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.
Does calories in vs calories out really matter?
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »moishepipik wrote: »Calories is the only thing that matters for weight loss. Eat the foods that agree with you, but pay attention to calories. Period.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't matter. Just getting that out of the way. However, I don't pay any attention to calories. I don't count them. I don't weigh my food. I just changed the types of food that I eat. But I've gone from 200 to 150 lbs with a really big increase in strength (which has nothing to do with the eating really, just highlights that the loss in weight actually underestmates the total loss in fat). 150lbs maintained for about 4 years.
Because of my experience I treat CICO as an end rather than a means. ie, my appetite control and satiation has increased drastically, and my energy expenditure at "rest" must have really gone up, because I do eat a lot and my workouts have gone from 5 hours a week at 200 lbs to half an hour a week at 150 lbs (and during the main weight loss period my exercise was actually zero). CI and CO must have rearranged themselves to allow for a deficit based on what I was doing.
BUT, I'm not saying CICO doesn't matter. Just that I don't pay attention to it to achieve weight loss, but obviously my body must have.
I suspect you are conflating volume of food and calories. I can eat high volume low calories or low volume high calories. Either way, your body doesn't respond based on the number of calories, but rather the volume of foods and the maconutrients involved.
I wish I could say the same. I once ate 9 lbs. of salad and only stopped because I ran out of salad and not because I felt full. If I had a nickel for every time someone suggested that a high volume low calorie foods in order to feel satisfied...
I have the same things with many veggies (broccoli, cauliflower, peas, carrots) I can eat huge amounts, feel full for a very short time, then quite easily do it again. While I enjoy them, I don't find them horribly satisfying and what satisfaction they do bring to hunger disappears quickly. That is why I encourage people who ask for what to eat when they start out to instead log everything and pay attention to what keeps them feeling full then incorporate more of that.3 -
trigden1991 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »moishepipik wrote: »Calories is the only thing that matters for weight loss. Eat the foods that agree with you, but pay attention to calories. Period.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't matter. Just getting that out of the way. However, I don't pay any attention to calories. I don't count them. I don't weigh my food. I just changed the types of food that I eat. But I've gone from 200 to 150 lbs with a really big increase in strength (which has nothing to do with the eating really, just highlights that the loss in weight actually underestmates the total loss in fat). 150lbs maintained for about 4 years.
Because of my experience I treat CICO as an end rather than a means. ie, my appetite control and satiation has increased drastically, and my energy expenditure at "rest" must have really gone up, because I do eat a lot and my workouts have gone from 5 hours a week at 200 lbs to half an hour a week at 150 lbs (and during the main weight loss period my exercise was actually zero). CI and CO must have rearranged themselves to allow for a deficit based on what I was doing.
BUT, I'm not saying CICO doesn't matter. Just that I don't pay attention to it to achieve weight loss, but obviously my body must have.
I suspect you are conflating volume of food and calories. I can eat high volume low calories or low volume high calories. Either way, your body doesn't respond based on the number of calories, but rather the volume of foods and the maconutrients involved.
I wish I could say the same. I once ate 9 lbs. of salad and only stopped because I ran out of salad and not because I felt full. If I had a nickel for every time someone suggested that a high volume low calorie foods in order to feel satisfied...
There are a lot of other low calorie volume foods than just salad (egg whites, chicken/turkey). And generally combining them often increase satiety.
I've combined those with salad as well. Some of us just have a really big appetite.
Fully aware of that. I am a huge eater. It's why I eat 3 large meals instead of snacking. Snacking makes me hungry.
Interestingly I am a huge eater once I start but when doing IF, I have no trouble lasting 20+ hours.
IF and I did not get along. I tried 16:8 and I could never get pasted 14 hours and I saw no benefit. Everyone kept saying that after a few weeks hormones will adjust, but nope... never did.
