In order to lose weight and maintain that loss in the long-run, you must first understand that the key to weight loss is simply a net loss of calories. Weight gain is generally a result of consuming more calories than your body spends. In other words, your weight is a direct result of the amount of calories you put into it.

Calories are energy for your body much like gas is fuel for a car; your body requires a certain number of calories to work just like your car requires a certain amount of gas to run. The difference is that if you put too much gas in your car, the gas would simply run out of the tank and pour out onto the ground, whereas if you put more calories into your body than it needs, it stores those extra calories as fat. Your body was created to survive so that if faced with a famine or shortage in food supply, you would have the ability to use those fat stores for energy. Fortunately (or unfortunately), in America, most of us have access to an abundance of food, so very few of us would ever need to call upon our fat stores to save us from starvation. So, as we pour in unnecessary calories without burning them in physical activity, our bodies become fatter. The goal in weight loss, therefore, is to achieve a net loss of calories by consuming fewer calories in the foods we choose and spending more calories in physical activity.

If you liken the concept of weight loss to a "fat" bank account that you are trying to empty, think of calories as money. The only way to lessen the money in your bank account is to either put less in or take more out. I would suggest both. In other words, you will need to start putting fewer calories into your body and start spending more calories in regular physical activity. It takes a net loss of 3500 calories to lose a pound of fat, whether that net loss is achieved by cutting caloric intake or by increasing calories spent in physical activity. For example, if you were to cut 300 unnecessary calories per day from your diet and spend an extra 200 calories in activity (a total of 500 calories per day), you would lose approximately 1 pound per week (500 calories per day times 7 days per week).

You may be wondering how many calories you should be eating in a day. You may also be thinking that if the key to weight loss is simply a net loss in calories, why not cut way back and follow a very low-calorie diet with 800 or 1000 calories per day? For one, following a very low-calorie diet is a quick-fix weight loss method and one that you cannot maintain long-term. Also, when you go from a high calorie diet, such as 3500 calories or more per day down to 1000 calories per day, your body assumes that you must be facing a famine and potential starvation, so it lowers your metabolism to conserve energy as long as possible.

Also consider that if you currently consume 3500 calories per day and you cut back to 2500, you will (theoretically) lose 2 pounds per week (a net loss of 1000 calories per day x 7 days per week = 7000 calories, divided by 3500 calories per pound of fat = 2 pounds of fat per week). All you need to do is cut out 500-1000 unnecessary calories from your current diet in order to lose 1-2 pounds per week. That's much less painful than trying to follow an impossibly restrictive low-calorie diet.

again thanks for the reminder of hwat's been posted on this site multiple times already

I'm having trouble accepting the whole calorie thesis. For one thing, I've eaten a diet low enough in calories have lost two or three times my entire body weight for years on end and have done nothing but gain weight, and my ex-husband used to eat huge amounts of very fattening foods all day long and never gained an ounce.

If it's all about calories, how do you explain these phenomena? Don't tell me my body "went into starvation mode and transformed everything into fat" because I never starved. I ate as much as I wanted, whenever I felt like it, of satisfying whole foods in correct balance with respect to fat, protein, carbs, etc. My ex on the other hand would eat tons of stuff that I couldn't even think of eating without gaining five pounds just from the thought of it, yet he stayed thin, and he was not that active of a person. No more than me, anyhow.

I've been eating more often and in smaller quantities per meal for the last year or so, and it has not resulted in any weight loss. Quite the opposite! I am stumped over this.

How can someone say for certaint that it takes a net loss of 3500 calories to lose 1 pound of fat, but go on to say eating less calories will inhibit the amount of weight you lose?

That's rhetorical... since it's obviously contradictory.

It is not contradictory and the question should not be rhetorical since there is a legitimate answer.
The stickies in the nutrition forum tell the story so much better than I ever could.

It's difficult to answer these questions without being able to do some calculations or see a food diary. As far as your husband is concerned, men tend to have a higher BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) due to differences in body composition and we all have unique calorie needs based on our age, sex, height, weight, and activity level. Rather than comparing to others, it's important to determine your own calorie needs and then try to consume an amount close to those.

I'm not one who feels that you need to count calories (or anything else for that matter) for the rest of your life in order to lose weight. I think it's more about choosing a variety of foods from all the food groups and eating them in moderation (stopping when you're full and not eating when you're not hungry...following your body's signals) but it can be helpful to some people to have a place to start. Counting calories for a short season can help you to learn which foods to limit and which ones to choose more often.

Have you ever calculated your individual calorie needs? I would recommend that you use the Harris-Benedict equation to figure out how many you need daily and then keep a food record for a few typical days to find out how closely you are to that. Just consuming 100 calories over what you need each day would cause a 10-pound weight gain each year.

According to that equation, I have a BMR of 1542.6. And according to Fitday.com where I just opened an account, I ate 1052 calories today. It was a typical day for me, food-wise. If I tried to eat more than I did, I don't know where I'd put it, cause it sure wouldn't fit into my stomach!

Jane,

If you're really feeling full at just over 1000 calories/day and don't feel that you can increase the amount of food, maybe you could try and choose more calorically dense foods. That way, you can move closer to your calorie goal without feeling like you're overeating. I think it's really important to eat an adequate amount of calories in order to keep your metabolism fired up. It's like stoking a fire. If you let the fire die down to a glowing ember then your body will conserve energy, whereas if you add some timber and get those flames burning, then your body will feel the freedom to burn more calories.

Can you help me figure out how to go about it without getting involved in potato chips or cheesecake or something? I can't handle dairy products.

Amen to that.

Have you seen the work on NEAT? As in non-exercise activity thermogenesis? It really sheds some light (among other reasons) on why some people seem resistant to weight gain.

If not, check out this thread:

http://www.weight-loss.fitness.com/t...mogenesis.html

I've got some research floating around on it as well.

I think that's really depending on your goals. Sure, if you keep in the context of simply 'losing weight' I would tend to agree with you for *most* people. Take someone like me, though, who is interested in maximizing performance and muscle mass while minimizing body fat and I think you need to pay closer attention to things.

That's not to say I couldn't be a muscular athlete without paying close attention. It simply optimizes the process in my opinion.

Also, I have found that for a good number of people, counting calories and macros is what keeps them on track.

I think it's a very individual thing to be honest.

But the fact remains (opinion actually) that for the average person with average goals I usually suggest NOT muddying the waters with counting and tracking until a time arises where you have to in order to realize success. In the meantime, and potentially forever, simply cleaning up the diet and making better, balanced food choices will suffice.

I definitely agree with this.

If you're going to go the non-messy route, I think counting for some time is extremely beneficial in helping people better understand what a proper serving size looks like.

High fat foods are a start. Look at a table spoon of extra virgin olive oil. It's very calorically dense. I'm not suggesting you eat nothing but fat, but you could certain stand to add some of the healthy fats to your diet which will simultaneously help with health and a caloric buffer due to its energetic density. 1 gram of fat has more than double the amount of calorie/energy than 1 gram of protein and/or fat.

Steve,

I couldn't agree with you more. In my experience, I've encountered more people who frown at the thought of having to count calories, carbs, fat grams, points, etc., especially those who are battling weight loss. They've been there done that and it tends to make them feel like they're on a restrictive diet when they have to constantly keep track of something.

I will say, however, that for some counting calories is actually quite helpful. It almost helps them to relax (which seems counterintuitive) because they don't have to worry so much about eating certain foods or feel guilty for eating when they know that they are still within their calorie allowance. Does that make sense?

For example, in counseling those with anorexia I highly encourage calorie counting. They tend to be experts on calorie content anyway. Since they have a great amount of fear attached to food, they are constantly afraid that they've over-consumed. If they keep track of every calorie, then they can be sure that they are within an appropriate range and they don't have to obsess as much about what they've eaten.

I haven't had much experience in exercise physiology or fitness, so that's an area I could learn a lot in. I hadn't even considered that someone like yourself would want to count calories in an attempt to maximize performance and muscle mass, but that definitely makes sense.

Anyway, I agree that it is very much an individual thing. If you want to count calories, then by all means do it. If you don't, it's not necessary in order to reach a healthy weight.

Jane,

I agree with Steve. As he pointed out above, fat is the richest source of calories in our diet so it's a good choice for trying to bump up your calorie intake. I would encourage you to add more "good fats" to your diet, or unsaturated fats (e.g., olive oil, canola, and peanut are mostly monounsaturated). Other good sources include nuts (especially walnuts, which are a good source of omega-3 fatty acid), seeds, olives, and avocado. Flax seed oil is also a great source of omega-3's. It has a low smoke point, though, so it's not good for cooking but better used cold as in a homemade salad dressing.

Hope this helps!

In my case, or anyone like me actually, counting calories becomes ridiculously critical if you want to take it to the next level, really. And not just calories. I mean, I'm lean. Relatively speaking. But when dieting down, if I don't make sure I'm getting in adequate amounts of proteins, there's a very real chance I'll lose some of my hard earned muscle. Our bodies don't like carrying a lot of extra muscle in the face of an energetic deficit. By increasing my caloric intake at times like that, it gives my body a source of aminos in the bloodstream to preferentially pull from instead of the existing stores (muscle).

I'd actually shoot for fish oils before flax. I mean, they're both great.... but the conversion to eicosapentanoic and docosohexanoic acid is pretty crappy with flax.

What's your take on this?