Carbs or fat? Totally confused
Options
Replies
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
You're posting on the wrong site.
Not than anyone here believes or is suggesting that you eat donuts for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But just about everyone here believes that if you eat 1,800 calories of donuts for one year, five years or ten years, and exercise X amount, your weight will be exactly the same if you eat 1,800 calories of a balanced diet for one year, five years or ten years and exercise X amount.
Just intuitively, it makes no sense.
It doesn't make sense because that is your own personal interpretation/extrapolation of what people are saying. No one on this sites is going to recommend a diet full of junk food (yes it can be done as reported by the twinkie diet), but in the end, for body composition, satiety and sustainability, one should have a varied and nutrient dense to support their goals (which comes from whole foods). Does this mean you can fit in your diet, some junk food... absolutely. Does this mean, your diet should be all junk... nope. I generally recommend 10-15% of your calories can come from junk, pending it doesn't interfere with your ability to stick with the diet or prevent you from reaching your macronutrient goals. But you certainly can incorporate things like ice cream, donuts, muffins, etc.. on occasion. Thinking otherwise or thinking that is the only thing one should eat, is misrepresenting the message being passed.
Edited: to clean up language.3 -
Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYmd8IEHV4
There is no doubt that many people do loose weight by faithfully following CICO. There is also no doubt that it doesn't work all the time. There is no concept of counting calories inside the human body. The calorie is a concept that didn't even exist before 1824 and wasn't used widely until the mid-twentieth century. (Basically before obesity was a major issue.) The process of determining how many calories are in food doesn't even match how energy is extracted or used in the body. At some point there clearly is an energy balance, but it isn't something that is constant or probably even correctly measured.
CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.
Not understanding the use or inputs of the tool doesn't disprove that a calorie isn't a calorie. Like all other tools, it's based on some standard equations. If those calculations are wrong or the inputs are off, then it will not present you with the correct situation; also taking into consideration that even trainer professionals under-represent calories in by as much as 300+ calories and over-represent calories out, there is a lot of opportunity to be off on your inputs and outputs. In the end, personal verification and validation is required to see if your inputs align to the equations. If I go off MFP's numbers (which their BMR equations don't consider body composition), I would maintain at 2750 calories, but in fact, I maintain at 3000 calories. Does that disprove CICO, absolutely not, it means the tools algorithms don't utilize all variables or I am slightly outside the standard deviate but still fall within two stand deviations.
Even if we aren't as obtuse and expand the scope of what is meant by "is a calorie a calorie" to mean, that how different are macronutrients when it comes to weight loss, the answer is still very little (protein has a slightly higher impact on TEF, but nominal at best). Carbs vs fats have almost zero impact. If you look at metabolic ward studies, such as Kevin Hall's recent one you will find when protein is held constant and they highly vary carbs/fats, you will see there is almost no difference in fat loss over time. The fact is, over time, the body will always work to reach homeostasis. So any metabolic advantage that one would have, would largely disappear over a short period (6-12 months).
OP, at the end of the day, a calorie deficit is required. How you achieve that is very personal. Our bodies respond differently to macronutrient composition. So much better on high fat, while others much better on low fat. Generally, increase protein and fiber are the biggest items to support satiety. Protein also supports maintenance of muscle, which would give you a better appearance (more muscle = leaner body). Fats support hormone regulation/nutrient uptake and carbs support energy.
First you say CICO works and then you say it doesn't. (Actually I totally agree that homeostasis will cause things to balance out.) Finally you say a calorie isn't a calorie. Seems like you covered all the bases.
I'm pretty sure one is unlikely to lose weight with a large calorie surplus, although there probably are cases of that. Likewise a calorie deficit doesn't ensure one will lose weight. Almost every diet that has existed to lose weight is based on a calorie deficit. Most work over the short term, but then people normally gain back all the weight plus more. The problem is calories out can change drastically and sometime stay unfavorable.
I really lean to fat being controlled by hormones and we only have indirect control of hormones through diet, exercise and in some cases drugs. While I'm not a fan of ketosis, it doesn't demonstrate one way of controlling hormones. CICO though is a useful tool though and I'm not claiming it doesn't have value.0 -
Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns.
the only "clowns" I see are those trying to disprove a basic mathematical truism without realising what they are talking about, and despite countless people trying to explain what they are missing
I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks.
MFP is not CICO, it is a series of algorithms which you must use advisably based on your understanding of your own equation...are you logging correctly, are you estimating burn correctly, is your TDEE what you imagine it is? All are part of the biological feedback loop into the equation. The 5 week estimate is based on a single day logging with the inputs you have provided, if it is wrong then it is likely your input that is wrong
The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?
that really has no relevance. It's hard to be exact, but it's easy with the feedback loop to be good enough
There is no doubt that many people do loose weight by faithfully following CICO. There is also no doubt that it doesn't work all the time.
your second statement is wrong
There is no concept of counting calories inside the human body. The calorie is a concept that didn't even exist before 1824 and wasn't used widely until the mid-twentieth century. (Basically before obesity was a major issue.)
now that's just daft, gravity existed before it was "named", obesity is an issue because of increasing availability of food (CI) and decreasing activity (CO)
The process of determining how many calories are in food doesn't even match how energy is extracted or used in the body. At some point there clearly is an energy balance, but it isn't something that is constant or probably even correctly measured.
CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.
CICO is neither. It just is. Whether you choose to wilfully misunderstand or to reject, it will just keep on being there in the background of any weight goal you have. Without thought. Without feeling. Without belief structures.
Cos maths
9 -
Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYmd8IEHV4
There is no doubt that many people do loose weight by faithfully following CICO. There is also no doubt that it doesn't work all the time. There is no concept of counting calories inside the human body. The calorie is a concept that didn't even exist before 1824 and wasn't used widely until the mid-twentieth century. (Basically before obesity was a major issue.) The process of determining how many calories are in food doesn't even match how energy is extracted or used in the body. At some point there clearly is an energy balance, but it isn't something that is constant or probably even correctly measured.
CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.
Not understanding the use or inputs of the tool doesn't disprove that a calorie isn't a calorie. Like all other tools, it's based on some standard equations. If those calculations are wrong or the inputs are off, then it will not present you with the correct situation; also taking into consideration that even trainer professionals under-represent calories in by as much as 300+ calories and over-represent calories out, there is a lot of opportunity to be off on your inputs and outputs. In the end, personal verification and validation is required to see if your inputs align to the equations. If I go off MFP's numbers (which their BMR equations don't consider body composition), I would maintain at 2750 calories, but in fact, I maintain at 3000 calories. Does that disprove CICO, absolutely not, it means the tools algorithms don't utilize all variables or I am slightly outside the standard deviate but still fall within two stand deviations.
Even if we aren't as obtuse and expand the scope of what is meant by "is a calorie a calorie" to mean, that how different are macronutrients when it comes to weight loss, the answer is still very little (protein has a slightly higher impact on TEF, but nominal at best). Carbs vs fats have almost zero impact. If you look at metabolic ward studies, such as Kevin Hall's recent one you will find when protein is held constant and they highly vary carbs/fats, you will see there is almost no difference in fat loss over time. The fact is, over time, the body will always work to reach homeostasis. So any metabolic advantage that one would have, would largely disappear over a short period (6-12 months).
OP, at the end of the day, a calorie deficit is required. How you achieve that is very personal. Our bodies respond differently to macronutrient composition. So much better on high fat, while others much better on low fat. Generally, increase protein and fiber are the biggest items to support satiety. Protein also supports maintenance of muscle, which would give you a better appearance (more muscle = leaner body). Fats support hormone regulation/nutrient uptake and carbs support energy.
First you say CICO works and then you say it doesn't. (Actually I totally agree that homeostasis will cause things to balance out.) Finally you say a calorie isn't a calorie. Seems like you covered all the bases.
I'm pretty sure one is unlikely to lose weight with a large calorie surplus, although there probably are cases of that. Likewise a calorie deficit doesn't ensure one will lose weight. Almost every diet that has existed to lose weight is based on a calorie deficit. Most work over the short term, but then people normally gain back all the weight plus more. The problem is calories out can change drastically and sometime stay unfavorable.
I really lean to fat being controlled by hormones and we only have indirect control of hormones through diet, exercise and in some cases drugs. While I'm not a fan of ketosis, it doesn't demonstrate one way of controlling hormones. CICO though is a useful tool though and I'm not claiming it doesn't have value.
CICO is an energy balance equation (BMR+TEF+TEA+NEAT=TDEE). It is not a tool. Where you seem to have issues is with calorie counting. And there are a few possibilities or a combination of possibilities for why that isnt' working like you think it's supposed to; 1. you are inaccurately counting calories (food scale), 2. you are not consistent at counting calories, 3. the equations aren't right, 4. calories burned are over exaggerated, or 5. a combination of all of that.3 -
Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYmd8IEHV4
There is no doubt that many people do loose weight by faithfully following CICO. There is also no doubt that it doesn't work all the time. There is no concept of counting calories inside the human body. The calorie is a concept that didn't even exist before 1824 and wasn't used widely until the mid-twentieth century. (Basically before obesity was a major issue.) The process of determining how many calories are in food doesn't even match how energy is extracted or used in the body. At some point there clearly is an energy balance, but it isn't something that is constant or probably even correctly measured.
CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.
Not understanding the use or inputs of the tool doesn't disprove that a calorie isn't a calorie. Like all other tools, it's based on some standard equations. If those calculations are wrong or the inputs are off, then it will not present you with the correct situation; also taking into consideration that even trainer professionals under-represent calories in by as much as 300+ calories and over-represent calories out, there is a lot of opportunity to be off on your inputs and outputs. In the end, personal verification and validation is required to see if your inputs align to the equations. If I go off MFP's numbers (which their BMR equations don't consider body composition), I would maintain at 2750 calories, but in fact, I maintain at 3000 calories. Does that disprove CICO, absolutely not, it means the tools algorithms don't utilize all variables or I am slightly outside the standard deviate but still fall within two stand deviations.
