Cals are NOT created equal. CICO isn't the whole story.

stanmann571

joemac1988 wrote: »

livingleanlivingclean wrote: »

joemac1988 wrote: »

livingleanlivingclean wrote: »

I don't believe I've read anything to suggest that anyone disagrees with you; there is a lot of recommendations around macro breakdown and its impact on body composition (especially in regards to sufficient protein along with resistance training for maintaining muscle in a deficit), and that a nutrient dense diet is important for health.

That said, there is no one "correct" macro breakdown. Some people manage better on higher carb, others on higher fat. There are many ways of eating a "healthy" diet.

Couldn't agree more. But, you don't have to go into forums too deep here to find plenty of "CICO is all you need to worry about" people.

Please point out where there is one person who fits that description?

I just tagged you on 3 of such people.

Poor reading comprehension is a bigger problem than "CICO is the first and most important factor in weight loss"

usmcmp

joemac1988 wrote: »

livingleanlivingclean wrote: »

I don't believe I've read anything to suggest that anyone disagrees with you; there is a lot of recommendations around macro breakdown and its impact on body composition (especially in regards to sufficient protein along with resistance training for maintaining muscle in a deficit), and that a nutrient dense diet is important for health.

That said, there is no one "correct" macro breakdown. Some people manage better on higher carb, others on higher fat. There are many ways of eating a "healthy" diet.

Couldn't agree more. But, you don't have to go into forums too deep here to find plenty of "CICO is all you need to worry about" people.

That's usually on threads where someone says, "I eat healthy/clean and I'm not losing weight" or "I ate a cheeto, will I get fat". Context.

Ironandwine69

Noel_57 wrote: »

Chef_Barbell wrote: »

This debate has been done to death. Please exit to the right everyone.

Should we go to the lemon water detox thread?

I got jacked on lemon water detox

lemurcat12

"joemac1988 wrote: »

"Saying "CICO is all you need to pay attention to"

I never see anyone say this. I do see people saying that CICO is all that matters for weight loss so figure out what works for you to have a sustainable diet that is calorie appropriate. Within the same post it often also says that nutrition is also important, for health.

"a calorie is a calorie"

Are you another person who doesn't understand what this means and thinks it means that all foods are the same? It doesn't.

Bottom line: will you lose weight on a caloric deficit? Yes. Will your body composition be as optimal as if your macros were correct and you stuck to whole foods? NO.

Protein matters for body composition, especially when you are closer to goal, although if one is not exercising the muscles it might not matter all that much. But macros don't particularly matter beyond that, and there's a huge range of protein that is fine. Also, people on MFP are always told to eat adequate protein and given good estimates of how much, so the idea that this is ignored is, well, bizarre.

Do whole foods matter for body composition? I doubt it. I think it's easier for me to sustain a deficit eating mostly whole foods, and I like to (I did when I was fat too), but does it make a difference to whether I lose fat or muscle? Show me something supporting that, please.

WinoGelato

ccrdragon wrote: »

Conflating nutrition and health with an energy formula does not score you extra points... exit stage center.

I will just leave this here...

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10541316/cico-its-a-math-formula/p1

and can I exit via a dive into the mosh pit?

MityMax96

In the grand scheme of things, it does come down to CICO
You have to see what the context of the person saying CICO is.....
Because the other aspects of those calories don't matter much if you are not eating the right amount for your goals.
And as noted earlier, calorie is a unit of measure for energy, gotta keep that in mind as well..

But the composition of those calories (or macros) don't matter too much if your overall calories for your goals aren't right.
Not to mention the fact that when you get lean, very lean, the body does a really good job of making the most efficient use of the calories/macros it gets
Look at people who do Keto and cut out carbs....the body adapts by shifting how it draws it's energy for daily use.

Now when I discuss diet/nutrition with people, I strongly encourage that the bulk of their calories be made up of whole foods, because I think that the best for health nutrition as well as satiety.
But you can still achieve your goals with other food sources, as long as you are sticking to your calories....may be a bit hard and require a bit more will power, but it can be done.

stevencloser

lemurcat12 wrote: »

"joemac1988 wrote: »

"Saying "CICO is all you need to pay attention to"

I never see anyone say this. I do see people saying that CICO is all that matters for weight loss so figure out what works for you to have a sustainable diet that is calorie appropriate. Within the same post it often also says that nutrition is also important, for health.

"a calorie is a calorie"

Are you another person who doesn't understand what this means and thinks it means that all foods are the same? It doesn't.

Bottom line: will you lose weight on a caloric deficit? Yes. Will your body composition be as optimal as if your macros were correct and you stuck to whole foods? NO.

