Calories in - Calories out?!?!

Maybe you guys can help me with at question that has been lurking in the back of my mind: Does 1 (one) calorie eaten = 1 calorie spent ? Theoretically they should, because the scientific definition is the same.

The taking yesterday as an example, my calculations are as follows:

Calorie intake: 2572 kcal

Calories spent (workout): 1560 kcal

----------------------------

Total intake 1013 kcal

Daily target 2290 kcal

Total intake 1013 kcal

---------------------------

Total deficit 1277 kcal (! ! !)

Now this doesn't even take into account the calories spent just moving around, and keeping my organs running. Now, everything equal this would leave me with a total caloric deficit well over 2000 kcal ! ! ! Somehow I feel this cannot be correct. I am definitely not hungry, I eat well, as can be seen from the 2500 kcal intake, and even if I exercise more than the average person I still don't feel being overly extreme in this respect.

So back to my initial question: does 1 calorie eaten = 1 calorie spent moving your body !?!?

Markku comments:

I haven't really found out an answer to that question but my theory is that when your body has reached a certain set point.. the point where it can comfortably keep the weight and body composition, it tries to keep it... if there is more exercise, the body tries to be more efficient and use fewer calories when it is moving.. if you eat more it increases metabolism to burn more of the food..

The sad thing is that you can gain weight easier than lose when you are at that set point.

This is just my way of trying to interpet the situation..Delete Comment

Sarah comments:

I think that on paper, 1 Kcal is 1 Kcal, period.

But as we know - one calorie in is not equal to another calorie in, so the same could be true for the out-calories as well.

From my understanding of BMR and TDEE, if you eat at BMR sustaining levels, you barely survive (lower and you end up looking like an Auschwitz survivor). At TDEE, you keep a status quo; whereas at a 20% deficit of TDEE your body will tap into the body's reserves.

If you take your calculations from yesterday, where would the BMR fit in, numbers wise? (and the TDEE for that matter)

IMO, the reason you're not hungry, is that you are feeding your body calories high in nutrients. That's where the 1 is not equal to 1 comes in :) If your neighbour, friend, colleague or family member sees how much you eat and compares to the little they think they eat, they won't understand how you can be lean and they're not - unless they compare nutrition content.

2600 Kcal from burgers and low-fat/"diet" foods is not the same as 2600 Kcal of EODD-friendly meals (and a lot more boring, imagine eating the same burgers every day! Blaah).

Another factor for not feeling hungry, is of course adequate hydration - the hunger feeling is as often a cry for water that we misinterpret.

And a third factor is your training. I know a lot of people use the excuse that they'll be even hungrier if they work out, not to work out as they believe their food intake is the main reason they're fat. I've always found that hard (as in intense and concentrated, focused and heavy, lol) keeps my appetite in check. Why that is? I would put water during workout as one reason, but also the release of hormones due to the effort probably.

Our bodies are meant to move, so logically, if we let them move and strain to their limit (safely), everything will balance and hunger won't be a focus in the brain. Leptin levels are more likely than not, normalized by training as well (the "I'm not hungry anymore" signal to the brain).

And another thing is that "hunger" is just as often pure boredom.

All this does not answer whether 1 ingested calorie is equal to an expended one of course :) but hey, I just got up too! Brain activity before my first cup of coffee (lol, as if that ever woke me up, I can have an espresso and go to sleep 10 minutes later! Must be immune to caffeine).I never was the scientist of the family though, my grandfather and brother are :) but the question is interesting.

Maybe one to put to Jon for a future article?

Tom comments:

Thanks both of you for your well thought out explanations. I believe all your points are valid. But I still feel that something is missing in the overall picture. I will put this question forward to some of our "gurus", and of course let you know the answer.

Sarah, I do think that when talking about calorie contents of food, then 1 cal = 1 cal. Lately proven by the infamous Twinkie diet, where a doctor dieted on twinkies and lost weight! This proves the rule, that if a caloric deficit is established, you will lose weight. Now I dare not think about the state your body would be in, after a Twinkie diet. Lots of internal fat, and maybe some outside as well, and a huge load on you organs, trying to get rid of all low quality food and toxic waste.

I am sure that the quality of the unprocessed foods, that I try to stick to is responsible for both my body composition and the lack of hunger. But still their calorie contents must count the same as junk food.

This conundrum also leaves wondering if maybe I am eating too few calories. Maybe I should be over 3000 kcal per day? I don't think so though, I have tried that before, and all it got me was a pot belly!

As for my lifestyle I also have to add, that apart from training, cycling to work, maintaining my motorcycles, doing the odd bit of gardening, and maintaining a nearly 100 years old house, my lifestyle is actually quite sedentary. I work behind a desk for 8 hours a day, sit in front of the computer for a few hours, and the odd TV program sneaks in every now and then. So maybe this is the explanation for not ending up with a massive calorie deficit.

Well, enough contemplating and theorizing, tomorrow its kettle bells again and a leg workout, and best of all my weekly massage! Only 30 minutes but worth every second! I would like a full hour, but time and money rules that out.

Sarah comments:

One "guru"answer is in:

That's really an oversimplication of the whole metabolic process your body. It doesn't take into account the hormonal responses of your body to food as well as the nutrients eaten. The equation also doesn't happen simultaneously...one calorie eaten can equal one calorie stored, too.

Your friend who trains hard is probably eating good quality food and burning the calories to make the equation work. It just doesn't apply to a coach potato who doesn't burn the calories, just stores them.

From Nick, which pretty much sums up what I was thinking this morning.

Tom comments:

Concerning Nick's reply to my calorie conundrum: Could it be that you both misunderstood my message? My point was that, when taking in about 2500kcal, then spending 1500kcal through exercise, plus the necessary to keep my body going at idle, then the calculation would end up with my body getting practically no calories at all, or even with a deficit. So when it comes to calories from food, and calories burned, then 1 cal eaten does not equal 1 cal burned. Otherwise my body would be continously starving, and that I promise you is not happening!

Having read up on the subject, I feel that nutrient timing is probably an important factor. If I start the day eating a huge breakfast, say 800 kcal, and then do not exercise or use my body otherwise, then my body starts processing this energy, and some of it may be deposited as fat, depending on food quality. Then if I let 4 hours go by, still not using my body, the 800kcl will have been processed, in which case later exercise will have no effect. I think I am on to something here. I will continue my quest for answers.

Re-reading Nick's answer this may be what he states: "The equation also doesn't happen simultaneously..." Thinking further on, this is probably also why the latest nutrition programs focus a lot on nutrient timing, i.e. have you majority of complex carbs either immediately before or after your workout.

As I write these lines I am beginning to get the picture, so maybe one fine day, I'll have the answer!

Stay calm and collected on the surface, and paddle like hxxx beneath!

Yours in fitness!

This week focus is on proper form and full range of motion in all exercises, even if it means reducing the weights! OMG did I say that! Yes, in fact I just did!!!

Markku comments:

If you simplify things a lot.. say you eat and/or exercise 500kcals more than you need you lose a pound in about a week.. If you continue doing that you lose 100 pounds in 2 years. Won't happen.. you will find out that your daily caloric need will go down. Where does the lowering occur, in basal metabolic rate, increased efficiency in exercise.. I don't think anyone knows..

Cardio kings and queens don't realize that equation.. they just keep increasing their exercise and hope that somehow they will burn the fat they want..

Tom mentioned the nutrition timing and I agree that it is crucial.. the main reason why you exercise is that your body can perform better, not necessarily the fat loss.. so if you are running a caloric deficit you want to make sure that you get the energy to move and the calories around the exercise are very important.

Tom comments:

Thanks Markku, excellent and well written advice from Jason. Good point about your maintenance carb intake going down, when losing weight/fat.

I am more and more convinced that timing of your caloric intake and deficit is crucial. As I mentioned in my previous post, if these incidents do not coincide with maximum expenditure, i.e. a workout or other physical activity, you will not get the full benefit of either. So you can't just say that a daily caloric deficit of say 500kcal will lead to the loss of 1lb of fat in one week. This will only happen, and then only partially, if you time the majority of calorie intake with working out or any other physical activity.

What we must remember is that (hopefully :-) our body is a biological machine working 24/7. It won't just shut down all processes, waiting for your next food intake or your next workout. It continously processes the calories going in, under the present physical conditions. So if at a given time of the day you eat a meal consisting of 500kcal, and you sit still for the next couple of hours, of even longer, then that food will be processed at only your basic metabolic rate. If on the other hand, immediately after the meal you engaged in some demanding physical activity, the food eaten would be used to restore your bodily reserves and as fuel for your muscles. And if that caloric intake does not cover your requirements hopefully some fat will be burned as well.

Any further views / knowledge on the subject welcome!