Even if we aren't as obtuse and expand the scope of what is meant by "is a calorie a calorie" to mean, that how different are macronutrients when it comes to weight loss, the answer is still very little (protein has a slightly higher impact on TEF, but nominal at best). Carbs vs fats have almost zero impact. If you look at metabolic ward studies, such as Kevin Hall's recent one you will find when protein is held constant and they highly vary carbs/fats, you will see there is almost no difference in fat loss over time. The fact is, over time, the body will always work to reach homeostasis. So any metabolic advantage that one would have, would largely disappear over a short period (6-12 months).
OP, at the end of the day, a calorie deficit is required. How you achieve that is very personal. Our bodies respond differently to macronutrient composition. So much better on high fat, while others much better on low fat. Generally, increase protein and fiber are the biggest items to support satiety. Protein also supports maintenance of muscle, which would give you a better appearance (more muscle = leaner body). Fats support hormone regulation/nutrient uptake and carbs support energy.
First you say CICO works and then you say it doesn't. (Actually I totally agree that homeostasis will cause things to balance out.) Finally you say a calorie isn't a calorie. Seems like you covered all the bases.
I'm pretty sure one is unlikely to lose weight with a large calorie surplus, although there probably are cases of that. Likewise a calorie deficit doesn't ensure one will lose weight. Almost every diet that has existed to lose weight is based on a calorie deficit. Most work over the short term, but then people normally gain back all the weight plus more. The problem is calories out can change drastically and sometime stay unfavorable.
I really lean to fat being controlled by hormones and we only have indirect control of hormones through diet, exercise and in some cases drugs. While I'm not a fan of ketosis, it doesn't demonstrate one way of controlling hormones. CICO though is a useful tool though and I'm not claiming it doesn't have value.
"Actually I totally agree that homeostasis will cause things to balance out."
This also doesn't need your agreement
Because it just is
That is the definition of homeostasis "the tendency towards a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes."
My face on reading that statement :huh:
"I'm pretty sure one is unlikely to lose weight with a large calorie surplus, although there probably are cases of that. "
:huh: :huh:
"Likewise a calorie deficit doesn't ensure one will lose weight. "
4 -
In fact it is less that a dozen people that insist there can't be any other view than CICO. CICO isn't even logical, it is a good model for a car but too simple for a human. Gas can be assigned a calorie value just like a potato. At least an engine uses the fuel the same way calories are measured.
The human body is an engine, calories are what makes it run. How many calories a body burns during specific exercises depends on the body composition, true. But gas mileage for a car depends on how the engine is made. Some cars burn more gas than others, does that mean the calculated power of the gas itself is changed from car to car? No, of course not, so why is it so hard a concept that the calculated power of a calorie stays the same from person to person?What happens in the human body isn't combustion, well unless you happen to spontaneously combust. Additionally food isn't completely used for the production of ATP either, it is also used to build and repair body tissues.
The basic truth was if CICO really worked the way it is claimed, there would be a lot fewer obese people. It just isn't that simple. That is why there are often positive results but the results are often temporary. The people that do succeed learn what works for them. At some point there is energy balance that much is true. Controlling the energy balance is a different issue. The body is just as likely to lower its temperature slightly as it is to burn fat. We simply do not have direct control over burning or storing fat. When people do lose weight, they typically can't even control what kind of weight is lost. Sometime it is just water or worse.
Something you're overlooking is where the obese people are. Developed countries have much higher percentages of obese people. Why? More food is available and with better transportation, less exercise. Think about it, if you have no access to cars or public transportation, you're going to be walking (or riding a bike) most places. Which equals more calories burned than someone who drives everywhere. Access to more food means larger meals, which is more calories consumed. The two together contribute to more calories burned and consumed and less calories burned, hence, gaining weight.CICO and the concept of all calories are the same are closely tied together. These are side by side with the concept that people are fat because they are lazy and lack self control. These concepts are really a type of misinformation. Of coarse people can eat themselves obese and starve themselves to death, but those are the extremes and don't match the vast majority.
True, the percentage of people that eat themselves to death are the minority. But that and anorexia are the extreme end of things, not the norm. No one is saying 'fat people are lazy and it's their own fault they're fat'. Granted, there are probably some that are, but I would suspect most people that are obese (that's not due to a medical condition), got that way without realizing that it's their lifestyle. If I had realized how much weight I would gain when I quit working a restaurant and took a full time desk job but didn't change my diet, I would've been a LOT more careful! I probably wouldn't have adjusted my diet, but I would have added exercise to offset it. I suspect that's the same for a lot of people that now need to lose weight.The most important things are to have a healthy diet and then to use exercise to further improve health. People that do that tend to get in control of their weight. Lots of choices, but normally there is something that works for most people. Diet is a tool for health as is exercise.
Thankfully it is bedtime ... so enjoy your rants. I won't care.
Agreed. CICO is the part of that that applies to weight loss, but to keep it off, a lifestyle change is also required. Diet isn't a 'tool' for health, it's a necessary change in eating habits to support health and weight loss. (I'm using diet here as the eating habits you have, not the other meaning that's a change to eating to lose weight that you don't continue after the weight is lost.) That's why, in my opinion, macros are much less important for the stated goal of losing weight. It's useful, and something to keep in mind when you're planning your meals, but for the simple goal of losing weight, it's the calories that count.
I'm not saying macros aren't important, they are. But they're more important in making sure your body gets the right balance of nutrition to sustain proper function, not in the composition of foods to lose weight. I guess the way to put it is that calories are the thing to pay attention to just to lose weight. If you want to be healthy as well as a lower weight, macros need to also be watched.2 -
Sigh indeed
From what I have witnessed, you seem to post a lot but neither logically nor with any scientific proofs; you link to studies that you clearly aren't reading as they don't support your contentions, but seem to believe just providing a hyperlink is enough to prove your erroneous points. When people point out the errors you simply ignore the points.
You also appear to use words you don't seem to understand.
you are surprised a range of people come in to correct your endless misinformation / misunderstandings, we don't do so for your benefit, but simply in case they halt or destroy other people's ability to hit their goals
In fact it is less that a dozen people that insist there can't be any other view than CICO. CICO isn't even logical, it is a good model for a car but too simple for a human. Gas can be assigned a calorie value just like a potato. At least an engine uses the fuel the same way calories are measured.
What happens in the human body isn't combustion, well unless you happen to spontaneously combust. Additionally food isn't completely used for the production of ATP either, it is also used to build and repair body tissues.
The basic truth was if CICO really worked the way it is claimed, there would be a lot fewer obese people. It just isn't that simple. That is why there are often positive results but the results are often temporary. The people that do succeed learn what works for them. At some point there is energy balance that much is true. Controlling the energy balance is a different issue. The body is just as likely to lower its temperature slightly as it is to burn fat. We simply do not have direct control over burning or storing fat. When people do lose weight, they typically can't even control what kind of weight is lost. Sometime it is just water or worse.
CICO and the concept of all calories are the same are closely tied together. These are side by side with the concept that people are fat because they are lazy and lack self control. These concepts are really a type of misinformation. Of coarse people can eat themselves obese and starve themselves to death, but those are the extremes and don't match the vast majority.
The most important things are to have a healthy diet and then to use exercise to further improve health. People that do that tend to get in control of their weight. Lots of choices, but normally there is something that works for most people. Diet is a tool for health as is exercise.
Thankfully it is bedtime ... so enjoy your rants. I won't care.
Look at metabolic ward studies, like the one I posted. They all measure EE and make caloric adjustments from that. There is a point in which your body burn body fat to a greater extent than it would store fat or visa versa. In the end, it's the essence of CICO. Unfortunately, CICO is an oversimplication of a highly complex equation. And unfortunately, many people misconstrue the concept because they feel it's too oversimplified.5 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
And yet we still have to remind people that weight loss and fitness are two separate things. You can be skinny and unfit. The "bad fuel" you're referring to doesn't change your weight loss, it changes your fitness. You're blending together two goals, that while commonly worked on together, are still two separate goals.
Whoa ... that isn't always true. There have been plenty of people experimenting and blogging about process food diets vs eating the same or more calories with healthier food. A lot of processed foods are loaded with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats and sometimes they are metabolized in unhealthy ways.
In my own case, just cutting back on added sugar in my diet made huge changes, although at least according to MFP I should be probably gaining weight most of the time. Maybe there are different triggers for different people. I wasn't having any problems with building muscle with the bad fuel, but dropping the bad fuel started my stalled weight loss again. The amount of calories involved were minor and now that I'm making progress I've been adding back calories. (Some extra calories helps with building muscle.)
Bad fuel can also impact weight loss as well as fitness. (Noted building muscle and gaining performance may not be the same as internal fitness.)
So I'm supposed to believe random bloggers over peer-reviewed scientific studies? Nope, sorry.
What peer-reviewed scientific studies?
There are plenty of studies that show calories from sugar in sweetened beverages are very detrimental to weight loss. Here are just a few:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493538
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15668676
And there are a lot more than that.
I'm guessing you have read nothing from after this post was made because if you had you would realize that all of these links that were shared supposedly confirming the poster's opinion that calories are different were in no way shape or form related to or reaffirming his opinion. One's conclusion was "that regular sugar-sweetened beverage consumption was associated with greater risk of fatty liver disease." One was merely an abstract stating that "beverages sweetened with sugar or high-fructose corn syrup pose a health risk for some people." You realize that an abstract is merely a statement of what is going to be talked about in the research not the actual research or conclusions right? Another one states that obesity appears to be more pronounced with people who drink sugary drinks. And the last one merely states that children's consumption of sugary drinks has increased in 21 years.
Absolutely none of those links back-up the poster's suggestion that eating X amount of calories of junk-food/sugar calories will provide less weight loss than the same person eating the exact same amount of say 'grass fed beef' calories. Either he didn't even bother to read the links he shared or he doesn't understand "science talk" (even though it's in English). Or maybe he just assumed no one would actually click on the links and would immediately believe everything he says because he provided a link. He still has not provided one bit of scientific evidence and is still merely sharing his opinion that it must be his way because he can't understand the scientifically proven process.5 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
And yet we still have to remind people that weight loss and fitness are two separate things. You can be skinny and unfit. The "bad fuel" you're referring to doesn't change your weight loss, it changes your fitness. You're blending together two goals, that while commonly worked on together, are still two separate goals.
Whoa ... that isn't always true. There have been plenty of people experimenting and blogging about process food diets vs eating the same or more calories with healthier food. A lot of processed foods are loaded with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats and sometimes they are metabolized in unhealthy ways.
In my own case, just cutting back on added sugar in my diet made huge changes, although at least according to MFP I should be probably gaining weight most of the time. Maybe there are different triggers for different people. I wasn't having any problems with building muscle with the bad fuel, but dropping the bad fuel started my stalled weight loss again. The amount of calories involved were minor and now that I'm making progress I've been adding back calories. (Some extra calories helps with building muscle.)
Bad fuel can also impact weight loss as well as fitness. (Noted building muscle and gaining performance may not be the same as internal fitness.)
So I'm supposed to believe random bloggers over peer-reviewed scientific studies? Nope, sorry.
What peer-reviewed scientific studies?
There are plenty of studies that show calories from sugar in sweetened beverages are very detrimental to weight loss. Here are just a few:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493538
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15668676
My 90lb weight loss proves your information wrong.
I count calories, make sure that I eat less than my body needs to maintain and I lose weight. I've tried high carb, keto, paleo, low carb, high protein and the outcome is always the same if my calories are the same.BiggDaddy58 wrote: »I'm sorry..I am in the camp that all calories are not the same.
Whenever I question how I was able to lose 90lbs including sugar in my diet, no one is able to answer me.
Funny, isn't it?
I don't understand how some can think a calorie is not a calorie. A calorie is a unit of energy. It's like saying an inch is not an inch, or a pound is not a pound. Absurd.Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYmd8IEHV4
There is no doubt that many people do loose weight by faithfully following CICO. There is also no doubt that it doesn't work all the time. There is no concept of counting calories inside the human body. The calorie is a concept that didn't even exist before 1824 and wasn't used widely until the mid-twentieth century. (Basically before obesity was a major issue.) The process of determining how many calories are in food doesn't even match how energy is extracted or used in the body. At some point there clearly is an energy balance, but it isn't something that is constant or probably even correctly measured.
CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.
Not understanding the use or inputs of the tool doesn't disprove that a calorie isn't a calorie. Like all other tools, it's based on some standard equations. If those calculations are wrong or the inputs are off, then it will not present you with the correct situation; also taking into consideration that even trainer professionals under-represent calories in by as much as 300+ calories and over-represent calories out, there is a lot of opportunity to be off on your inputs and outputs. In the end, personal verification and validation is required to see if your inputs align to the equations. If I go off MFP's numbers (which their BMR equations don't consider body composition), I would maintain at 2750 calories, but in fact, I maintain at 3000 calories. Does that disprove CICO, absolutely not, it means the tools algorithms don't utilize all variables or I am slightly outside the standard deviate but still fall within two stand deviations.
Even if we aren't as obtuse and expand the scope of what is meant by "is a calorie a calorie" to mean, that how different are macronutrients when it comes to weight loss, the answer is still very little (protein has a slightly higher impact on TEF, but nominal at best). Carbs vs fats have almost zero impact. If you look at metabolic ward studies, such as Kevin Hall's recent one you will find when protein is held constant and they highly vary carbs/fats, you will see there is almost no difference in fat loss over time. The fact is, over time, the body will always work to reach homeostasis. So any metabolic advantage that one would have, would largely disappear over a short period (6-12 months).
OP, at the end of the day, a calorie deficit is required. How you achieve that is very personal. Our bodies respond differently to macronutrient composition. So much better on high fat, while others much better on low fat. Generally, increase protein and fiber are the biggest items to support satiety. Protein also supports maintenance of muscle, which would give you a better appearance (more muscle = leaner body). Fats support hormone regulation/nutrient uptake and carbs support energy.
First you say CICO works and then you say it doesn't. (Actually I totally agree that homeostasis will cause things to balance out.) Finally you say a calorie isn't a calorie. Seems like you covered all the bases.
