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
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.
I majored in biochemistry and genetics, and the biochem classes were more about differences and similarities in processes between prokaryotes/eukaryotes, plant/animal, you get the idea. Not so much that was tied particularly to humans except by default as members of the animal kingdom.
Physics classes never mentioned any applicability to the human body. I took first-year physics and physical chemistry (intersection of physics and chemistry). Presumably explicitly connecting these things to human physiology as part of the classwork is the kind of thing you'd get in medical school, not so much in undergrad where you're taught the broader principles unless you take something specifically oriented that way like human physiology or human nutrition.
That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
So you find it plausible that a person who is competent enough and puts in enough effort to pass a class that is an entire semester worth of macromolecules and metabolic pathways never realizes that it applies to humans because the professor did not explicitly announce that humans are animals? I am not buying it.
I am also highly skeptical that an introductory thermodynamics class did not at least briefly cover energy transfer in biological systems.2 -
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.
I think a few minutes on these forums will show you that that is not at all agreed upon.5 -
My calories goal: 1,300 calories.
When I stay below this with foods like: yogurt, beans, seeds, salads -> I gain weight!!
When I stay below this with foods like: McDonald's, mashed potatoes, quesadilla, Subway -> I lose weight.
I have no frickin' clue why.0 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »My calories goal: 1,300 calories.
When I stay below this with foods like: yogurt, beans, seeds, salads -> I gain weight!!
When I stay below this with foods like: McDonald's, mashed potatoes, quesadilla, Subway -> I lose weight.
I have no frickin' clue why.
It's calories in vs. calories out ALWAYS.
Some food types are easier to count - easier to measure. This is why many people here use a digital food scale for all solids. Double check any entries, there is lots of crap in the database.
Some high sodium foods may make you hold some water weight - this is temporary weight gain (not fat gain).
Sore muscles hold water (for repair). Time of month, again water weight. Unless you did this experiment for a couple months (for each style of eating)....while meticulously weighing & logging ALL portions......it's coincidence.3 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »My calories goal: 1,300 calories.
When I stay below this with foods like: yogurt, beans, seeds, salads -> I gain weight!!
When I stay below this with foods like: McDonald's, mashed potatoes, quesadilla, Subway -> I lose weight.
I have no frickin' clue why.
This is really not true at all. You are either measuring your food inaccurately, recording unreliably or assuming that fluctuations from high sodium food are weight loss/gain.8 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
I'm seriously asking this question. How can Fung claim that he's not advocating restricting calories when he advocates fasting?
Am I missing something? It's like he's working a shell game con with them.9 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »My calories goal: 1,300 calories.
When I stay below this with foods like: yogurt, beans, seeds, salads -> I gain weight!!
When I stay below this with foods like: McDonald's, mashed potatoes, quesadilla, Subway -> I lose weight.
I have no frickin' clue why.
Purely a guess but when it comes to yogurt, beans, seeds and the like, measuring properly without a scale can be difficult. Also, making sure you are using the proper database entry can be an issue. McDonalds and the like actually have some of the more accurate calorie numbers in the restaurant industry, likely because they run on a small margin so cannot have a lot of extra sauces and the like added without cutting into their profits, so there is a standardization in their products one would not find in other places. Thus eating McD's means your calories are closer to what they should be. Purely a guess though.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »Mary_Anastasia wrote: »My calories goal: 1,300 calories.
When I stay below this with foods like: yogurt, beans, seeds, salads -> I gain weight!!
When I stay below this with foods like: McDonald's, mashed potatoes, quesadilla, Subway -> I lose weight.
I have no frickin' clue why.
Purely a guess but when it comes to yogurt, beans, seeds and the like, measuring properly without a scale can be difficult. Also, making sure you are using the proper database entry can be an issue. McDonalds and the like actually have some of the more accurate calorie numbers in the restaurant industry, likely because they run on a small margin so cannot have a lot of extra sauces and the like added without cutting into their profits, so there is a standardization in their products one would not find in other places. Thus eating McD's means your calories are closer to what they should be. Purely a guess though.
