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.
If it's all CICO - why can't you outrun a bad diet?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I keep wanting to define the terms as such:
"bad diet" -- diet where the calories in are higher than your actual TDEE
outrun -- eat fewer calories than you burn.
Therefore, we can rephrase: "You can't have a diet where the calories in are higher than your TDEE and still eat fewer calories than you burn."
So, a truism. ;-)
No. Because this thread must continue.
0 -
For what it's worth, the way I heard it said was "You can't outrun the fork." which I think would be a little easier to disprove.1
-
-
In the saying it clearly means calories/amount, though.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »In the saying it clearly means calories/amount, though.
Yeah I know. They need to change the saying
0 -
I'm good with that. ;-)1
-
Christine_72 wrote: »
Before MFP "bad diet" meant poor nutrition to me. Now I think of "bad diet" as poor nutrition and more calories than I burn. No doubt that more calories than I burn is bad for me!
I think my nutrition is better now. Could be better, I am working on it. When I used to say it was bad nutritionally, it wasn't as bad as I imagined. The "too many calories consumed" was the very bad part.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I keep wanting to define the terms as such:
"bad diet" -- diet where the calories in are higher than your actual TDEE
outrun -- eat fewer calories than you burn.
Therefore, we can rephrase: "You can't have a diet where the calories in are higher than your TDEE and still eat fewer calories than you burn."
So, a truism. ;-)
No. Because this thread must continue.
I'd much rather it die.0 -
This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
HOnestly, I don't think it IS all CICO. I have read several things lately that support the idea that the type of calories do matter. Your body processes sugar differently than protein, etc etc. I also read quite a bit, (today actually) that suggests that exercise for weight loss is not really productive. Of course you still exercise, but calorie restriction is and portion control is where it's at. I always tell people, also, no matter how much I exercise, I can out eat it.
2 -
Most people are not going to exercise enough to burn off overeating. It's technically possible, but when one McDonald's meal for dinner can put you over your calorie goal by 1,000 calories or more, most people aren't going to take the time/effort to jog that off (which would take hours).1
-
This content has been removed.
-
it IS all CICO...and i DO outrun what most would consider a "bad" diet. I typically eat like 3/4 of my calories in chocolate, cake and ice cream every day. Am I putting on weight? nope. I still eat less calories than my TDEE due to what I run every day.1
-
aliencheesecake wrote: »This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
HOnestly, I don't think it IS all CICO. I have read several things lately that support the idea that the type of calories do matter. Your body processes sugar differently than protein, etc etc. I also read quite a bit, (today actually) that suggests that exercise for weight loss is not really productive. Of course you still exercise, but calorie restriction is and portion control is where it's at. I always tell people, also, no matter how much I exercise, I can out eat it.
The processing of sugar vs protein vs fat vs alcohol has nothing to do with fat storage/loss, though.
Sure, sugar may be processed differently but as it's processed it releases a set amount of energy. The same is true of protein, etc.
If you take in more of this energy than you burn then it is stored as fat. If you burn more than you take in (regardless of source) then your body will release energy from fat stores (fat loss).
It's ALL about CICO when it comes to fat loss.1 -
aliencheesecake wrote: »This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
HOnestly, I don't think it IS all CICO. I have read several things lately that support the idea that the type of calories do matter. Your body processes sugar differently than protein, etc etc. I also read quite a bit, (today actually) that suggests that exercise for weight loss is not really productive. Of course you still exercise, but calorie restriction is and portion control is where it's at. I always tell people, also, no matter how much I exercise, I can out eat it.
It is all about CICO, I bolded the part where even you deep down think so, regardless of the other nonsense you may have read...0 -
Well, there's two sides to this argument IMO.
One, if all that matters is pure weight loss (fat and muscle), then CICO is mathmatically correct. Eg. The biggest loser. They eat low calories and have a high output trough exercise and drop a tremendous amount of weight.
However, if you follow these contestants for a few years after the competition, most have regained a substantial amount of weight. In fact, some now weight more than they did before they started the biggest loser. When looking at their TDEE post-show, even if they eat to maitenence for a person at their weight, they are burning far less calories than their counterparts from their constant low-calorie diets. Thus, their metabolism gets shot from years of calorie restriction, and therefore they would have to, a you say, exercise off 3000 calories a day (which is absolutely mindboggling). Some of this can be attributed to the muscle loss caused by chronic low calorie dietng (More muscle=higher TDEE).
