A little help required backing up CICO

skysiebaby

Currently having a debate with someone on FB regarding all calories being equal for weight loss (which I firmly believe) and received the below link along with the response "I think the notion of 'calories in vs. calories out' is ridiculous", and also apparently 2000 calories of veg is not the same as 2000 calories of junk food.

Any thoughts about this study? I hate to lose an argument

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/?hc_location=ufi

segacs

For weight loss? The same.

For nutrition and overall health? Not the same.

For feeling full, satiated, and able to stick with it over the long term? Not the same.

skysiebaby

segacs wrote: »

For weight loss? The same.

For nutrition and overall health? Not the same.

For feeling full, satiated, and able to stick with it over the long term? Not the same.

Totally agree. We're talking strictly weight loss.

skysiebaby

This specifically was the response I, and a couple of others who agreed with me, got.

You are incorrect, here, buddy. The body burns healthy calories much more efficiently than non-useful calories that just stay on as fat. For example, if you eat 2,000 calories consisting of vegetables, whole grains and proteins you will be fit and healthy but, if you eat 2,000 calories of McDonalds day after day, you may just die. Your take on calories is a lie that junk food industries have fed the gullible public.

DeguelloTex

If calories in vs. calories out is ridiculous, where does the energy from those extra calories go?

segacs

That study is 3 years old and, based on the evidence since, doesn't seem to have been supported in any widespread fashion by the scientific community.

But hey, science is always about gathering more knowledge to change previously-held beliefs. Show me evidence and I'll believe you. But just saying "you are incorrect" isn't much of a response.

Sometimes you just gotta walk away. You can't win these internet debates 'cause they're not really about logic or evidence; they're about people wanting to shout their position louder than everyone else.

jemhh

skysiebaby wrote: »

This specifically was the response I, and a couple of others who agreed with me, got.

You are incorrect, here, buddy. The body burns healthy calories much more efficiently than non-useful calories that just stay on as fat. For example, if you eat 2,000 calories consisting of vegetables, whole grains and proteins you will be fit and healthy but, if you eat 2,000 calories of McDonalds day after day, you may just die. Your take on calories is a lie that junk food industries have fed the gullible public.

Ha! We're all going to die. From the moment we're conceived, we are headed toward death, McDonald's or not.

Liftng4Lis

The guy's an idiot, ignore him.

cwolfman13

skysiebaby wrote: »

Currently having a debate with someone on FB regarding all calories being equal for weight loss (which I firmly believe) and received the below link along with the response "I think the notion of 'calories in vs. calories out' is ridiculous", and also apparently 2000 calories of veg is not the same as 2000 calories of junk food.

Any thoughts about this study? I hate to lose an argument

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/?hc_location=ufi

A calorie is just a unit of energy...that said, one will be able to eat somewhat more if they eat a lot of "healthy" foods because things like protein and fibrous veggies and whatnot increase your TEF because they are harder to break down and absorb than say, a cookie. In some crazy world where someone actually just ate pure junk food vs someone who actually just ate "healthy" food, I would guess that this difference could actually be somewhat substantial...but considering nobody really does either, it's not really an issue for most people.

skysiebaby

I know its not necessarily an internet argument I'm gonna win. But if you read the rest of the comments you'd see why I've bitten so far. Dammit

DeguelloTex

Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

The guy who gave you that answer is a moron.

eric_sg61

Ask them if energy can be created from nothing. Then ask them if energy consumed can disappear without being accounted for. If energy can be created from nothing then they are claiming a perpetual energy machine. If they are claiming the latter they are claiming a black hole.
http://evidencemag.com/why-calories-count/

MityMax96

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html/

MityMax96

Oh and you can also tell him/her to google "The Twinkie Diet"

eric_sg61

Also, show them Professor Haubs Twinkie experiment, the potato guy, and the science professor who only ate mcdonalds.
http://anthonycolpo.com/man-sheds-21-pounds-on-60-day-potato-only-diet/
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

skysiebaby

DeguelloTex wrote: »

Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

The guy who gave you that answer is a moron.

I already used the Twinkie diet. This is what I got back hahaha.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/chewing-on-the-twinkie-di_b_782678.html

benjaminhk

"Currently having a debate with someone on FB"

This was your first mistake.

jgnatca

Your best defence is success.

NikonPal

segacs wrote: »

For weight loss? The same.

For nutrition and overall health? Not the same.

For feeling full, satiated, and able to stick with it over the long term? Not the same.[/quote]

Second time today, I can only say 1 thing about your post - "Exactly",

With regards to people not open-minded in FB discussions, I often remind myself of the quote: "Common sense is a flower that doesn't grow in everyone's garden."

Unknown

This content has been removed.

DeguelloTex

skysiebaby wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

The guy who gave you that answer is a moron.

I already used the Twinkie diet. This is what I got back hahaha.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/chewing-on-the-twinkie-di_b_782678.html

What you got back supports CICO, not the fool with whom you are arguing.

skysiebaby

benjaminhkohl wrote: »

"Currently having a debate with someone on FB"

This was your first mistake.

Haha yep!

jgnatca

I saw a political debate break out on one of my FB posts yesterday, and here I peeked in because I thought it was another kudos comment for one of my running posts. Nope, politics. Both debaters intelligent, hotheaded women whom I normally admire, getting all bothered over politics. And neither will be voting for my favored candidate! They were not there to stroke my ego at all, LOL. I backed out of the thread slowly.

skysiebaby

I posted a Science Based Medicine article and think I'll leave it at. This was her parting shot though...

Geez, just look at your own life - are you the perfect weight, in perfect health, never gain weight and over 50? I know what works and I'll stick with that. Read the article again, perhaps you will understand it with a second reading. Or, believe what a journalist writes from 2007. From the article directly: "We’ve found that, contrary to nutritional dogma, all calories are not created equal,” says Ludwig, who is also director of the Optimal Weight for Life Clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital. “Total calories burned plummeted by 300 calories on the low-fat diet compared to the low-carbohydrate diet, which would equal the number of calories typically burned in an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity,” he says.

Edited...cos its Friday night and oh well.

skysiebaby

jgnatca wrote: »

I saw a political debate break out on one of my FB posts yesterday, and here I peeked in because I thought it was another kudos comment for one of my running posts. Nope, politics. Both debaters intelligent, hotheaded women whom I normally admire, getting all bothered over politics. And neither will be voting for my favored candidate! They were not there to stroke my ego at all, LOL. I backed out of the thread slowly.

Wish I had your self restraint!

ruggedshutter

I would wager that they also believe that 10 tons of feathers weighs less than 10 tons of steel.... *smh*

stevencloser

skysiebaby wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

The guy who gave you that answer is a moron.

I already used the Twinkie diet. This is what I got back hahaha.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/chewing-on-the-twinkie-di_b_782678.html

Looks like they didn't even as much as skimmed that thing.

punkuate

I had McDonald's earlier. Oh noes... How many hours do I have left to live?

maidentl

punkuate wrote: »

I had McDonald's earlier. Oh noes... How many hours do I have left to live?

brianpperkins

Stop associating with the ignorant masses on FB.

Mr_Knight

Diets are useless unless they can be adhered to. In the lab, all calories can be considered equal.

But in the real world, with real people who have real preferences and different contexts - not so much.

CICO always - ALWAYS - applies. That part is simple. But the choices needed to be made to make it work for any given person is anything but simple.