I also suspect that the user isn't eating this exact combo for a month, so it's really hard to make a true assessment on impacts of food combos.5 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.
I majored in biochemistry and genetics, and the biochem classes were more about differences and similarities in processes between prokaryotes/eukaryotes, plant/animal, you get the idea. Not so much that was tied particularly to humans except by default as members of the animal kingdom.
Physics classes never mentioned any applicability to the human body. I took first-year physics and physical chemistry (intersection of physics and chemistry). Presumably explicitly connecting these things to human physiology as part of the classwork is the kind of thing you'd get in medical school, not so much in undergrad where you're taught the broader principles unless you take something specifically oriented that way like human physiology or human nutrition.
That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
So you find it plausible that a person who is competent enough and puts in enough effort to pass a class that is an entire semester worth of macromolecules and metabolic pathways never realizes that it applies to humans because the professor did not explicitly announce that humans are animals? I am not buying it.
I am also highly skeptical that an introductory thermodynamics class did not at least briefly cover energy transfer in biological systems.
No, I don't. Thus:That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
My point is that the statement may very well be factual. It's the kind of tactic frequently used when you know damn well there are holes in your story but you don't have anything solid to back them up. Use the truth and make it sound like it means more than or something different than it does.
I mean, what difference does it make if some class you took didn't teach certain verifiable facts. Does it mean they aren't true or are meaningless, or does it mean that either your class was sub-standard or those facts weren't relevant to the goal of the class?
As for your last statement, we didn't have a 'thermodynamics' class available so I can't really say. In my classwork, thermodynamics came up in undergrad multiple times as part of:
physics (not connected to biology),
chemistry (not connected to biology),
biochemistry (connected to biology),
physical chemistry (not connected to biology),
organic chemistry (both biological and non-biological)0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.
I majored in biochemistry and genetics, and the biochem classes were more about differences and similarities in processes between prokaryotes/eukaryotes, plant/animal, you get the idea. Not so much that was tied particularly to humans except by default as members of the animal kingdom.
Physics classes never mentioned any applicability to the human body. I took first-year physics and physical chemistry (intersection of physics and chemistry). Presumably explicitly connecting these things to human physiology as part of the classwork is the kind of thing you'd get in medical school, not so much in undergrad where you're taught the broader principles unless you take something specifically oriented that way like human physiology or human nutrition.
That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
So you find it plausible that a person who is competent enough and puts in enough effort to pass a class that is an entire semester worth of macromolecules and metabolic pathways never realizes that it applies to humans because the professor did not explicitly announce that humans are animals? I am not buying it.
I am also highly skeptical that an introductory thermodynamics class did not at least briefly cover energy transfer in biological systems.
No, I don't. Thus:That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
My point is that the statement may very well be factual. It's the kind of tactic frequently used when you know damn well there are holes in your story but you don't have anything solid to back them up. Use the truth and make it sound like it means more than or something different than it does.
I mean, what difference does it make if some class you took didn't teach certain verifiable facts. Does it mean they aren't true or are meaningless, or does it mean that either your class was sub-standard or those facts weren't relevant to the goal of the class?
As for your last statement, we didn't have a 'thermodynamics' class available so I can't really say. In my classwork, thermodynamics came up in undergrad multiple times as part of:
physics (not connected to biology),
chemistry (not connected to biology),
biochemistry (connected to biology),
physical chemistry (not connected to biology),
organic chemistry (both biological and non-biological)
I got your point. Since you claim to be well-educated in biochemistry, I was asking if you found Fung's account plausible, so thanks for the confirmation. I agree the actual content of his course syllabus is rather immaterial, as I also understand that it is possible that his account is true. However, I believe it is near the same probability of being true as the hypothetical person who claims to watch the entire World Series without understanding they were watching baseball.