I am not much of a 16:8 fan either, although it worked ok for me. I far prefer the Eat Stop Eat approach of one or two 24 hour fasts used to establish my calorie deficit. I don't do it at the moment because I have too many things causing conflicts with the fast days. When that started to happen I went to 3 meals a day and just logging food again. If things in life change again to allow fasting days without those conflicts, I would happily go back to it.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »moishepipik wrote: »Calories is the only thing that matters for weight loss. Eat the foods that agree with you, but pay attention to calories. Period.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't matter. Just getting that out of the way. However, I don't pay any attention to calories. I don't count them. I don't weigh my food. I just changed the types of food that I eat. But I've gone from 200 to 150 lbs with a really big increase in strength (which has nothing to do with the eating really, just highlights that the loss in weight actually underestmates the total loss in fat). 150lbs maintained for about 4 years.
Because of my experience I treat CICO as an end rather than a means. ie, my appetite control and satiation has increased drastically, and my energy expenditure at "rest" must have really gone up, because I do eat a lot and my workouts have gone from 5 hours a week at 200 lbs to half an hour a week at 150 lbs (and during the main weight loss period my exercise was actually zero). CI and CO must have rearranged themselves to allow for a deficit based on what I was doing.
BUT, I'm not saying CICO doesn't matter. Just that I don't pay attention to it to achieve weight loss, but obviously my body must have.
I suspect you are conflating volume of food and calories. I can eat high volume low calories or low volume high calories. Either way, your body doesn't respond based on the number of calories, but rather the volume of foods and the maconutrients involved.
I wish I could say the same. I once ate 9 lbs. of salad and only stopped because I ran out of salad and not because I felt full. If I had a nickel for every time someone suggested that a high volume low calorie foods in order to feel satisfied...
Hope you didn't stray too far from the toilet.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »moishepipik wrote: »Calories is the only thing that matters for weight loss. Eat the foods that agree with you, but pay attention to calories. Period.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't matter. Just getting that out of the way. However, I don't pay any attention to calories. I don't count them. I don't weigh my food. I just changed the types of food that I eat. But I've gone from 200 to 150 lbs with a really big increase in strength (which has nothing to do with the eating really, just highlights that the loss in weight actually underestmates the total loss in fat). 150lbs maintained for about 4 years.
Because of my experience I treat CICO as an end rather than a means. ie, my appetite control and satiation has increased drastically, and my energy expenditure at "rest" must have really gone up, because I do eat a lot and my workouts have gone from 5 hours a week at 200 lbs to half an hour a week at 150 lbs (and during the main weight loss period my exercise was actually zero). CI and CO must have rearranged themselves to allow for a deficit based on what I was doing.
BUT, I'm not saying CICO doesn't matter. Just that I don't pay attention to it to achieve weight loss, but obviously my body must have.
I suspect you are conflating volume of food and calories. I can eat high volume low calories or low volume high calories. Either way, your body doesn't respond based on the number of calories, but rather the volume of foods and the maconutrients involved.
I wish I could say the same. I once ate 9 lbs. of salad and only stopped because I ran out of salad and not because I felt full. If I had a nickel for every time someone suggested that a high volume low calorie foods in order to feel satisfied...
There are a lot of other low calorie volume foods than just salad (egg whites, chicken/turkey). And generally combining them often increase satiety.
I've combined those with salad as well. Some of us just have a really big appetite.
Fully aware of that. I am a huge eater. It's why I eat 3 large meals instead of snacking. Snacking makes me hungry.
This is how I am too. I can eat a stupid amount if I snack, but will be perfectly satisfied with 3 regular meals when in the habit.2 -
rileysowner wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »moishepipik wrote: »Calories is the only thing that matters for weight loss. Eat the foods that agree with you, but pay attention to calories. Period.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't matter. Just getting that out of the way. However, I don't pay any attention to calories. I don't count them. I don't weigh my food. I just changed the types of food that I eat. But I've gone from 200 to 150 lbs with a really big increase in strength (which has nothing to do with the eating really, just highlights that the loss in weight actually underestmates the total loss in fat). 150lbs maintained for about 4 years.
Because of my experience I treat CICO as an end rather than a means. ie, my appetite control and satiation has increased drastically, and my energy expenditure at "rest" must have really gone up, because I do eat a lot and my workouts have gone from 5 hours a week at 200 lbs to half an hour a week at 150 lbs (and during the main weight loss period my exercise was actually zero). CI and CO must have rearranged themselves to allow for a deficit based on what I was doing.
BUT, I'm not saying CICO doesn't matter. Just that I don't pay attention to it to achieve weight loss, but obviously my body must have.
I suspect you are conflating volume of food and calories. I can eat high volume low calories or low volume high calories. Either way, your body doesn't respond based on the number of calories, but rather the volume of foods and the maconutrients involved.
I wish I could say the same. I once ate 9 lbs. of salad and only stopped because I ran out of salad and not because I felt full. If I had a nickel for every time someone suggested that a high volume low calorie foods in order to feel satisfied...
I have the same things with many veggies (broccoli, cauliflower, peas, carrots) I can eat huge amounts, feel full for a very short time, then quite easily do it again. While I enjoy them, I don't find them horribly satisfying and what satisfaction they do bring to hunger disappears quickly. That is why I encourage people who ask for what to eat when they start out to instead log everything and pay attention to what keeps them feeling full then incorporate more of that.
I find vegetables quite satisfying personally, but I think this is a great approach and try to give similar advice.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »moishepipik wrote: »Calories is the only thing that matters for weight loss. Eat the foods that agree with you, but pay attention to calories. Period.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't matter. Just getting that out of the way. However, I don't pay any attention to calories. I don't count them. I don't weigh my food. I just changed the types of food that I eat. But I've gone from 200 to 150 lbs with a really big increase in strength (which has nothing to do with the eating really, just highlights that the loss in weight actually underestmates the total loss in fat). 150lbs maintained for about 4 years.
Because of my experience I treat CICO as an end rather than a means. ie, my appetite control and satiation has increased drastically, and my energy expenditure at "rest" must have really gone up, because I do eat a lot and my workouts have gone from 5 hours a week at 200 lbs to half an hour a week at 150 lbs (and during the main weight loss period my exercise was actually zero). CI and CO must have rearranged themselves to allow for a deficit based on what I was doing.
BUT, I'm not saying CICO doesn't matter. Just that I don't pay attention to it to achieve weight loss, but obviously my body must have.
I suspect you are conflating volume of food and calories. I can eat high volume low calories or low volume high calories. Either way, your body doesn't respond based on the number of calories, but rather the volume of foods and the maconutrients involved.
I wish I could say the same. I once ate 9 lbs. of salad and only stopped because I ran out of salad and not because I felt full. If I had a nickel for every time someone suggested that a high volume low calorie foods in order to feel satisfied...
There are a lot of other low calorie volume foods than just salad (egg whites, chicken/turkey). And generally combining them often increase satiety.
I've combined those with salad as well. Some of us just have a really big appetite.
Fully aware of that. I am a huge eater. It's why I eat 3 large meals instead of snacking. Snacking makes me hungry.
This is how I am too. I can eat a stupid amount if I snack, but will be perfectly satisfied with 3 regular meals when in the habit.
All I am saying, don't put me near some cheese or that ish is going to be torn the hell up. I can literally eat blocks of it. I miss the days where I could eat half a block in a sitting and not worry about weight gain.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »moishepipik wrote: »Calories is the only thing that matters for weight loss. Eat the foods that agree with you, but pay attention to calories. Period.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't matter. Just getting that out of the way. However, I don't pay any attention to calories. I don't count them. I don't weigh my food. I just changed the types of food that I eat. But I've gone from 200 to 150 lbs with a really big increase in strength (which has nothing to do with the eating really, just highlights that the loss in weight actually underestmates the total loss in fat). 150lbs maintained for about 4 years.
Because of my experience I treat CICO as an end rather than a means. ie, my appetite control and satiation has increased drastically, and my energy expenditure at "rest" must have really gone up, because I do eat a lot and my workouts have gone from 5 hours a week at 200 lbs to half an hour a week at 150 lbs (and during the main weight loss period my exercise was actually zero). CI and CO must have rearranged themselves to allow for a deficit based on what I was doing.
