Is It Really How Many Calories You Eat?

I have been on this site for some time now and have a fairly rigourous fitness program. I have tried both ends of the spectrum - eat 1,500 to 1,800 calories a day and eat 2,000 to 2,500 calories a day. Eat low carbs and eat a well-rounded 40-30-30 split. I have been 218 give or take a few lbs up or down for the last 4 months. I feel like if I eat BMR or above and eat any type of carbs I maintain or gain. If I eat 1,500 to 1,800 my deficit is well over the average of 1,000 a day. I am pretty much STUCK! I am convinced my body wants to be 215-219.

My test was the diet! If I eat 1,600 calories a day and burn approximately 3,500 a week in exercise, shouldn't I consistently lose 2 lbs per week? No matter what I eat? As long as calorie intake is less than 1,800 (close to my BMR) I should absolutely lose weight, right? I don't think so! I think what you eat is definitely part of the equation. Let's say I consume 1,600 calories in a day and part of that intake is Frozen Yogurt and a 3oz side of rainbow sprinkles with it at 8:30 PM. We are talking 96 grams of sugar for the day. Can't this completely sabotage my efforts? The fact remains I am still only eating 1,600 a day, so why shouldn't I still be losing? I also feel like when I eat carbs like brown rice, oatmeal or any other than vegetables, I won't burn it all - even with intense exercise. Am I not eating enough and this is being counterproductive - my body is hanging onto everything? (I see this posted quite a bit)

Anyone can chime in here! Any direction - criticism is accepted. I am 218 lbs, 5' 9" and have a medium to large build. (46" Chest) Exercise - I try to burn 600 -700 calories a session 5 times a week. Mix of Cardio and Strength. My goal is 190, but stuck at 4 months in the same range has me thinking I am destined to be 215 forever.

For a guy with your size and activity level, eating 2500 calories is still low. Your maintenance level is closer to 3000.

First understand that BMR is your basal metabolic rate -- meaning, the calories needed for you to breathe, have a heartbeat, and other things your body just naturally does by itself. That's it. Nothing more.

You do WAY more activity than that. The only way you'd maintain your weight eating BMR is if you woke up in the morning, stayed in bed all day, and slept at night. (And even then, you'd burn more calories than your BMR from eating + disgesting.)

The reason you haven't been losing weight is because you've triggered your starvation response. The body doesn't know the difference between a diet and a famine. When it thinks it's not going to get enough food (especially over an extended period of time), it slows your metabolism to a crawl, and hangs on to every last part of your fat. Hence, your problem.

What you need to do - and I know this will sound strange - is to eat MORE. Given your size and activity level, you need to eat at least 2700 calories a day.

Now, the important thing is WHAT you eat. 2700 calories of McDonald's and Panda Express isn't the same as 2700 calories of lean proteins, complex carbs, and healthy fats.

You are correct about the 3500 number. There are 3500 calories in a pound of fat. However, if your body is in starvation mode, you could burn 7000 calories a week, and you won't see much loss at all.

Try this: Run for 45 continuous minutes 4-5 days a week, lift weights 3x a week, and EAT 2700 calories every day, split up over 5-6 meals. I promise you will start losing weight within two weeks.

Hint: brown rice, oatmeal, and vegetables are all excellent examples of complex carbs. Stick to those, and also have turkey, chicken, eggs, tuna, salmon, and as many vegetables as you can stomach. A jar of chocolate whey protein can help as well, along with whole wheat bread, and natural peanut butter.

Sheibar is right about eating more to lose more, and I agree with everything she (she? he? I dunno - didn't check) said.

But to answer your specific question about what you eat, no, it doesn't matter what you eat in terms of actual calories.  A calorie is a unit of energy, and by eating fewer then you burn, you lose weight.  Theoretically, you can lose weight eating fast food and nothing but, as long as you burn more then you eat.

However, we're not just talking about losing pounds, we're talking about a healthy lifestyle.  In which case, yes, what you eat obviously does matter.  Eating nothing but fast food but keeping your deficit might make you lose pounds, but you're going to start feeling awful, getting sick, having less energy, finding you can't concentrate as much, etc etc etc.

Now, those things can lead to lazy behaviour, and over-eating, which then in turn will make it harder to lose the weight.  Plus, junk food is higher in calories, which means you'd have to eat a lot less (volume-wise) in order to keep yourself under your calories.  Which means you're likely to get hungrier more often, which can again lead to overeating, and again, trouble losing weight.  Too much sugar can lead to health problems, like diabetes - even if you're staying within your calories, if you have too much sugar, your body just can't process it all and your pancreas shuts down.  Plus, eating sugary foods can trigger that sweet-tooth in some people, which leads to craving more sugary foods, and binging in the end.

Plus, certain foods can cause issues which may make you look heavier, even if you're lost fat.  High sodium foods for example, will cause you to retain water and bloat, which can add pounds and inches to your waist.  Not getting enough fiber can cause you to have trouble with bowel movements, which can again keep weight on just cuz you're not getting rid of the waste - which can lead to some painful problems as I'm sure you can imagine.

All that being said......you should never feel like you have to completely deny yourself bad food.  Eating fast food every once in awhile isn't going to ruin any hard work you did.  Eating that frozen yogurt with sprinkles is no biggie.  As long as those aren't the foods you're living off of, don't stress about it too much.

Original Post by kukua:

Sheibar is right about eating more to lose more, and I agree with everything she (she? he? I dunno - didn't check) said.

He ;)

Original Post by kukua:

But to answer your specific question about what you eat, no, it doesn't matter what you eat in terms of actual calories.  A calorie is a unit of energy, and by eating fewer then you burn, you lose weight.  Theoretically, you can lose weight eating fast food and nothing but, as long as you burn more then you eat.

 I don't know about this! I have tested this theory and when I eat 1,800 calories a day and much of it comes from sugar and carbs, I tend to gain weight. You probably have a point about sodium, because I see that from week to week on the scale.

Maybe I have not given myself a fair shot at losing the wieght. To be brutally honest I eat well during the week, track calories and all, then do not track on the weekends, eat out a lot, but still try to watch my intake. Could I be sabotaging my efforts on the weekends and eating way more then I think I am? Maybe my body just does not burn calories efficiently? Is my weekend eating really enough to counteract a 1,000+ deficit the 5 other days of the week?

Original Post by amanenti:

Maybe I have not given myself a fair shot at losing the wieght. To be brutally honest I eat well during the week, track calories and all, then do not track on the weekends, eat out a lot, but still try to watch my intake. Could I be sabotaging my efforts on the weekends and eating way more then I think I am? Maybe my body just does not burn calories efficiently? Is my weekend eating really enough to counteract a 1,000+ deficit the 5 other days of the week?

A weekend of eating out but not tracking is enough to counter most of my progress through a week.  Why don't you try logging one weekend to see how much you're taking in, then you'll know whether it's your weekend eating or not.

I think that you may be sabotaging yourself on the weekend....  Eating out is Ok if you know what it is that you are ordering.  Sometimes one meal out is over 1500 calories!  And that can be the "healthy" option.  I would count on weekends but maybe bring it up to maintenance (for me 1600 if I don't work out and 2100 if I do) For you this would be 2700 if you don't work out and 3200 if you do depending on your work out.  Then you are only maintaining on the weekend, not messing up your hard work all week.  Plus I am a big believer in calorie cycling. 

Original Post by amanenti:

I don't know about this! I have tested this theory and when I eat 1,800 calories a day and much of it comes from sugar and carbs, I tend to gain weight. You probably have a point about sodium, because I see that from week to week on the scale.

I agree with you here, however kukua's point is that a calorie is a calorie. Just like a pound of feathers and a pound of gold each weigh a pound.

However, I agree (and so does kukua) that feathers and gold are very different. :)

You want to aim for complex carbs, lean proteins, and healthy fats. I copied a snippet below from another post of mine that gives examples of the kinds of food you want to eat.

Eating simple carbs/sugars causes an insulin spike, which is actually good. Why? Because insulin is responsible for transporting protein into your muscles. However...

Simple carbs cause a much larger spike than complex carbs, which is terrific after a workout when you want to fill your muscles with protein, but not terrific if you're tanked on the couch eating Oreos by the sleeve.

Problems occur when people overindulge in simple carbs/sugars over a long period of time, causing an almost constant insulin surge. They build a tolerance to their own body's insulin, making it less effective, resulting in their need to take shots of insulin. This is diabetes.

With complex carbs, your body needs to break them down into simple carbs in order to process them. This results in you burning more calories digesting the food, and also a moderated level of insulin -- like a governor on a car engine. This is also why it's recommended to have a mix of carbs, protein, and fat in every meal. (Really, it should say complex carbs, lean proteins, and healthy fats.)

Here's that snippet:

Complex carbs -
Spinach, kale, broccoli, brown rice, fresh fruits, yams, oatmeal, whole grain bread

Lean proteins -
Turkey, salmon, chicken breast, egg whites, non-fat cottage cheese, top round steak, whey protein

Healthy fats -
Flaxseed oil, fish fats (omega-3), monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, olive oil, nuts, seed

Limit the amount of simple carbs - candy, cookies, cake, chips, crackers...all of that stuff.

An interesting note, fructose (fruit sugar) is a simple carb. However, because it's a natural sugar (versus sucrose, the refined white sugar found in most candy), it's excellent for you. In fact, replacing candy and sweets with fruit is a wonderful way to stem the sweet tooth.

Original Post by sheibar80:

An interesting note, fructose (fruit sugar) is a simple carb. However, because it's a natural sugar (versus sucrose, the refined white sugar found in most candy), it's excellent for you. In fact, replacing candy and sweets with fruit is a wonderful way to stem the sweet tooth.

Side note about this....fructose IS a simble carb, and on it's own, is still not ideal.  When you eat a piece of fruit, the sugar comes wrapped in the fiberous flesh of the fruit, and because of this, gets released into your system slowly.  You body needs to produce very little insulin to process the sugar this way.  When you take the sugar out of the flesh (ie. juice), it hits your body all at once like any other sugar.  A cup of juice has the same amount of sugar as a cup of soda, and your body reacts the same way.  It just happens to come with a few more vitamins.

THIS is why eating fruit is so much better then candy, sweets, AND juice.  Not because it's natural.

Agreed, and thanks for adding that.

My points were to show 1) the similarity between the sugars in fruit and junk, so that making "the switch" to fruit isn't as frightening a prospect as it may be to some, and 2) when faced with a choice between a natural sugar and the processed, refined kind, it's better to go with natural...all without giving more detail in an already-too-long post.

Sheibar80 - Thanks for all of your insightful comments. I definitely know what to eat, but you shed some light on the fruit thing, which I do not eat much of and if I do I was told to eat it early in the day! I guess what i am most confused about is the calorie intake. According to my BMR it runs about 1900-2000. If I include sedentary activities (I like to put my own in) it goes up to 2400. I am afraid to eat more than 2000 calories (I certainly do when I am not watching myself) when I am eating "clean" for fear of not losing weight.

According to http://www.phord.com/cc/ I should consume 1900 or so calories and burn 2900 calories a day to lose 2 lbs per week. Someone here said I should be eating 2700 - I feel like that would make me gain weight.

I guess what it boils down to is understanding it takes more than a day or two to institute an eating change and the scale is soon to follow. I have to eat on the weekends as clean as during the week and allow myself that yogurt maybe one night a week. It sure is frustrating as I have the exercise down, which is half the battle, but I need to get the food under control.

I appreciate everyones comments!!

Thanks - glad to help.

I don't know about that site, but I do know about the Katch-McArdle formula for calculating BMR, which is more accurate than the Harris-Benedict formula.

1900 sounds low for your BMR. Remember, BMR stands for "basal metabolic rate" -- in other words, the base amount of calories your body burns simply by EXISTING. That's it.

Your maintenance level, which is not to be confused with your BMR, is the amount of calories you can eat without gaining or losing any weight. To figure that out, you multiply your BMR by an activity factor. In other words, your maintenance level is a combination of your BMR and any other activity you do in addition to existing.

The standard activity factor for "moderately active" is 1.375. So...

1900 (BMR) x 1.375 (activity factor) = 2612.5

This means that given your current weight, a BMR of 1900, and your current activity level, you can eat 2612.5 calories and not gain (or lose) any weight.

To safely cut fat, reduce your calories from your maintenance level (not BMR) by 20%. Any more than that, you risk invoking the starvation response. So...

2612.5 (your maintenance) x 0.80 (80%) = 2090.

So for you, if you eat 2090 calories a day, and continue your current activity level, you will begin losing weight. You don't need to worry about how many calories you burned in the gym because you've already accounted for your activity level. Just be consistent with your workouts.

Of course, this assumes your BMR is 1900. However, given a weight of 215 lbs, using the Katch-McArdle formula to calculate your BMR (which is more accurate than the Harris-Benedict formula), your BMR comes out to 2480.

So, using that...

2480 * 1.375 = 3410 * 0.80 = 2728.

If this seems like a lot of calories, that's because it is! If you eat fewer calories than this, you risk invoking the starvation response. Once that happens, you will plateau, and your ability to lose weight will be severely impaired. Sound familiar?

Try it for two weeks. Eat 2728 calories a day, run for 30-45 continuous minutes 4-5 times a week, and lift weights 3x a week. Guaranteed you will begin dropping weight and seeing positive changes.

As you lose weight, your BMR will change, and therefore, your maintenance level will also change. None of these numbers are written in stone, so you will need to periodically recalculate your levels as you track your progress.

(Be sure to eat the healthy, clean foods we discussed earlier to fill those 2728!)

Good luck

Original Post by amanenti:

According to http://www.phord.com/cc/ I should consume 1900 or so calories and burn 2900 calories a day to lose 2 lbs per week. Someone here said I should be eating 2700 - I feel like that would make me gain weight.

Quick question - how much do you have to lose?  The 1000 calorie deficit is a MAX deficit, and the closer you get to your goal, the smaller that deficit should be.  Your body holds on to your weight more when you have less to lose, and having a huge deficit can scare you body into holding on to your calories.  If you only have 20-30lbs to lose, for example, I'd keep that deficit closer to 500.

Plus, all these numbers are estimates - you have no way of knowing EXACTLY how many calories you're eating/burning a day, so err on the side of caution.  I'd suggest aiming for about a 700 calorie deficit, just to make sure you're not going over.

I know it's tempting to keep that deficit as big as possible to lose the most weight as fast as possible, but remember this isn't a race.  Keep it slow and steady and it'll come off, promise. :)

I am 5'9 and a guy. I have been overweight all my life, usually around 220 - 240. I managed to get down to 200 without a formal exercise plan, just by walking and cutting down on calories.  Back in December, I joined a gym and started working out about the same you are.  I am at 165 right now and still a little pudgy (16% body fat).  You should defiantly be able to do 190.

I would agree that you are most likely in starvation mode. I am not sure about the low carb diet. I tried that a few years ago and found it tough to keep off the weight. Especially with such a high level of exercise, I don't think it's necessary to restrict carbs like that. Most of my calories come from carbs, after that I cut out fats and replace them with protein. I eat about 2000 or so calories a day.