As an electrical engineer, I find his account of taking a year of thermodynamics and not making the connection that the human body is a thermodynamic system to be laughable. His entire article demonstrates a gross misunderstanding (or perhaps, misrepresentation) of thermodynamic fundamentals. I likewise have to conclude that he is intelligent enough to persuade laypeople of his arguments, though I also perceive his motivation to most likely be profit oriented at the expense of his own cognitive dissonance.3 -
While I don't have my spreadsheet right in front of me, I know that my calorie deficit in the past 90 days is approximately -60,000. 90 days ago I weighed 206.4 Today I weigh 188.4. That's 18 pounds lost in 3 months.
I've been carefully tracking my net calories during most of the past 90 days. From my weight at the start of this tracking, my calorie deficit has predicted my weight with better than 99% accuracy more than 90% of the time. For the remainder of the time, the accuracy was better than 98%. By the way -60000/3500 is -17.14 lb I should have lost in the past 90 days if my approximate calorie deficit of -60000 were a precise number. I don't claim or pretend to eat "clean". I don't claim or pretend to eat "keto". I don't claim or pretend to eat "lchf". I'm not going to denounce keto and lchf, but I will point out that adherents to these plans get the benefit of TEF and have a more complicated calculation in tracking their net calories.3 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »...I'm not going to denounce keto and lchf, but I will point out that adherents to these plans get the benefit of TEF and have a more complicated calculation in tracking their net calories.
If they're truly eating LCHF/keto, there's absolutely no benefit of TEF (which is a drop in the bucket anyway). Protein elicits an insulin response very similar to carbohydrates, so it can interfere with ketosis. Protein levels on LCHF diets are usually kept to the low/moderate side, skewing in favor of fats. And the TEF of fat is the lowest of all the macronutrients.2 -
I love how everyone assumes I don't weigh or measure my food haha. No, here's the deal:
I meticulously weighed my food, ate all organic, such as like I mentioned (yogurt, beans, seeds, etc) and was good about getting my macros in and still coming in under my calorie goal. In 2 years of eating like that I maintained and oftentimes gained weight, I hit my high this year.
Now this year, I became very very depressed and had little appetite, I stayed below my calorie goal while eating Subway and McDonalds almost every day because I was too depressed to cook. I lost 30lbs in 6 weeks.
As a reminder: I stayed below my 1,300 calorie goal the entire time while depressed, and, well, I'd say 90% of the time while eating healthily.0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »...I'm not going to denounce keto and lchf, but I will point out that adherents to these plans get the benefit of TEF and have a more complicated calculation in tracking their net calories.
If they're truly eating LCHF/keto, there's absolutely no benefit of TEF (which is a drop in the bucket anyway). Protein elicits an insulin response very similar to carbohydrates, so it can interfere with ketosis. Protein levels on LCHF diets are usually kept to the low/moderate side, skewing in favor of fats. And the TEF of fat is the lowest of all the macronutrients.
No, not very similar. There is an insulin response, but timing and amount are both quite different.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »...I'm not going to denounce keto and lchf, but I will point out that adherents to these plans get the benefit of TEF and have a more complicated calculation in tracking their net calories.
If they're truly eating LCHF/keto, there's absolutely no benefit of TEF (which is a drop in the bucket anyway). Protein elicits an insulin response very similar to carbohydrates, so it can interfere with ketosis. Protein levels on LCHF diets are usually kept to the low/moderate side, skewing in favor of fats. And the TEF of fat is the lowest of all the macronutrients.
No, not very similar. There is an insulin response, but timing and amount are both quite different.
It would depend on the type of protein and type of carbohydrate for comparison. Many proteins do have a very similar response as carbs. I will see if i can find the study but i was quite amazed.0 -
I will also add that my system has always worked very strangely and my friends call me backwards: caffeine makes me sleepy, eating sugar makes my glucose go down, and my heartrate and blood pressure go up in deep sleep and often go down during activity. Doctors hate me, my body always does the opposite of what they think it will
0 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »I love how everyone assumes I don't weigh or measure my food haha. No, here's the deal:
I meticulously weighed my food, ate all organic, such as like I mentioned (yogurt, beans, seeds, etc) and was good about getting my macros in and still coming in under my calorie goal. In 2 years of eating like that I maintained and oftentimes gained weight, I hit my high this year.