Protein matters for body composition, especially when you are closer to goal, although if one is not exercising the muscles it might not matter all that much. But macros don't particularly matter beyond that, and there's a huge range of protein that is fine. Also, people on MFP are always told to eat adequate protein and given good estimates of how much, so the idea that this is ignored is, well, bizarre.

Do whole foods matter for body composition? I doubt it. I think it's easier for me to sustain a deficit eating mostly whole foods, and I like to (I did when I was fat too), but does it make a difference to whether I lose fat or muscle? Show me something supporting that, please.

We should make a broken record of this and place it in front of a wall. About the same effect.

TavistockToad

PLEASE can we have a flogging a dead horse gif... threads normally get shut down before they're posted... please... for us old school MFPer's who remember the good times...

3bambi3

TavistockToad wrote: »

PLEASE can we have a flogging a dead horse gif... threads normally get shut down before they're posted... please... for us old school MFPer's who remember the good times...

Remember the kitten gifs thread? I miss that...

usmcmp

OP: If a person said they weren't losing weight what would you have them do first? Would you have them ensure calorie accuracy or would you have them adjust their macros?

sijomial

In the light of your clickbait title "Cals are NOT created equal."

Please lets hear your definition of a calorie.
Not a food item, nor a macro or micro nutrient - what precisely is a calorie?

cmriverside

GottaBurnEmAll

I'm just going to drop this here. Because I don't think a lot of people understand how to organize information properly since this debate keeps coming up.



Prioritizing factors doesn't eliminate other factors, it merely organizes them in order of the role they play in carrying out the task involved.

People who aren't adept at prioritizing data confuse the issue for people learning about something and have never had to instruct anyone on anything. Or if they have, they've left their pupils with room for confusion on the issue at hand.

Nutrition is secondary to caloric intake and not only that, it's separate and cannot be conflated.

TavistockToad

3bambi3 wrote: »

TavistockToad wrote: »

PLEASE can we have a flogging a dead horse gif... threads normally get shut down before they're posted... please... for us old school MFPer's who remember the good times...

Remember the kitten gifs thread? I miss that...

Thank you! :drinker:

VintageFeline

This again? Exiting from a harness in a great somersaulting flourish through the roof.

clicketykeys

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

I'm just going to drop this here. Because I don't think a lot of people understand how to organize information properly since this debate keeps coming up.



Prioritizing factors doesn't eliminate other factors, it merely organizes them in order of the role they play in carrying out the task involved.

People who aren't adept at prioritizing data confuse the issue for people learning about something and have never had to instruct anyone on anything. Or if they have, they've left their pupils with room for confusion on the issue at hand.

Nutrition is secondary to caloric intake and not only that, it's separate and cannot be conflated.

And yet people still try!

VeronicaA76

Time to bust out the popcorn for the "you're opinion is wrong!" debate followed by the "this isn't the first time XXXX happened", yet people feel the need to respond.


Munch munch munch.

moogie_fit

Weight loss: CiCo
Body sculpting/aesthetics: macros

Alatariel75

TavistockToad wrote: »

3bambi3 wrote: »

TavistockToad wrote: »

PLEASE can we have a flogging a dead horse gif... threads normally get shut down before they're posted... please... for us old school MFPer's who remember the good times...

Remember the kitten gifs thread? I miss that...

Thank you! :drinker:

jaimeolive

ninerbuff wrote: »

A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.

Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.

So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Sure here is an example of how calories cannot be measure equal:

Sudhair James – undergraduate student at Sri Lanka’s College of Chemical Sciences, and his mentor, Dr Pushparajah Thavarajah experimented with 38 kinds of rice from Sri Lanka, developing a new way of cooking rice that increased the resistant starch content. Add 1 teaspoon of coconut oil to boiling water. Then add a half a cup of rice. Simmer for 40 minutes (or boil for 20-25 minutes). Then refrigerate it for 12 hours.

This procedure increased the Resistant Starch by 10 times for traditional, non-fortified rice and halved the absorbable calories.

Cooling for 12 hours leads to formation of hydrogen bonds between the amylose molecules outside the rice grains which also turns it into a resistant starch. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746

The equation is not as simple as calories in > calories out it is more like:

Weight =
(√(sex&Calorie in-Calorie out) x method of preparation (α or 1/α) + blood sugar ^AMPK ^SUPPLEMENTS / Microbiome – Metabiome)_
________________________________________________________________________________
(Culture x [socioeconomics – parental influences]) /Hormones x Metabolism^sex + Leptin) ^ Medication

But yet again, if you studied nutrition and kinesiology (isn't that supposed to be a holistic approach to health??) you would know this and not fuel your body with McDonalds more days than not...