BUT, I'm not saying CICO doesn't matter. Just that I don't pay attention to it to achieve weight loss, but obviously my body must have.
I suspect you are conflating volume of food and calories. I can eat high volume low calories or low volume high calories. Either way, your body doesn't respond based on the number of calories, but rather the volume of foods and the maconutrients involved.
I wish I could say the same. I once ate 9 lbs. of salad and only stopped because I ran out of salad and not because I felt full. If I had a nickel for every time someone suggested that a high volume low calorie foods in order to feel satisfied...
I have the same things with many veggies (broccoli, cauliflower, peas, carrots) I can eat huge amounts, feel full for a very short time, then quite easily do it again. While I enjoy them, I don't find them horribly satisfying and what satisfaction they do bring to hunger disappears quickly. That is why I encourage people who ask for what to eat when they start out to instead log everything and pay attention to what keeps them feeling full then incorporate more of that.
I find vegetables quite satisfying personally, but I think this is a great approach and try to give similar advice.
I wish I did. It would make some days where I am having the munchies much easier to deal with by simply filling up with veggies.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »moishepipik wrote: »Calories is the only thing that matters for weight loss. Eat the foods that agree with you, but pay attention to calories. Period.
I'm not saying that CICO doesn't matter. Just getting that out of the way. However, I don't pay any attention to calories. I don't count them. I don't weigh my food. I just changed the types of food that I eat. But I've gone from 200 to 150 lbs with a really big increase in strength (which has nothing to do with the eating really, just highlights that the loss in weight actually underestmates the total loss in fat). 150lbs maintained for about 4 years.
Because of my experience I treat CICO as an end rather than a means. ie, my appetite control and satiation has increased drastically, and my energy expenditure at "rest" must have really gone up, because I do eat a lot and my workouts have gone from 5 hours a week at 200 lbs to half an hour a week at 150 lbs (and during the main weight loss period my exercise was actually zero). CI and CO must have rearranged themselves to allow for a deficit based on what I was doing.
BUT, I'm not saying CICO doesn't matter. Just that I don't pay attention to it to achieve weight loss, but obviously my body must have.
I suspect you are conflating volume of food and calories. I can eat high volume low calories or low volume high calories. Either way, your body doesn't respond based on the number of calories, but rather the volume of foods and the maconutrients involved.
I wish I could say the same. I once ate 9 lbs. of salad and only stopped because I ran out of salad and not because I felt full. If I had a nickel for every time someone suggested that a high volume low calorie foods in order to feel satisfied...
Hope you didn't stray too far from the toilet.
You might think, but I didn't notice anything terribly unusual in that regards.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »bercyn1291 wrote: »It is agreed upon that quality of the food matters in faster weight loss but ideally calories out-calories in should determine how much weight you lose. Please share your experience.
no, it is not agreed, but nice way to try and set up a straw man about "everyone agrees" with this ludicrous statement.
calorie deficit for weight loss; micro/macro aderehcne for body comp and overall nutrition.
200 calories of oreos = 200 calories of carrots from an energy standpoint; however, they do not contain the same nutritional profile.
Um. it is actually "agreed upon" that calories in calories out matters but the quality of food part is the debate. Maybe swap the main question of this debate because a better question is do you think the quality of food matters because it is agreed upon that calories do...
for weight loss quality of calories does not matter...
they do matter for overall health and body composition.
not sure why that is so hard to understand...2 -
Absolutely it matters. Amount of all the things to lose or control body fat. What is for performance. There are no short cuts. I've lost 85 pounds at by age 50, kept it off for 6 years. Proving all the myths wrong by being living proof.0
-
I strongly disagree, it also depends on the food. Each person's body is different and how it reacts to food is different. EX: I have to eat less carbohydrates to lose than a normal person based on medical issues.1
-
Indygirl_81 wrote: »I strongly disagree, it also depends on the food. Each person's body is different and how it reacts to food is different. EX: I have to eat less carbohydrates to lose than a normal person based on medical issues.
Medical conditions don't invalidate CICO, but the variables can have impact on EE.7 -
Indygirl_81 wrote: »I strongly disagree, it also depends on the food. Each person's body is different and how it reacts to food is different. EX: I have to eat less carbohydrates to lose than a normal person based on medical issues.
This is not true. Our bodies are more alike then then some people like to believe...10 -
all I know is over 20 years I tried various diets. Discovering and following CICO is the ONE that is consistently causing me to lose weight. I am down 40 pounds and still counting. So I am a lifelong believer in this protocol. I will never be fat again knowing this works!!2
-
If you have a medical issue then yes. For general population with no health issues, CICO will usually dictate weight gain/loss/maintenance.Indygirl_81 wrote: »I strongly disagree, it also depends on the food. Each person's body is different and how it reacts to food is different. EX: I have to eat less carbohydrates to lose than a normal person based on medical issues.
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
4 -
Yes0
-
bercyn1291 wrote: »It is agreed upon that quality of the food matters in faster weight loss but ideally calories out-calories in should determine how much weight you lose. Please share your experience.
The quality of the food matters when it comes to medical situations. Weight loss generally speaking, however, is calories in vs calories out. I'm at the low end of healthy weight and was eating high carb/fiber, high fat, moderate protein vegetarian diet, over 2,000 calories a day and was dropping weight at a rapid pace (about 3-4 pounds per week). Additionally, my stomach "ballooned up" every time I ate high fiber and/or high fat even if the meal was small size/volume (i.e. peanut butter and apple, high fiber protein bar, nuts, pear, baby carrots, etc). I recently sought medical help and turns out I have gastroparesis. Fat and fiber malabsorption is very common with this. Not all nutrients (including calories) are absorbed, as I was also diagnosed with multiple nutrient deficiencies despite previously eating lots of salads, fruits, and green smoothies. Some undigested (especially high fiber) food even forms into bezoars. Now I'm on a lowfat, high (refined/low-fiber/residue) carb diet. Weight is slowly going back up and balancing back to normal, and I'm eating 1,800 calories instead of 2,000+. Just saying, calories DO matter but if something doesn't seem right, please see a doctor! I'm glad I did.3 -
I know a few people who absolutely need to count calories for weight management success, but the vast majority of people that I know in real life (as well as in the clinic) with sustained significant success all seem to have whole food based diets and don't have the need to count calories.0
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »I know a few people who absolutely need to count calories for weight management success, but the vast majority of people that I know in real life (as well as in the clinic) with sustained significant success all seem to have whole food based diets and don't have the need to count calories.
But "counting calories" and "CICO" aren't the same thing. CICO is the scientific formula that determines weightloss. Counting calories, switching to a whole food diet, LCHF, Atkins, Weight Watchers, portion control, intermittent fasting are all possible ways of getting to "calories in less than calories out". They each work, when they do, because of CICO. People often lose weight when switching to a whole food diet because it causes them to be in a calorie deficit - CICO. The fact that they didn't count calories doesn't mean they weren't in a deficit, it just means that way of eating got them to a deficit without them looking at the numbers.7 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »I know a few people who absolutely need to count calories for weight management success, but the vast majority of people that I know in real life (as well as in the clinic) with sustained significant success all seem to have whole food based diets and don't have the need to count calories.
But "counting calories" and "CICO" aren't the same thing. CICO is the scientific formula that determines weightloss. Counting calories, switching to a whole food diet, LCHF, Atkins, Weight Watchers, portion control, intermittent fasting are all possible ways of getting to "calories in less than calories out". They each work, when they do, because of CICO. People often lose weight when switching to a whole food diet because it causes them to be in a calorie deficit - CICO. The fact that they didn't count calories doesn't mean they weren't in a deficit, it just means that way of eating got them to a deficit without them looking at the numbers.
^Exactly. And it was explained to @geneticexpectations earlier this month in this same thread and they're still conflating cico and calorie counting. I wish I knew why these two concepts are so difficult to separate for many people.5
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