Now this year, I became very very depressed and had little appetite, I stayed below my calorie goal while eating Subway and McDonalds almost every day because I was too depressed to cook. I lost 30lbs in 6 weeks.
As a reminder: I stayed below my 1,300 calorie goal the entire time while depressed, and, well, I'd say 90% of the time while eating healthily.
I think the bigger argument to be made is consistency of diet. Did you eat the same thing for a given period of time and compare it against an equally length of period with different foods? In real life situations we rarely eat the same thing for a month and then convert for another month and do a comparison. So while you may have periods of fast foods where you lost and periods of non fast foods and didnt lose, the bigger question would then be based on time frames for normalized comparison. And within that you would have to maintain equivalent macros to rule out alterations in glycogen levels.0 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »I love how everyone assumes I don't weigh or measure my food haha. No, here's the deal:
I meticulously weighed my food, ate all organic, such as like I mentioned (yogurt, beans, seeds, etc) and was good about getting my macros in and still coming in under my calorie goal. In 2 years of eating like that I maintained and oftentimes gained weight, I hit my high this year.
Now this year, I became very very depressed and had little appetite, I stayed below my calorie goal while eating Subway and McDonalds almost every day because I was too depressed to cook. I lost 30lbs in 6 weeks.
As a reminder: I stayed below my 1,300 calorie goal the entire time while depressed, and, well, I'd say 90% of the time while eating healthily.
In this example (someone weighing their food, hitting a specific calorie goal regularly, and maintaining weight and then completely switching their diet to different foods, hitting the same goal, and losing weight), I would think that incorrect database entries may be an issue and that you were still eating more than you thought while eating yogurt, beans, and seeds because the database entries you were choosing were giving you incorrect calorie data.
But it also sounds like you were eating much less while you were eating Subway and McDonalds (losing 30 pounds in six weeks) is quite a lot. You were eating less, so you lost weight. This isn't surprising -- it is what I would expect to see.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »...I'm not going to denounce keto and lchf, but I will point out that adherents to these plans get the benefit of TEF and have a more complicated calculation in tracking their net calories.
If they're truly eating LCHF/keto, there's absolutely no benefit of TEF (which is a drop in the bucket anyway). Protein elicits an insulin response very similar to carbohydrates, so it can interfere with ketosis. Protein levels on LCHF diets are usually kept to the low/moderate side, skewing in favor of fats. And the TEF of fat is the lowest of all the macronutrients.
No, not very similar. There is an insulin response, but timing and amount are both quite different.
Really?
Research review: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Read under the heading "Myth: Carbohydrate Is Singularly Responsible For Driving Insulin". The studies addressed both amount and timing.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »...I'm not going to denounce keto and lchf, but I will point out that adherents to these plans get the benefit of TEF and have a more complicated calculation in tracking their net calories.
If they're truly eating LCHF/keto, there's absolutely no benefit of TEF (which is a drop in the bucket anyway). Protein elicits an insulin response very similar to carbohydrates, so it can interfere with ketosis. Protein levels on LCHF diets are usually kept to the low/moderate side, skewing in favor of fats. And the TEF of fat is the lowest of all the macronutrients.
No, not very similar. There is an insulin response, but timing and amount are both quite different.
It would depend on the type of protein and type of carbohydrate for comparison. Many proteins do have a very similar response as carbs. I will see if i can find the study but i was quite amazed.
I'm sure if you find an extremely slow-absorbing carb and an extremely fast-absorbing protein, then remove outside factors such as pairing with other macros, bio-availability of amylin, etc.; you might be able to find some that are similar in those extremes. But if you take a random protein and a random carb, the comparison is nowhere near the same.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions