Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Cals are NOT created equal. CICO isn't the whole story.
Options
Replies
-
For most of my adult life I've been resistant to the CICO. However, 2 months ago I started on MFP, and have been logging everyday. (I have not been weighing my food). I was also told years ago by my previous doctor that it would be nearly impossible to lose weight after age 40, so I needed to lose it before. I'd gone on diets before and lost, by eating low carb, juice fasting, or something else (not CICO) but only once did I keep it off for an extended time--for six years--because I continued to eat the same way (basically low carb with most meals being vegetables and meat). When I steered from that the weight can back. But I digress. I've lost 13.5 lbs. since I started 2 months ago, and I was hoping to lose 2 lbs. a week, but I'm happy with this so far and CICO seems to be working and none of the "impossibilities" are affecting it. I'm eating pretty well, whole foods, but not deprived and have some carbs too. I've in better shape because I increased my exercise too. In October I will get a scale and start weighing my food--as I have 100 lbs. to lose, and to lose the 2 per week, I need to be more accurate. MFP helped me to see that what I was eating was much beyond the calorie intake that I should have.
I think the diet/weight loss/exercise industry benefits from people NOT believing in CICO because if it actually works then they don't have as many customers! I feel like what I'm doing now on MFP is easy and doable. Tracking calories was NOT easy before the internet and apps like this. If I have to log for the rest of my life to lose the weight and then maintain, I'll do it, because it is a lot easier than guessing and trying different diets that really do not get to the bottom of the problem which is eating too much.24 -
lucerorojo wrote: »For most of my adult life I've been resistant to the CICO. However, 2 months ago I started on MFP, and have been logging everyday. (I have not been weighing my food). I was also told years ago by my previous doctor that it would be nearly impossible to lose weight after age 40, so I needed to lose it before. I'd gone on diets before and lost, by eating low carb, juice fasting, or something else (not CICO) but only once did I keep it off for an extended time--for six years--because I continued to eat the same way (basically low carb with most meals being vegetables and meat). When I steered from that the weight can back. But I digress. I've lost 13.5 lbs. since I started 2 months ago, and I was hoping to lose 2 lbs. a week, but I'm happy with this so far and CICO seems to be working and none of the "impossibilities" are affecting it. I'm eating pretty well, whole foods, but not deprived and have some carbs too. I've in better shape because I increased my exercise too. In October I will get a scale and start weighing my food--as I have 100 lbs. to lose, and to lose the 2 per week, I need to be more accurate. MFP helped me to see that what I was eating was much beyond the calorie intake that I should have.
I think the diet/weight loss/exercise industry benefits from people NOT believing in CICO because if it actually works then they don't have as many customers! I feel like what I'm doing now on MFP is easy and doable. Tracking calories was NOT easy before the internet and apps like this. If I have to log for the rest of my life to lose the weight and then maintain, I'll do it, because it is a lot easier than guessing and trying different diets that really do not get to the bottom of the problem which is eating too much.
Fantastic! Best of luck to you as you continue to progress toward your goals!!1 -
All calories are created 'equal'. Reasoning behind my seemingly confident reply-
A calorie is a measurement, not a nutrient - to say that all calories aren't created equal is to say that all miles aren't created equal due to terrain.
Certain foods will have a different effect on you and can have positive or adverse effects on your health but, if (without exercise) you need 1800 calories to maintain your 'weight' - you consume 1800 calories (without complicating matters with exercise) you will neither gain nor loose 'weight'.
The science is all there if you choose to read credible studies and physiological science - however, should you choose to read an article from somebody whom is stating their opinions or personal experience. That can't be considered credible science.
CICO is the whole equation when it comes to weight loss/maintenance/gain. Personal physiological needs however vary dramatically from person to person.4 -
lucerorojo wrote: »For most of my adult life I've been resistant to the CICO. However, 2 months ago I started on MFP, and have been logging everyday. (I have not been weighing my food). I was also told years ago by my previous doctor that it would be nearly impossible to lose weight after age 40, so I needed to lose it before. I'd gone on diets before and lost, by eating low carb, juice fasting, or something else (not CICO) but only once did I keep it off for an extended time--for six years--because I continued to eat the same way (basically low carb with most meals being vegetables and meat). When I steered from that the weight can back. But I digress. I've lost 13.5 lbs. since I started 2 months ago, and I was hoping to lose 2 lbs. a week, but I'm happy with this so far and CICO seems to be working and none of the "impossibilities" are affecting it. I'm eating pretty well, whole foods, but not deprived and have some carbs too. I've in better shape because I increased my exercise too. In October I will get a scale and start weighing my food--as I have 100 lbs. to lose, and to lose the 2 per week, I need to be more accurate. MFP helped me to see that what I was eating was much beyond the calorie intake that I should have.
I think the diet/weight loss/exercise industry benefits from people NOT believing in CICO because if it actually works then they don't have as many customers! I feel like what I'm doing now on MFP is easy and doable. Tracking calories was NOT easy before the internet and apps like this. If I have to log for the rest of my life to lose the weight and then maintain, I'll do it, because it is a lot easier than guessing and trying different diets that really do not get to the bottom of the problem which is eating too much.
CICO IS NOT CALORIE COUNTING!
Replace every instance of CICO above with "counting calories" and this makes sense.8 -
Yes, I see your point "CICO is not calorie counting." However, the way it is presented in the media is that it is the same thing. And people don't like to count calories, so the CICO is thrown out with the bath water too.3
-
lucerorojo wrote: »Yes, I see your point "CICO is not calorie counting." However, the way it is presented in the media is that it is the same thing. And people don't like to count calories, so the CICO is thrown out with the bath water too.
Sadly...the media gets a lot of things wrong...6 -
rheddmobile wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rheddmobile 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
If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.
The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.
As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.
Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.
And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.
Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.
As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.
All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.
"Completely"? LOL.
Some of us have medical conditions, and those make a difference. (Each condition makes a different difference.) Who has said otherwise?2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Another great video on when weight management/fitness information is appropriate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYlbzuLVr5M
I've seen his shirtless torso on so many youtube thumbnails that I knew it was an Athlean-X video without even watching it. lol
I started a GoFundMe to buy Jeff a shirt and sent the link to him.
For only 5 cents a day you can sponsor and clothe a guy like Jeff. No one should live life shirtless.14 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
i have heard of raw beef liver, heart, kidney, as well as raw eggs but i don't think people could get clean raw chicken that easy for just weight loss. but for the most part your not guaranteed anything with any diet even weight loss, and eating only raw chicken is a little too restrictive.6 -
xhunter561 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
i have heard of raw beef liver, heart, kidney, as well as raw eggs but i don't think people could get clean raw chicken that easy for just weight loss. but for the most part your not guaranteed anything with any diet even weight loss, and eating only raw chicken is a little too restrictive.
*Pat pat*8 -
xhunter561 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
i have heard of raw beef liver, heart, kidney, as well as raw eggs but i don't think people could get clean raw chicken that easy for just weight loss. but for the most part your not guaranteed anything with any diet even weight loss, and eating only raw chicken is a little too restrictive.
Despite this being a zombie thread - you do understand @peckchris3267 was being sarcastic right?0 -
xhunter561 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
i have heard of raw beef liver, heart, kidney, as well as raw eggs but i don't think people could get clean raw chicken that easy for just weight loss. but for the most part your not guaranteed anything with any diet even weight loss, and eating only raw chicken is a little too restrictive.
13 -
xhunter561 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
i have heard of raw beef liver, heart, kidney, as well as raw eggs but i don't think people could get clean raw chicken that easy for just weight loss. but for the most part your not guaranteed anything with any diet even weight loss, and eating only raw chicken is a little too restrictive.
Despite this being a zombie thread - you do understand @peckchris3267 was being sarcastic right?
I wasn't sure if @xhunter561 was being sarcastic or not?? Ya just never know :huh:0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rheddmobile 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
If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.
The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.
As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.
Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.
And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.
Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.
As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.
All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.
"Completely"? LOL.
Some of us have medical conditions, and those make a difference. (Each condition makes a different difference.) Who has said otherwise?
I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but regardless of medical condition, the process by which the human body breaks down carbs is a different process from the way it breaks down fats which is a different process from the way it breaks down proteins. This is true for all people, not just people with diabetes - but since people with diabetes have an illness which affects the way in which the body breaks down carbs, the difference is more obvious.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rheddmobile 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
If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.
The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.
As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.
Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.
And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.
Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.
As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.
All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.
"Completely"? LOL.
Some of us have medical conditions, and those make a difference. (Each condition makes a different difference.) Who has said otherwise?
I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but regardless of medical condition, the process by which the human body breaks down carbs is a different process from the way it breaks down fats which is a different process from the way it breaks down proteins. This is true for all people, not just people with diabetes - but since people with diabetes have an illness which affects the way in which the body breaks down carbs, the difference is more obvious.
I think (and I hesitate to put words in @AnnPT77 's mouth here) that your statement was misinterpreted (as I did on first pass) to mean that each human metabolises them differently, not that each macro is metabolised differently in humans.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rheddmobile 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
If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.
The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.
As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.
Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.
And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.
Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.
As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.
All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.
"Completely"? LOL.
Some of us have medical conditions, and those make a difference. (Each condition makes a different difference.) Who has said otherwise?
I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but regardless of medical condition, the process by which the human body breaks down carbs is a different process from the way it breaks down fats which is a different process from the way it breaks down proteins. This is true for all people, not just people with diabetes - but since people with diabetes have an illness which affects the way in which the body breaks down carbs, the difference is more obvious.
None of which changes the fact that a calorie is a calorie.
If you’re allergic to peanuts and I’m not, and we both eat 100 grams of peanuts, we’ll have very different results. That doesn’t change anything about the fact that we both just ate 100 grams of peanuts.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions