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?
Replies
-
NorthCascades 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.
How do you measure the calories in your salad dressing?
That sounds like a really nitpicky question. But you'd be shocked (at least, I was) how many calories are in a yummy dressing.
I measure out just vinegar- I haven't bought salad dressing in years.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...
So while i largely think its important to eat foods that increase satiety and are nutrient dense, if a person has the ability to control calories to lose weight and eat a diet largely made up of high calorie items (often junk foods), you can make an argument that they would still improve metabolic markers if weight loss occured. In fact, its been done with the twinkie diet. Heck, there are countless stories of similar success stories with all starbucks diet, McDonald's and other restaurants. Hell i could easily do it with chipotle. There was even a guy on this forum that ran that long term experiment. Often the reason quality of food matters is more for compliance, satiety and maximing nutrition uptake.
I just posted this elsewhere in the forum this morning. This is the piece that got me questioning everything I thought I knew, and am glad it did.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/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...
So while i largely think its important to eat foods that increase satiety and are nutrient dense, if a person has the ability to control calories to lose weight and eat a diet largely made up of high calorie items (often junk foods), you can make an argument that they would still improve metabolic markers if weight loss occured. In fact, its been done with the twinkie diet. Heck, there are countless stories of similar success stories with all starbucks diet, McDonald's and other restaurants. Hell i could easily do it with chipotle. There was even a guy on this forum that ran that long term experiment. Often the reason quality of food matters is more for compliance, satiety and maximing nutrition uptake.
I just posted this elsewhere in the forum this morning. This is the piece that got me questioning everything I thought I knew, and am glad it did.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
You might also find the below fascinating.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
In the end, there are several other factors that dictate health such as body weight, exercise and genetics. The foods you eat may have some impact, but not as much as people would expect. My whole family has had very long life (great gmom was 103, my great uncle just died at 97) and interestingly enough, they were all over weight, and ate lots of processed foods and meat.4 -
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...
So while i largely think its important to eat foods that increase satiety and are nutrient dense, if a person has the ability to control calories to lose weight and eat a diet largely made up of high calorie items (often junk foods), you can make an argument that they would still improve metabolic markers if weight loss occured. In fact, its been done with the twinkie diet. Heck, there are countless stories of similar success stories with all starbucks diet, McDonald's and other restaurants. Hell i could easily do it with chipotle. There was even a guy on this forum that ran that long term experiment. Often the reason quality of food matters is more for compliance, satiety and maximing nutrition uptake.
I just posted this elsewhere in the forum this morning. This is the piece that got me questioning everything I thought I knew, and am glad it did.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
You might also find the below fascinating.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
In the end, there are several other factors that dictate health such as body weight, exercise and genetics. The foods you eat may have some impact, but not as much as people would expect. My whole family has had very long life (great gmom was 103, my great uncle just died at 97) and interestingly enough, they were all over weight, and ate lots of processed foods and meat.
wow Wow WOW! It's one thing to read an article, and something totally different to SEE it, along with all the recorded data! Excellent timing as well. As much as I've read here and picked up from you good folks, those old *Must stick with salads* tapes play now and then, when I know better. I lost my weight on butter and cheese and hamburger etc lol. This just re-motivates me all over again. I'm going through that with a fine tooth comb after work today.
Thank you!
4 -
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.0 -
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.
CICO is nothing more than a means of measurement. If you are successful and not monitoring then kudos to you. This had a relatively marginal impact on your energy expenditure at rest and still largely dependent on any additional muscle mass you acquired over time.
How or if you measure this is irrelevant e.g. If I accelerate a car and don't check the speedometer it is irrelevant to speed of the car or to the officer behind the radar gun.
You just happened to be in a caloric deficit and now are in maintenance. CI/CO didn't rearrange - you changed this through your behavior.2 -
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.
CICO is nothing more than a means of measurement. If you are successful and not monitoring then kudos to you. This had a relatively marginal impact on your energy expenditure at rest and still largely dependent on any additional muscle mass you acquired over time.
How or if you measure this is irrelevant e.g. If I accelerate a car and don't check the speedometer it is irrelevant to speed of the car or to the officer behind the radar gun.
You just happened to be in a caloric deficit and now are in maintenance. CI/CO didn't rearrange - you changed this through your behavior.
I cannot tell you what exactly it is that happened, and truthfully, the means doesn't interest me that much. But the end does! Either way, I'm just sharing what I've done b/c I like results, but I like achieving them with the least amount of suffering and the most amount of enjoyment. For me, that's what happened.0 -
geneticexpectations 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.
CICO is nothing more than a means of measurement. If you are successful and not monitoring then kudos to you. This had a relatively marginal impact on your energy expenditure at rest and still largely dependent on any additional muscle mass you acquired over time.
How or if you measure this is irrelevant e.g. If I accelerate a car and don't check the speedometer it is irrelevant to speed of the car or to the officer behind the radar gun.
You just happened to be in a caloric deficit and now are in maintenance. CI/CO didn't rearrange - you changed this through your behavior.
I cannot tell you what exactly it is that happened, and truthfully, the means doesn't interest me that much. But the end does! Either way, I'm just sharing what I've done b/c I like results, but I like achieving them with the least amount of suffering and the most amount of enjoyment. For me, that's what happened.
Fantastic! This means that you have established a set of behaviors enabling you to stay at maintenance. This is the ideal state for everyone.5 -
Scientists use really super - precise language to communicate with one another. That language includes references to error analysis, standard decisions and the like.
In this case, the imprecise nature of measuring calories is discussed. It explains in detail many of the ways in which an individual who is counting calories can run into errors. Some you can control for (like untrustworthy calorie count information). Some you have to adjust for (like having a more-efficient - than - average metabolism). Some is minutae that may or may not pile up. Some is explanation of satiety.
None of it actually means CICO isn't right. Our that it can't work for some. It means that individuals may have to adjust their intake or energy expenditure more than predicted (or less) to achieve weight balance at their desired range.4 -
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.0 -
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.
Also, CICO is not an "ends" or a "means", rather it is purely a reflection of the state of energy balance in the body...5 -
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.
Also, CICO is not an "ends" or a "means", rather it is purely a reflection of the state of energy balance in the body...
Kind of confused why I am being quoted...0 -
Yeah sorry, I was adding my thoughts to your quote of the previous poster...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.
Also, CICO is not an "ends" or a "means", rather it is purely a reflection of the state of energy balance in the body...
Kind of confused why I am being quoted...0 -
Yeah sorry, I was adding my thoughts to your quote of the previous poster...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.
Also, CICO is not an "ends" or a "means", rather it is purely a reflection of the state of energy balance in the body...
Kind of confused why I am being quoted...
OK cool..0 -
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...0 -
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.5 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.1 -
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.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...
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions