increase in mitochondria will increase mitochondrial oxidation to aid in lipid metabolism. *Note: some biochemical adaptations can be limited by high intensity.

    Resistance training will induce biochemical adaptations primarily to type II fibers. These adaptations (increase: contractile proteins, sarcoplasmic volume-glycogen, phosphocreatine). Carbohydrate metabolism will increase due to resistance training. Although, with the caloric deficit, increases in muscle mass will be minimal.

    *Side note: during recovery at rest energy needed for recovery of glycogen, phosphocreatine, ATP (which are minimal), and muscle adaptations will be provided primarily by lipids (recovery during exercise is replenished typically by other mechanisms). In other words, if you exercise at a high intensity and primarily use glycogen as a substrate for ATP synthesis, during recovery at rest lipids will provide the majority of the energy needed for recovery. So don't get caught up in type of substrate used for ATP synthesis during exercise, but the type of biochemical adaptations which suit your training goals. Simply put, it boils down to calories in vs calories out.
    •   
       

  4. New Member
    Wilderbeast's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  219.0 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    487
    Rep Power
    360

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosie Chee Scott View Post
    There is no way that the sedentary individual is going to burn more calories daily than the active individual - unless they are extremely fat and need the calories to maintain their mass, or they are extremely muscular and are only sedentary because they cannot exercise for reasons like injury, etc.

    If the two individuals are the same sex, age, body mass, and height, they are automatically going to have DIFFERENT Maintenance caloric intakes, because activity level plays an important role in the calculation of Maintenance.

    Regardless, the individual who is actively exercising is going to be able to eat more, and will see better results re fat loss than the sedentary individual who is dieting only.

    In saying all that, weight and fat loss is not as simple as calories in versus calories out. So many other factors play a role, including but not limited to age, sex, body mass, height, activity level, etc.


    I'm so glad that someone said this. So many people completely buy into the "calories in - calories out = change in weight (fat)."

    I cannot explain it as eloquently as Dr. Scott Connelly, but I'll give it a shot. You can google his explanations on insulin resistance where he refutes calories in vs calories out as well.

    Basically, from a scientific standpoint calories in - calories out = change in weight (fat) is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed and inherently innaccurate. First look at the equation and the units of measure involved with each variable:

    Calories in vs. calories out:

    Kcal (calories in) - Kcal (calories out) = Lbs. (change in weight/fat)

    Kcal - Kcal CANNOT = LBS.

    There are specific examples that he gives where calroies and activity level have been controlled variables, and change in weight in various test subjects still varied greatly. He also explained the bomb calorimeter method and its other inherent innacuracies. Basically he claims that insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity account for the majority of the deviations in how diet and exercise affect weight loss, as well as the only real methods to counteract them.

    BEAST
  5. Advanced Member
    russy_russ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    911
    Rep Power
    643

    Reputation

    It's been systematically proven that net weight of triglycerides equal to one pound requires an energy surplus or deficit to gain or lose that pound. Most reactions in the body require a source of energy (ATP). Foodstuffs are broken down and converted to ATP to supply the required energy. A calorie is a unit of energy. Therefore, the amount of triglycerides (molecules or weight) can be measured since it provides energy. This can be measured by various methods inside and outside of the body (e.g. Direct/indirect calorimetry, controlled lab experiment via combustion). Numerous studies suggest that one pound of triglycerides provides approximately 3,500kcal (metabolic costs factored in).
  6. New Member
    mmacrazy's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  182 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Age
    35
    Posts
    490
    Rep Power
    1148

    Reputation

    ok this sounds like it may be getting a little heated.
    I guess really what I was asking is that if I work out more should I be eating more food, or will it be safe to stay in the same calorie deficit without consuming more ?
    Reason I ask is because I do an hour of fasted cardio 5 to 6 times a week, and then train 3 to 4 times a week for 2 hours a each time. the problem is that the rest of the time I am mainly sitting on my laurels at my job and not moving around much.
  7. Advanced Member
    russy_russ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    911
    Rep Power
    643

    Reputation

    Generally speaking, you should calculate your basal metabolic rate then factor in caloric expenditure from physical activity and exercise since everyone is different. Once you know this you can figure out how many kcals you need to consume to elicit your desired training goals (e.g., weight loss-caloric deficit, muscle gain-caloric surplus) depending on how quickly you want to do this you can calculate how much of a deficit or surplus you need. Also consider that an extreme deficit will cause your body to adapt and slow your metabolism in simply terms.

    Based on current data I would suggest you eat more than 1,500kcal daily.
  8. Board Moderator
    Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,830
    Rep Power
    768795

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilderbeast View Post
    [/B]

    I'm so glad that someone said this. So many people completely buy into the "calories in - calories out = change in weight (fat)."

    I cannot explain it as eloquently as Dr. Scott Connelly, but I'll give it a shot. You can google his explanations on insulin resistance where he refutes calories in vs calories out as well.

    Basically, from a scientific standpoint calories in - calories out = change in weight (fat) is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed and inherently innaccurate. First look at the equation and the units of measure involved with each variable:

    Calories in vs. calories out:

    Kcal (calories in) - Kcal (calories out) = Lbs. (change in weight/fat)

    Kcal - Kcal CANNOT = LBS.

    There are specific examples that he gives where calroies and activity level have been controlled variables, and change in weight in various test subjects still varied greatly. He also explained the bomb calorimeter method and its other inherent innacuracies. Basically he claims that insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity account for the majority of the deviations in how diet and exercise affect weight loss, as well as the only real methods to counteract them.

    BEAST
    I think honestly though, the kcal in - kcal out = lbs does work. Its just that the how many kcal of difference it takes to either lose a pound of fat, or gain a pound of muscle varies greatly from individual to individual, and the 2 are not necessarily related (how much excess it takes to gain vs how much deficit it takes to lose). I can say that taking an individual whose diet is maintaining their mass and lowering their caloric intake enough - they lose weight. Taking an individual and increasing their caloric intake enough - they gain weight.

    Its true that the way kcal are measured is vaguely ridiculous, but there is still some correlation between that and real bioavailable energy in the foods. Not a perfect correlation though
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  9. The Female Terminator
    Rosie Chee's Avatar
    Stats
    5'1"  122 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    16,156
    Rep Power
    193998

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by mmacrazy View Post
    ok this sounds like it may be getting a little heated.
    I guess really what I was asking is that if I work out more should I be eating more food, or will it be safe to stay in the same calorie deficit without consuming more ?
    Reason I ask is because I do an hour of fasted cardio 5 to 6 times a week, and then train 3 to 4 times a week for 2 hours a each time. the problem is that the rest of the time I am mainly sitting on my laurels at my job and not moving around much.
    Your Maintenance takes into account your activity level, and therefore your training. If you stay in a caloric deficit from Maintenance, you will lose weight and fat.

    Personally, I think that an hour of fasted cardio 5-6 times a week and then training for two hours 3-4 times a week is UNnecessary. Two hours is a long time to train, unless you are an athlete or training for something specific that requires that amount of time - and certainly on top of the extra cardio.

    If you're trying to lose fat, then you can train a lot smarter and far more effectively than that, IMO.
    Contact Me for INDIVIDUALIZED TRAINING AND NUTRITION

    "Think like a Champion. Train like a Warrior. Live with a Purpose." - Rosie Chee
  10. Board Supporter
    Nitrox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Power
    802

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilderbeast View Post
    [/B]
    I'm so glad that someone said this. So many people completely buy into the "calories in - calories out = change in weight (fat)."

    Basically, from a scientific standpoint calories in - calories out = change in weight (fat) is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed and inherently innaccurate. First look at the equation and the units of measure involved with each variable:

    Calories in vs. calories out:
    Kcal (calories in) - Kcal (calories out) = Lbs. (change in weight/fat)
    Kcal - Kcal CANNOT = LBS.

    There are specific examples that he gives where calroies and activity level have been controlled variables, and change in weight in various test subjects still varied greatly. He also explained the bomb calorimeter method and its other inherent innacuracies. Basically he claims that insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity account for the majority of the deviations in how diet and exercise affect weight loss, as well as the only real methods to counteract them.

    BEAST
    Fundamentally flawed? Not in the least. It is based on the law of conservation of energy and also that mass ~ energy.

    As for accuracy, that is definitely open for discussion. Firstly, the body does have energy stores in both protein and fat and both can be broken down. So there are composition complications. Secondly, yes there is error in the experimental energy content of various foods as well as energy expenditure calculators are only estimates because of individual differences. These inacurracies do not mean that the theory is wrong. They merely mean that theoretical values are calculated to get a starting point and then adjusted after a couple weeks trial.

    While insulin considerations make for interesting discussion, they have little practical value because they are not readily quantifiable. When was the last time you have your insulin or sensitivity tested?
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. how low should your calories go!
    By crankchest in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 05:37 PM
  2. calories/calories from fat/ sugar alcohol
    By stfdkd37 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 06:48 PM
  3. Calories Burned vs calories taken
    By xaktsaroth in forum Bulking
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-24-2006, 10:01 AM
  4. T3 And Calories
    By supersoldier in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-15-2004, 12:57 PM
  5. Too Few Calories???
    By kraftkid in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-28-2004, 05:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in