How can I restrict my calories and still have enough energy to run and do my home work???

Care to share why?

curious? wrote:

LM wrote:

By and large eating too much food makes you fat. Energy balance is energy balance and you can't really get around that. If you eat 500 kcal/day less than you burn then you're going to lose about a pound a week.

What if decreasing your energy intake causes your body to respond by decreasing its energy output because, you know, your body is an intelligent system designed with the purpose of keeping itself alive despite the environment?

What is I said I agree with you about that?

My statement said eating 500 calories a day less than you're burning. I didn't say less than you burn whilst eating normally.

The body certainly will slow metabolism some in the face of severe caloric restriction, jury is still out to just how much and under what circumstances. Eating 3000 kcal/day while running 100mpw might be different than eating 1500 kcal/day while being largely sedentary.

Okee Run wrote:

Care to share why?

Because thermodynamics is thermodynamics. Calories are Calories. If you're eating less than you burn you will lose weight.

Now if you want to argue that eating all fat will alter metabolism and result in a lowered overall metabolism and the person eating fat coming out behind...I guess you could put an argument out for that.

You're post is also silly because you said both eat 2,500 calories and do the same exercise. You did not specify how much exercise. If they are both cycling 25 hours a week, both of them are going to lose serious weight. If they were both walking a mile a day they would both gain weight.

That's Great! Thanks for posting!

LM wrote:

Because thermodynamics is thermodynamics. Calories are Calories. If you're eating less than you burn you will lose weight.

This is the epitome of overly-simplistic thinking.

Go ask a bodybuilder why they "cut" going into a competition with 1000kcal a day of broccoli and chicken instead of 1000kcal a day of coca-cola given that coca-cola tastes so much nicer.

The answer is that coca-cola calorie restriction doesn't work. The reality of the relationship between endocrinology and behaviour is more complex than can be explained by attempting to implement a function limited solely to the variable "Calories".

Cancer has not been cured by noting that it is subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Excuse my harsh words but such a suggestion is simply retarded.

Things may be complex, but to first order, calories are the only thing that matters:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

If you want to lose weight, take in fewer calories than you're burning.

Curious? wrote:

LM wrote:

Because thermodynamics is thermodynamics. Calories are Calories. If you're eating less than you burn you will lose weight.

This is the epitome of overly-simplistic thinking.

Go ask a bodybuilder why they "cut" going into a competition with 1000kcal a day of broccoli and chicken instead of 1000kcal a day of coca-cola given that coca-cola tastes so much nicer.

The answer is that coca-cola calorie restriction doesn't work. The reality of the relationship between endocrinology and behaviour is more complex than can be explained by attempting to implement a function limited solely to the variable "Calories".

Cancer has not been cured by noting that it is subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Excuse my harsh words but such a suggestion is simply retarded.

I don't know about body building so I cannot comment there. If they really eat 1000kcal a day preparing for a comp and it doesn't work with soda, that suggests that under that diet metabolism goes down significantly. Not to mention if you did so with nothing but soda you'd run into serious problems since you would be getting no vitamins, minerals, protein or fat. Obviously a problem

When eating a more balanced diet with vegetables and protein the downregulation of metabolism is probably lessened, assuming there is a difference in weight loss between the two diets. What the mechanism is, I don't know. Probably various factors contributing to overall downregulation.

Excuse my ignorance, but why would thermodynamics be a fundamental problem for cancer?

gdm wrote:

Things may be complex, but to first order, calories are the only thing that matters:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

If you want to lose weight, take in fewer calories than you're burning.

I'm glad you linked that article again. It's useful to demonstrate three points.

1) The accepted intellectual capacity of a professor of nutrition when he states that "it turns out the laws of thermodynamics, which apply everywhere in the universe, also apply in humans" and thinks this is some kind of discovery.

2) The state of the field of nutrition when this conversation happens:

Professor 1, "Who shall we appoint as our institute's new professor of nutrition, who will impart his knowledge on our future generations?"

Professor 2, "How about that really fat guy with all the diet-related health problems?"

Professor 1, "Great idea! When can he start?"

3) The failure of critical thinking in an individual who sees improvement in all disease-related health markers - including the symptom: overweight - despite purportedly decreasing the nutritional quality of his diet severely and can't figure out that this is because he has reduced the dose of something in his diet that was disease-inducing; most probably all the bread and pasta that nutrition professors love to push on the population, but which mounting evidence is revealing is not well tolerated by caucasians.

LM wrote:

Excuse my ignorance, but why would thermodynamics be a fundamental problem for cancer?

Thanks for the response.

Please consider the statements below which will hopefully explain the point I am trying to make.

Cancer obeys the laws of thermodynamics. This statement is not an explanatory model of how cancer progresses and to say that 'cancer is caused by excess calories' is a nonsense statement.

A pregnant woman growing a baby obeys the laws of thermodynamics. This statement is not an explanatory model of how babies are made and to say that 'pregnancy and gestation are caused by excess calories' is a nonsense statement.

A bodybuilder's muscles obey the laws of thermodynamics. This statement is not an explanatory model of how to grow bigger muscles and to say that 'bigger muscles are caused by excess calories' is a nonsense statement.

Adipose tissue obeys the laws of thermodynamics. This statement is not an explanatory model of how adipose tissue is regulated and to say that 'adipose tissue growth is caused by excess calories' is a nonsense statement.

All of the above are simply cell cultures. The correct explanatory model that you use to understand the regulation of cell cultures within a complex cell culture with a circulatory system (i.e. an animal) is by and large endocrinology: not thermodynamics. Women are not 'fatter' than men because they consume more calories. Body composition is regulated by hormones. This system includes influence on behaviour.

NB: The laws of thermodynamics are actually not models at all and hence they have no explanatory power. They are in fact base definitions. Assumptions that we first lay down as true as a starting point for the rest of physics. Think of them as you would letters and numbers. Definitions: not explanations.

If you read all that, thanks for taking the time to do so.

LM wrote:

Go ask a bodybuilder why they "cut" going into a competition with 1000kcal a day of broccoli and chicken instead of 1000kcal a day of coca-cola given that coca-cola tastes so much nicer..

Coca-cola tastes nicer than fresh chicken and broccoli? Respectfully, there's some seriously wrong with your sense of taste.

Regardless of what people have said... burning more calories than you take in is in fact the only way to lose weight, and it's better to not consume a lot of saturated fat. I thought this was common sense.

Randy Oldman wrote:

Get plenty of protein and good fats.

People don't need very much protein. If you're an endurance athlete, 1.2-1.8g/kg body weight/day is sufficient.

cbenson4 wrote:

burning more calories than you take in is in fact the only way to lose weight, and it's better to not consume a lot of saturated fat. I thought this was common sense.

Running faster than the other guys is the only way to win a running race. I thought this was common sense.

Never confuse a statement that is true with a statement that is useful. I know you know better than that. I've read countless informative and useful things from you over the years. It would make me very sad if you too had fallen subject to the very bad and unscientific "calories are bad and saturated fat is bad" mantra that some ulteriorly-motivated individuals have managed to perpetuate onto the masses.

Curious? wrote:

cbenson4 wrote:

burning more calories than you take in is in fact the only way to lose weight, and it's better to not consume a lot of saturated fat. I thought this was common sense.

Running faster than the other guys is the only way to win a running race. I thought this was common sense.

Never confuse a statement that is true with a statement that is useful. I know you know better than that. I've read countless informative and useful things from you over the years. It would make me very sad if you too had fallen subject to the very bad and unscientific "calories are bad and saturated fat is bad" mantra that some ulteriorly-motivated individuals have managed to perpetuate onto the masses.

Calories and saturated fat are not "bad." You need saturated fat, but if it makes up more than 30% of your diet, it's more than what's necessary.

Caloric restriction method:

-try to lose ~1 pound per week (1 pound = ~500kcal)

-the OP's basal metabolic rate should be approx 1500kcal.

-calculate amount of calories burned each day based on how much exercise was done (for example - 800kcal)

-add those to your basal metabolic rate (in this example, total would be 2300kcal)

-7 days in a week -> 500kcal / 7 days = ~72kcal per day

-in this example... 2300kcal - 72kcal = 2228kcal per day for caloric restriction that attempts to lose 1 pound per week

-consistently consume ~2200kcal per day, made up of 60-70% carbs, 20-30% fat, 10% protein, to lose ~1 pound per week

Info regarding carbs:

-if exercising 1 hour per day, consume 5-7g/kg body weight/day of carbs

-if exercising 2 hours per day, 7-10g/kg/day of carbs

-if exercising 2+ hours per day, 10-13g/kg/day of carbs

cbenson4 wrote:

Caloric restriction method:

-try to lose ~1 pound per week (1 pound = ~500kcal)

-the OP's basal metabolic rate should be approx 1500kcal.

-calculate amount of calories burned each day based on how much exercise was done (for example - 800kcal)

-add those to your basal metabolic rate (in this example, total would be 2300kcal)

-7 days in a week -> 500kcal / 7 days = ~72kcal per day

-in this example... 2300kcal - 72kcal = 2228kcal per day for caloric restriction that attempts to lose 1 pound per week

-consistently consume ~2200kcal per day, made up of 60-70% carbs, 20-30% fat, 10% protein, to lose ~1 pound per week

Info regarding carbs:

-if exercising 1 hour per day, consume 5-7g/kg body weight/day of carbs

-if exercising 2 hours per day, 7-10g/kg/day of carbs

-if exercising 2+ hours per day, 10-13g/kg/day of carbs

Liar!

~3,500 wrote:

cbenson4 wrote:

Caloric restriction method:

-try to lose ~1 pound per week (1 pound = ~500kcal)

-the OP's basal metabolic rate should be approx 1500kcal.

-calculate amount of calories burned each day based on how much exercise was done (for example - 800kcal)

-add those to your basal metabolic rate (in this example, total would be 2300kcal)

-7 days in a week -> 500kcal / 7 days = ~72kcal per day

-in this example... 2300kcal - 72kcal = 2228kcal per day for caloric restriction that attempts to lose 1 pound per week

-consistently consume ~2200kcal per day, made up of 60-70% carbs, 20-30% fat, 10% protein, to lose ~1 pound per week

Info regarding carbs:

-if exercising 1 hour per day, consume 5-7g/kg body weight/day of carbs

-if exercising 2 hours per day, 7-10g/kg/day of carbs

-if exercising 2+ hours per day, 10-13g/kg/day of carbs

Liar!

You're right, it should be 500kcal deficit per day, not 500kcal / 7 days. It's too bad I forgot such a basic fact...

Revision:

-3,500kcal = 1 pound in a week

-3500kcal / 7 days = 500kcal deficit required for caloric restriction that attempts to lose 1 pound per week

-assume basal metabolic rate = ~1500kcal

-assume caloric expenditure during exercise = 800kcal

-2300kcal total

-restrict to 1800kcal per day consistently to lose 1 pound per week.

My mistake