I'm pretty sure one is unlikely to lose weight with a large calorie surplus, although there probably are cases of that. Likewise a calorie deficit doesn't ensure one will lose weight. Almost every diet that has existed to lose weight is based on a calorie deficit. Most work over the short term, but then people normally gain back all the weight plus more. The problem is calories out can change drastically and sometime stay unfavorable.
I really lean to fat being controlled by hormones and we only have indirect control of hormones through diet, exercise and in some cases drugs. While I'm not a fan of ketosis, it doesn't demonstrate one way of controlling hormones. CICO though is a useful tool though and I'm not claiming it doesn't have value.
So, giving your body less energy than it needs to maintain its weight doesn't cause weight loss?
Oh, come on now! Usually when that is the case CI or CO are miscalculated.
3 -
Different systems work for different people .. most agree calore deficit no matter how you eat
Some0 -
OP, I hope you have figured out what you needed to, and if not, maybe you can start a different thread. Another thread derailed by people who disagree with CICO because they don't actually understand what it is.
CICO means if you eat less calories than your body burns, you will lose weight. Nothing more. It's literally the (often hidden) basis of every single diet that was ever successful for anyone.
We all say that while yes, you could eat all "junk food" and lose weight if your calories are correct, you should eat a well balanced nutritious diet for health and satiety.
Calories for weight loss/gain
Macros for satiety and fitness goals
Micros for health
Exercise for health/fitness
So if you are struggling, first get the calories down. Then move on to macros as you figure out what works for you. The industry desperately wants us to believe that weight loss and eating healthy are complicated and expensive and there is some "secret" so they can keep selling books and diet plans. Lots of people desperately want that to be true so they have an excuse for not succeeding - it was just too complicated and difficult. Don't fall for it!4 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Eating clean will make sure you're eating foods that are higher in nutritional density, and (mostly) lower in calorie density. This can make it easier to maintain a calorie deficit. At the same time, a lower-carb, higher protein and fat diet can also make a deficit easier to maintain due to greater satiety, combined with eating clean or not. The mechanical aspect of losing weight (really body fat is what we're after) is still simply staying in a calorie deficit.
Will it? Why? Nobody has ever come up with a definition of eating clean ...I can easily see it being nutritiously inadequate as a diet...in fact there are many stories of serious nutritional deficiencies in those who take "healthy eating" fads to extreme ...
True, it can be defined a bit differently depending on who you are talking to. In general, most will agree that "clean" food is generally fresh "natural" food as opposed to heavily processed "manufactured" food. The rule of thumb I've often heard is 'stick to the outside of the grocery store and avoid the center aisles'.
I am not at all a "clean eating" advocate. I think they tend to go much too far into pseudoscience and woo, especially when they start talking about all the "toxins" in non-organic and/or prepackaged food. But there's little doubt there is greater nutritional value in actual hamburger vs hamburger helper, or an apple as opposed to sugar added apple sauce. And a spinach salad will definitely fill the space in your stomach for fewer calories than a box of mac n cheese.
0 -
I tried a low carb diet, it worked initially, i lost 9lbs in 2 weeks, however it made me ill, had terrible headaches, massive cravings, shakey, constipated.... you get the idea!
For me, forgetting all the stuff about 'clean eating' and 'macros' and focusing on a calorie deficit really works.
I would like to add that eating more healthier food over junk/processed food also helps me loose weight, mainly because i feel full, can eat 'more' (salads and chicken are obviously less calories than burgers.. so you can eat more of it!) but I only worry about my calories, I don't check my macros now like i used to!
The trick is, I find, is to have a healthy balance of carbs and fat, both are not your enemy! If they fit in your calories go for it! 3 -
Sigh indeed
From what I have witnessed, you seem to post a lot but neither logically nor with any scientific proofs; you link to studies that you clearly aren't reading as they don't support your contentions, but seem to believe just providing a hyperlink is enough to prove your erroneous points. When people point out the errors you simply ignore the points.
You also appear to use words you don't seem to understand.
you are surprised a range of people come in to correct your endless misinformation / misunderstandings, we don't do so for your benefit, but simply in case they halt or destroy other people's ability to hit their goals
In fact it is less that a dozen people that insist there can't be any other view than CICO. CICO isn't even logical, it is a good model for a car but too simple for a human. Gas can be assigned a calorie value just like a potato. At least an engine uses the fuel the same way calories are measured.
What happens in the human body isn't combustion, well unless you happen to spontaneously combust. Additionally food isn't completely used for the production of ATP either, it is also used to build and repair body tissues.
The basic truth was if CICO really worked the way it is claimed, there would be a lot fewer obese people. It just isn't that simple. That is why there are often positive results but the results are often temporary. The people that do succeed learn what works for them. At some point there is energy balance that much is true. Controlling the energy balance is a different issue. The body is just as likely to lower its temperature slightly as it is to burn fat. We simply do not have direct control over burning or storing fat. When people do lose weight, they typically can't even control what kind of weight is lost. Sometime it is just water or worse.
CICO and the concept of all calories are the same are closely tied together. These are side by side with the concept that people are fat because they are lazy and lack self control. These concepts are really a type of misinformation. Of coarse people can eat themselves obese and starve themselves to death, but those are the extremes and don't match the vast majority.
The most important things are to have a healthy diet and then to use exercise to further improve health. People that do that tend to get in control of their weight. Lots of choices, but normally there is something that works for most people. Diet is a tool for health as is exercise.
Thankfully it is bedtime ... so enjoy your rants. I won't care.
As someone who is soon to graduate in Biomedicine, it is so painstakingly clear you don't understand what you are talking about.
I'm not trying to be patronising or bring you down. But your not understanding the facts or misinterpreting science and data does not make it wrong. It makes you wrong.
I'm sorry but everything you say literally goes against everything me degree has taught me, and everything I have researched (in a scientific manner, not via google).
9 -
Seriously? A calorie is just a unit of energy. However the molecules the "calories" are produced form are different. Cheese isn't the same as an apple. Trust me on that. Different types of molecules are metabolized differently. It is a pretty simple concept to understand.
1 -
cerise_noir wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
And yet we still have to remind people that weight loss and fitness are two separate things. You can be skinny and unfit. The "bad fuel" you're referring to doesn't change your weight loss, it changes your fitness. You're blending together two goals, that while commonly worked on together, are still two separate goals.
Whoa ... that isn't always true. There have been plenty of people experimenting and blogging about process food diets vs eating the same or more calories with healthier food. A lot of processed foods are loaded with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats and sometimes they are metabolized in unhealthy ways.
In my own case, just cutting back on added sugar in my diet made huge changes, although at least according to MFP I should be probably gaining weight most of the time. Maybe there are different triggers for different people. I wasn't having any problems with building muscle with the bad fuel, but dropping the bad fuel started my stalled weight loss again. The amount of calories involved were minor and now that I'm making progress I've been adding back calories. (Some extra calories helps with building muscle.)
Bad fuel can also impact weight loss as well as fitness. (Noted building muscle and gaining performance may not be the same as internal fitness.)
So I'm supposed to believe random bloggers over peer-reviewed scientific studies? Nope, sorry.
What peer-reviewed scientific studies?
There are plenty of studies that show calories from sugar in sweetened beverages are very detrimental to weight loss. Here are just a few:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493538
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15668676
My 90lb weight loss proves your information wrong.
I count calories, make sure that I eat less than my body needs to maintain and I lose weight. I've tried high carb, keto, paleo, low carb, high protein and the outcome is always the same if my calories are the same.BiggDaddy58 wrote: »I'm sorry..I am in the camp that all calories are not the same.
Whenever I question how I was able to lose 90lbs including sugar in my diet, no one is able to answer me.
Funny, isn't it?
I don't understand how some can think a calorie is not a calorie. A calorie is a unit of energy. It's like saying an inch is not an inch, or a pound is not a pound. Absurd.Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYmd8IEHV4
There is no doubt that many people do loose weight by faithfully following CICO. There is also no doubt that it doesn't work all the time. There is no concept of counting calories inside the human body. The calorie is a concept that didn't even exist before 1824 and wasn't used widely until the mid-twentieth century. (Basically before obesity was a major issue.) The process of determining how many calories are in food doesn't even match how energy is extracted or used in the body. At some point there clearly is an energy balance, but it isn't something that is constant or probably even correctly measured.
CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.
Not understanding the use or inputs of the tool doesn't disprove that a calorie isn't a calorie. Like all other tools, it's based on some standard equations. If those calculations are wrong or the inputs are off, then it will not present you with the correct situation; also taking into consideration that even trainer professionals under-represent calories in by as much as 300+ calories and over-represent calories out, there is a lot of opportunity to be off on your inputs and outputs. In the end, personal verification and validation is required to see if your inputs align to the equations. If I go off MFP's numbers (which their BMR equations don't consider body composition), I would maintain at 2750 calories, but in fact, I maintain at 3000 calories. Does that disprove CICO, absolutely not, it means the tools algorithms don't utilize all variables or I am slightly outside the standard deviate but still fall within two stand deviations.
Even if we aren't as obtuse and expand the scope of what is meant by "is a calorie a calorie" to mean, that how different are macronutrients when it comes to weight loss, the answer is still very little (protein has a slightly higher impact on TEF, but nominal at best). Carbs vs fats have almost zero impact. If you look at metabolic ward studies, such as Kevin Hall's recent one you will find when protein is held constant and they highly vary carbs/fats, you will see there is almost no difference in fat loss over time. The fact is, over time, the body will always work to reach homeostasis. So any metabolic advantage that one would have, would largely disappear over a short period (6-12 months).