All in all, that's why I recoommed Intermittent fasting as a weight loss protocol for it's effects on hormone production (Freeflowing HGH increases for example) and insulin sensitivity. It puts less emphasis on calorie restriction, thus preserving muscle. But I digress, as this is not a debate on what method is best.1 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »Well, there's two sides to this argument IMO.
One, if all that matters is pure weight loss (fat and muscle), then CICO is mathmatically correct. Eg. The biggest loser. They eat low calories and have a high output trough exercise and drop a tremendous amount of weight.
However, if you follow these contestants for a few years after the competition, most have regained a substantial amount of weight. In fact, some now weight more than they did before they started the biggest loser. When looking at their TDEE post-show, even if they eat to maitenence for a person at their weight, they are burning far less calories than their counterparts from their constant low-calorie diets. Thus, their metabolism gets shot from years of calorie restriction, and therefore they would have to, a you say, exercise off 3000 calories a day (which is absolutely mindboggling). Some of this can be attributed to the muscle loss caused by chronic low calorie dietng (More muscle=higher TDEE).
All in all, that's why I recoommed Intermittent fasting as a weight loss protocol for it's effects on hormone production (Freeflowing HGH increases for example) and insulin sensitivity. It puts less emphasis on calorie restriction, thus preserving muscle. But I digress, as this is not a debate on what method is best.
CICO is not a diet, it is an energy equation. If you lose weight CI<CO, if you gain weight CI>CO. In both instances CICO governs all. Nothing in your post refutes that...3 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »All in all, that's why I recoommed Intermittent fasting as a weight loss protocol for it's effects on hormone production (Freeflowing HGH increases for example) and insulin sensitivity. It puts less emphasis on calorie restriction, thus preserving muscle. But I digress, as this is not a debate on what method is best.
All the potential benefits of IF can be attained through exercise. IF is a great tool for controlling calories, but nothing more...0 -
CICO is not a diet, it is an energy equation. If you lose weight CI<CO, if you gain weight CI>CO. In both instances CICO governs all. Nothing in your post refutes that...
I am not disputing that CICO is a way to lose weight. I simply brought up a perspective that CICO can't completely explain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
One has to ask is CICO is the most efficent way to lose fat and retian muscle. To each their own, and if it works for you, then that's awesome and stick to that. But obesity wouldnt be such an epidemic if it was that easy. Weight loss is not purely willpower.0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »
CICO is not a diet, it is an energy equation. If you lose weight CI<CO, if you gain weight CI>CO. In both instances CICO governs all. Nothing in your post refutes that...
I am not disputing that CICO is a way to lose weight. I simply brought up a perspective that CICO can't completely explain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
CICO is not a way to lose weight, it is an energy equation. You are confusing CICO with counting calories...1 -
CICO is not a way to lose weight, it is an energy equation. You are confusing CICO with counting calories...
Ok, you can pick apart grammar all day, or you can accept the point I'm attempting to make. Many people use CICO as a method to count calories, and do not understand the difference. Call it a mathematical equation, call it whatever you want, but please debate my main paoint rather than my grammar.
0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »
CICO is not a way to lose weight, it is an energy equation. You are confusing CICO with counting calories...
Ok, you can pick apart grammar all day, or you can accept the point I'm attempting to make. Many people use CICO as a method to count calories, and do not understand the difference. Call it a mathematical equation, call it whatever you want, but please debate my main paoint rather than my grammar.
CICO is not a method.
0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »
CICO is not a way to lose weight, it is an energy equation. You are confusing CICO with counting calories...
Ok, you can pick apart grammar all day, or you can accept the point I'm attempting to make. Many people use CICO as a method to count calories, and do not understand the difference. Call it a mathematical equation, call it whatever you want, but please debate my main paoint rather than my grammar.
What's your main point - without using the term CICO?1 -
I am going to get a lot of flack for this. I don't think its all calories in calories out. A calorie is a calorie. Not if your body processes and uses those calories differently. I can eat 200 calories of candy or 200 calories of chicken and my body will handle it differently. Especially as a woman with PCOS and metabolic syndrome, there IS such a thing as you are what you eat. I am finding this hard since I have a sweet tooth and losing weight with PCOS is 3x harder for me than most.
About 6 years ago I did Atkins and exercised 2x a day. Doctors were amazed at my weight loss vs fat and protein intake but cutting carbs helped me incredibly. Gave me a history of kidney stones, but in this case cholesterol, blood sugars all dropped with cutting carbs. So to me, a calorie is not a calorie or calories in calories out cut and dry blanket statements works for everyone sort of deal.0 -
Because there's a limit to what you can physically burn off. You'd die of a heart attack from over exertion.0
-
I am going to get a lot of flack for this. I don't think its all calories in calories out. A calorie is a calorie. Not if your body processes and uses those calories differently. I can eat 200 calories of candy or 200 calories of chicken and my body will handle it differently. Especially as a woman with PCOS and metabolic syndrome, there IS such a thing as you are what you eat. I am finding this hard since I have a sweet tooth and losing weight with PCOS is 3x harder for me than most.
About 6 years ago I did Atkins and exercised 2x a day. Doctors were amazed at my weight loss vs fat and protein intake but cutting carbs helped me incredibly. Gave me a history of kidney stones, but in this case cholesterol, blood sugars all dropped with cutting carbs. So to me, a calorie is not a calorie or calories in calories out cut and dry blanket statements works for everyone sort of deal.
Your body is adaptable enough to deal with either almost identically. The proteins in chicken can be turned to energy just as much as the carbs in the candy. And once they are energy, they're energy and your body doesn't even know anymore what it originally was.0 -
You can if you run like Forrest Gump!!!2
-
I am going to get a lot of flack for this. I don't think its all calories in calories out. A calorie is a calorie. Not if your body processes and uses those calories differently. I can eat 200 calories of candy or 200 calories of chicken and my body will handle it differently. Especially as a woman with PCOS and metabolic syndrome, there IS such a thing as you are what you eat. I am finding this hard since I have a sweet tooth and losing weight with PCOS is 3x harder for me than most.
About 6 years ago I did Atkins and exercised 2x a day. Doctors were amazed at my weight loss vs fat and protein intake but cutting carbs helped me incredibly. Gave me a history of kidney stones, but in this case cholesterol, blood sugars all dropped with cutting carbs. So to me, a calorie is not a calorie or calories in calories out cut and dry blanket statements works for everyone sort of deal.
but a unit of energy doesn't change. it really just is what it is.....if someone processes it differently because of some kind of medical issue, the difference is the person, not the calorie.3 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »
CICO is not a way to lose weight, it is an energy equation. You are confusing CICO with counting calories...
Ok, you can pick apart grammar all day, or you can accept the point I'm attempting to make. Many people use CICO as a method to count calories, and do not understand the difference. Call it a mathematical equation, call it whatever you want, but please debate my main paoint rather than my grammar.
You are missing the point. I am not debating grammar. I am trying to educate you. CICO is an energy equation, nothing more nothing less...0 -
Of course you can "outrun" a bad diet. Do you think your body really cares if your fat grams come from a cheeseburger or salmon? one may have more nutrients, but fat is fat regardless of the food it comes from, your body doesn't care if you eat chicken nuggets or grilled chicken, it is still protein. (Sure one is fried and will have different macros). But the point is as long as you eat less than you burn, you WILL lose weight. Its science. And no my body doesn't care if my carbs come from sweet potatoes or waffles. A carb is a carb.0
-
I am going to get a lot of flack for this. I don't think its all calories in calories out. A calorie is a calorie. Not if your body processes and uses those calories differently. I can eat 200 calories of candy or 200 calories of chicken and my body will handle it differently. Especially as a woman with PCOS and metabolic syndrome, there IS such a thing as you are what you eat. I am finding this hard since I have a sweet tooth and losing weight with PCOS is 3x harder for me than most.
About 6 years ago I did Atkins and exercised 2x a day. Doctors were amazed at my weight loss vs fat and protein intake but cutting carbs helped me incredibly. Gave me a history of kidney stones, but in this case cholesterol, blood sugars all dropped with cutting carbs. So to me, a calorie is not a calorie or calories in calories out cut and dry blanket statements works for everyone sort of deal.
You are confusing the how with the why. Your benefits came from a negative energy balance (why), the tool you used was low carb (how). Also, and this is a very important point, you cut carbs really means you cut calories. Same as if you cut fat...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions