Thank you, I had read the post by coach dean but it made more sense the 2nd time around!
2/28/13 11:11 P
No I do not believe that they are all the same.. The weight that is put on, such as fat seems to be the hardest to get rid of in my opinion. I never hear anyone getting angry over the fact that they now have beautiful strong sexy legs, no that can't be the calories that we consume from eating lots of junk food... so Yes the are different..
Fitness Minutes: (5,830)
3,219 2/28/13 10:53 P
Absolutely not. The body runs on both calories AND nutrients. Initial weight loss may be the same; long term results will be different.
Fitness Minutes: (14,252)
9,692 2/28/13 10:43 P
"Starvation mode" is a real thing, but it isn't caused by eating a certain number of calories, and it doesn't mean what people think it does. Check out this thread for details (scroll down to Coach Dean's response. I'm campaigning to have that post turned into an article!)
Remember that your body is not a calculator. Even if all the numbers "add up", that doesn't always translate to the scale. That's because your scale numbers are affected by more than calories in/calories out!
Know that your body IS changing, even if the scale isn't cooperating. Adding exercise can also temporarily mask the scale's changes by causing temporary water retention in your muscles.
Thanks Unident. I started in January (without Fitbit) and wasn't very accurate about tracking. In fact I only found SP in mid Jan. I'm not sure how accurate FitBit is . I was doing nothing above light housework and moving to and from the car. In January activity became regular, I started by doing just 10 minutes (walking, stretches-anything *extra*) By mid January I started walking at the track, and then started walking the dogs as well. In Feb I added 10 min of Wii Fit-mostly balance games.
I never thought about how "off" the #'s of the equation might be.
I suppose I'm afraid I'm in "starvation mode" (if that even exists).
But I have not been hungry or weak or felt deprived.
But every figure in the equation is an "estimate".
From the estimate of your actual BMR, to the estimate of how much more than that you burn with regular daily activity, to the estimate of what you burn in exercise, to the estimate of what is in that particular food item, to your estimate of how much of that particular food item you ate...
Sometimes the maths doesn't work out simply because despite our best efforts we can easily be hundreds of calories off. This is why I laugh a little when people ask about things like whether to track the slice of tomato in a sandwich ... It's just that the error factor is already significantly greater than what that tomato slice is worth!
So you've lost 5lbs in January - do you have figures for January on intake/outgoing? What did the maths say? Were you eating less then? Eating more? Moving less? Was January prior to Fitbit? Is the fitbit value you're relying on possibly wrong?
The reason I ask---In Feb I had a calorie deficit EVERYDAY but one. I ate reasonably,( only when I was hungry and only enough to feel full.) I ate very few sweets. When I look back over the month I realize I lost 0 pounds Now, I have a fitbit and I'm relying (sp?) on that data for calorie burn info. I have about 55 more pounds to go-having lost about 5 in Jan. (I'm 5'5).
I know there are areas I could improve on food wise but *IF* weight loss is a simple math equation (as we've all heard) I'm missing something. Don't get me wrong, I'm not quitting. I know what I've been doing is BETTER than what I did before. I know it will take a long time. I know weight fluctuates and so on.
I'm just curious about the math aspect. I'm looking at my weightloss as a research project. I'm not willing to do anything right now that is not sustainable. I *AM* prepared for slow and steady but if there is some simple tweak I can do that will make a difference..obviously I want to know :) Thank you all for your responses.
For weight loss - no, it doesn't matter. 1400 calories of twinkies is the same as 1400 calories of a balanced diet.
However, yes, your body will know the difference.
You need certain levels of protein, carbs and fat, as well as all of the vitamin letters, potassium, magnesium, selenium, and a host of other isms that your body requires for healthy function.
A balanced diet from all of the food groups will generally provide what your body needs. An unbalanced diet (shakes for two meals and whatever you want for a third, say), would not. The consequences depend on what's missing and what the consequences of being low in that are.
2/28/13 1:18 P
Well, insofar as "weight creation or weight loss" goes, a calorie is a calorie.
But we need protein. We need calcium. We need Vitamin C. We need iron. And so on. So i would prefer that most of my calories come along with some of these other things that my body needs. 1500 calories worth of granulated sugar only supplies "energy" - so it's really just not as good as 1500 calories worth of a-variety-of-nutritious foods.
Fitness Minutes: (120)
2/28/13 1:07 P
I believe a calorie is a calorie. It really depends on how your body uses it that counts. I would like to think it does matter. But i am also one of the few who never bother with counting calories. What I eat, counting calories just doesn't work. i count nutrients.
I know that the calories from an apple are more filling than from a tablespoon of white sugar. I'm not talking about that. Some folks can ignore those hunger pains. BUT as far as our bodies are concerned--does it matter ?
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.