OP, at the end of the day, a calorie deficit is required. How you achieve that is very personal. Our bodies respond differently to macronutrient composition. So much better on high fat, while others much better on low fat. Generally, increase protein and fiber are the biggest items to support satiety. Protein also supports maintenance of muscle, which would give you a better appearance (more muscle = leaner body). Fats support hormone regulation/nutrient uptake and carbs support energy.
First you say CICO works and then you say it doesn't. (Actually I totally agree that homeostasis will cause things to balance out.) Finally you say a calorie isn't a calorie. Seems like you covered all the bases.
I'm pretty sure one is unlikely to lose weight with a large calorie surplus, although there probably are cases of that. Likewise a calorie deficit doesn't ensure one will lose weight. Almost every diet that has existed to lose weight is based on a calorie deficit. Most work over the short term, but then people normally gain back all the weight plus more. The problem is calories out can change drastically and sometime stay unfavorable.
I really lean to fat being controlled by hormones and we only have indirect control of hormones through diet, exercise and in some cases drugs. While I'm not a fan of ketosis, it doesn't demonstrate one way of controlling hormones. CICO though is a useful tool though and I'm not claiming it doesn't have value.
So, giving your body less energy than it needs to maintain its weight doesn't cause weight loss?
Oh, come on now! Usually when that is the case CI or CO are miscalculated.
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
0 -
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
How does anything you wrote disprove CICO? 80 to 90% of people fail at every single diet. What does that mean, simple the either the plan or available dietary choices where not suitable for the individual (i.e., paleo for me). And no one is saying the a cookie is the same as a steak but one thing is for certain... all diets are a compostion of foods. And making arguments around point comparisons that wouldnt be applicable by any means is ridiculous and doesnt provide any credibility. It literally means that there isnt a valid argument or discussion to have. So if there isnt any credible evidence why argue this point?
You cut sugar and find it sustainable. Great. I agree its a solid approach and even further would suggest the majority of those not only implement similar strategies but would recommend it as well (regardless of personal interpretation of their post). But in the end, it means your dietary strategy has given you a sustainable way to address the parameters of the energy balance equation. I hope you continue to find it sustainable.1 -
I never said that weight loss couldn't or doesn't occur. I've been clearly stating the calories out is a moving target and that is why over the long run most diets fail. Some people do figure out what works for them and they are successful. You success put you in an elite club!
How does anything you wrote disprove CICO? 80 to 90% of people fail at every single diet. What does that mean, simple the either the plan or available dietary choices where not suitable for the individual (i.e., paleo for me). And no one is saying the a cookie is the same as a steak but one thing is for certain... all diets are a compostion of foods. And making arguments around point comparisons that wouldnt be applicable by any means is ridiculous and doesnt provide any credibility. It literally means that there isnt a valid argument or discussion to have. So if there isnt any credible evidence why argue this point?
You cut sugar and find it sustainable. Great. I agree its a solid approach and even further would suggest the majority of those not only implement similar strategies but would recommend it as well (regardless of personal interpretation of their post). But in the end, it means your dietary strategy has given you a sustainable way to address the parameters of the energy balance equation. I hope you continue to find it sustainable.
Actually you are more reasonable in your position and you haven't been one of the people that just jumps all over things they may not agree with. There is so much conflicting information and unproven theories that there is plenty of room for different positions.
I have not been trying to disprove CICO, it is just concept. I haven't been able to find actual statistics about how many people fail in diets, 80% while high is probably the lowest figure I've seen. That just shows there is more to diets though than just the calorie balance. For myself I've never failed when I've tried to lose weight, however I have struggled with it, sometimes horribly so. I think people that are successful with weight loss can use CICO with great success. For others, there may be other issues preventing success. For example if you always gaining weight because you have too much insulin, a calorie deficit is probably not going to fix the issue at least quickly. These people probably do themselves more harm than good because the body has many mechanisms to cope with reduced energy. That is where food choice and perhaps medical help become very important.
For myself I've always been successful, my problem is I just haven't always been concerned about losing weight. It took a series of bad blood tests to get me concerned. That was over five years ago.0 -
Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYmd8IEHV4
Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?
CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.
True. Just suggesting that there may be better methods of losing weight, and you feel like you are in the Spanish Inquisition.
And you are right about the problems with measuring calories in and measuring calories out. I never counted a calorie or weighed food. I just made some simple switches (eggs for breakfast instead of a bagel with cream cheese and orange juice, for example), and the weight melted off. Yes, my calorie consumption declined. But I had no idea how many calories I was supposed to eat, how many calories I was eating, and how many calories I was burning when exercising. Who needs the hassle?
0 -
For the umpteenth time... CICO is not a dietary approach. It is an energy balance and it applies to everyone: clean eaters, dirty eaters, vegans, omnivores, Twinkie professors, etc.
Back to the OP... One thing no one asked you about is why you are looking for fast weight loss? Did you say in your OP you want to lose 6 lbs in 4 weeks? What happens in 4 weeks and why do you need to be 6 lbs lighter than you are now?1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions