 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / October 2004How many calories is enough?
I've been thin all my life (male, age 26, 5' 10", 150 lb), so I always make sure I eat enough for fear that if I don't I may lose weight and get unhealthily skinny. At the same time, there's something I've never quite understood. For my age and weight I'm apparently supposed to get 2000 or more calories per day, but I'm pretty sure that except for days when I eat snacks or desserts, I don't. The only way I can figure to reach that number is either by eating enough fat I'd have a heart attack or enough carbohydrates my stomach would explode from such a large mass. So basically all the nutritional guidelines I've ever seen make no sense to me. Anyone care to explain? Do the laws of physics somehow cease to operate in my kitchen? I remember reading about one of the leading researchers on aging and caloric restriction, Dr. Roy Walford, and he advocated a diet, for men, that had no less than 1700 calories per day. Technically, 1500 calories would be "ideal", but he said there was no safety margin at all in such a diet. If you aren't losing weight and you are not underweight, I'd say you are getting enough calories, no matter what the number of calories you "should" be eating says. > I've been thin all my life (male, age 26, 5' 10", 150 lb), so I always > make sure I eat enough for fear that if I don't I may lose weight and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sense to me. Anyone care to explain? Do the laws of physics somehow > cease to operate in my kitchen? You are not going crazy. Calories do not make sense. The numbers do not add up. They cannot accurately predict whether a person will gain weight ot loss weight. Ignore them. They are a relic from the age of alchemy that just will not go away. TC >> I've been thin all my life (male, age 26, 5' 10", 150 lb), so I always >> make sure I eat enough for fear that if I don't I may lose weight and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >not add up. They cannot accurately predict whether a person will gain >weight ot loss weight. Ignore them. Huh? Are you for real? They certainly DO add up. That's the beauty of energy balance. It adds up exactly. >They are a relic from the age of alchemy that just will not go away. Are you projecting? > >> I've been thin all my life (male, age 26, 5' 10", 150 lb), so I always > >> make sure I eat enough for fear that if I don't I may lose weight and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Huh? Are you for real? They certainly DO add up. That's the beauty of > energy balance. It adds up exactly. If they did, anyone who tried to lose weight by counting calories would easiliy lose the weight. But we know that 95% or more who restrict calories fail to take the weight off and keep it off. Don't get me wrong. The laws of thermodynamics are valid. But trying to apply them directly to weight gain or loss in humans is not a useful, practical or even predictable approach. The body is not a simple black box where you can make general all-encompassing predictions based on rough guesses of energy intake and expediture. Especially basing them on the caloric quantifications and methodology currently used. > >They are a relic from the age of alchemy that just will not go away. > > Are you projecting? Calories were calculated in the late 1800's and the early 1900's using a can and a flame, the primitive contraption called a bomb calorimeter. All kinds of mathematical juggling and factoring was used to somehow get the numbers close to something that appeared to work mathematically. It may work on paper. It has never worked in the real world. Weight control in humans is a bit more involved than just estimated calories-in/calories-out. The human body is a tad more complicated than a bomb calorimeter. TC > > >> I've been thin all my life (male, age 26, 5' 10", 150 lb), so I always > > >> make sure I eat enough for fear that if I don't I may lose weight and [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > TC It still does not fail to amuse me how people can not get these simple concept through their heads and reject the old outdated and absurd notions about calories. >> > >> I've been thin all my life (male, age 26, 5' 10", 150 lb), so I always >> > >> make sure I eat enough for fear that if I don't I may lose weight and [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >concept through their heads and reject the old outdated and absurd >notions about calories. Not sure what side of the fence you are coming down on. This is ambiguous to me. What "absurd notions" are you referring to? >> >> I've been thin all my life (male, age 26, 5' 10", 150 lb), so I always >> >> make sure I eat enough for fear that if I don't I may lose weight and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >If they did, anyone who tried to lose weight by counting calories >would easiliy lose the weight. Not necessarily. Trying is usually not good enough, but if they actually achieved an energy deficit, there is NO alternative but losing energy storage tissue (weight) >But we know that 95% or more who >restrict calories fail to take the weight off and keep it off. This is the statistic of those who try. With those who succeed in creating an energy deficit, 100% lose weight. >Don't get me wrong. The laws of thermodynamics are valid. That's nice to hear, thank you. >But trying >to apply them directly to weight gain or loss in humans is not a >useful, practical or even predictable approach. You've been having problems? It always works when the actual components of the energy balance are measured properly. Most folk have little idea how to do this. The method is fine, the compliance is problematic. >The body is not a >simple black box where you can make general all-encompassing >predictions based on rough guesses of energy intake and expediture. You hit the nail on the head. "Rough guesses" are usually way too rough. Kitchen scales (with a finger under the pan) and optimistic activity guesses are way too rough. Human nature so often gets in the way. But when done carefully, it is surprisingly accurate. Btw, the oranges you have in your fruit bowl have not been measured in a bomb calorimeter, and so the tables in the books give the average of several different orange measurements. They could be significantly out for your particular oranges. >Especially basing them on the caloric quantifications and methodology >currently used. Not sure what you are saying here. The calorie contents of foods in the tables are averages. Actual foods vary considerably. The pure constituents are quite accurate, if you want to eat pure fat, protein and glucose. (Yuck!) >> >They are a relic from the age of alchemy that just will not go away. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a can and a flame, the primitive contraption called a bomb >calorimeter. You haven't read anything since then? A well constructed bomb calorimeter is dead accurate. You should try a modern text that describes energy calculations and measurements. >All kinds of mathematical juggling and factoring was used >to somehow get the numbers close to something that appeared to work >mathematically. No, these "fudge factors" are rough factors to account for averages in content and actual chemical fates of the different constituents. You seem to have a strange concept of energy. The body does not measure it directly, but the energy balance is absolutely accurate or else the laws of thermo are not valid, as you promised me they were :-) >It may work on paper. It has never worked in the real world. When done properly, it ALWAYS works in the real world. Because of these "NEVER BEEN SEEN TO BE WRONG" laws of thermo. If the answer is wrong in an experiment, then the measurement has failed. Without fail! >Weight >control in humans is a bit more involved than just estimated >calories-in/calories-out. Yes, it is simply properly measured calories in and calories out. If it isn't, the laws of thermo have failed, and we all know that this is not the case. >The human body is a tad more complicated >than a bomb calorimeter. In what way? Do you not understand the energy involved in breaking and making chemical bonds? The only difference between the human body and a bomb calorimeter is that the BC measures the heat of combustion accurately (the human body doesn't) and the human body has many more steps. The energy involved in the following two chemical pathways is exactly the same. A->B->C->D->E->F->Z and A->Z > I've been thin all my life (male, age 26, 5' 10", 150 lb), so I always > make sure I eat enough for fear that if I don't I may lose weight and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sense to me. Anyone care to explain? Do the laws of physics somehow > cease to operate in my kitchen? Hey! We are the opposite and that, friend, boiled down to your basic metabolic rate, which is different for everybody You can do some research, as I did, at the end of the day, for a long life, it’s FIT over fat or thin. (increase vo2 level, does reverse aging process) If you can run a mile, do push MORE than 30 pushups, squats and crunches You’re Okay, but if your feel easily dizzy and fatigue try "Ensure" or "Boost" that is about 1,000 cal in a can. Even in a dog world, there is Greyhound, and there is Saint-Bernard, we're all different thank-god If you need to track your progress, check out my website it's free  SignatureFrancois B. francois[at]NewBody4Free[dot]c o m http://www.NewBody4Free.com - an online tool that you can customize to help you achieve your weight and fitness goals! The laws of physics apply, on average eating more or less then 300 calories per day per week above or below energy needs results in a gain or loss of 1 pound. As to your self evaluation of calories consumed, when studies which looked at what people ate and what they estimated they had in calories, the two were usually different enough to account for differences in weight status. The rule of thumb is that 10 calories per pound of body weight maintains what is required for life and physical activity, gender, age, and other things add additional calories be consumed to account for those added factors. As for being too thin or not, the current body mass index, the latest way of accounting for height vs. weight, has 19 to 25 as the normal range. Find a chart on the internet or one of the several calculators for it to see where you fit. >I've been thin all my life (male, age 26, 5' 10", 150 lb), so I always >make sure I eat enough for fear that if I don't I may lose weight and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >sense to me. Anyone care to explain? Do the laws of physics somehow >cease to operate in my kitchen? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.