Why the calorie is broken.

Christine_72

Firstly, please don't shoot the messenger Obviously more in depth research needs to be done.. But i thought it would make for an interesting discussion

https://mosaicscience.com/story/why-calorie-broken

Christine_72

Also, just to clarify. Simple calories in/calories out has worked for me, but it's hard to ignore the ever increasing amount of posts here claiming it is not that simple for every single person on the planet... Many people claim that it's not only how much they eat, but what they eat also makes a difference...

ninerbuff

Cool article. My one issue is that I didn't see any regulation of hormones and testing of it while in the boxes. I'm sure there's a difference in how people feel being couped up in a box versus being free out in the world. And this could easily change hormone balance which is directly tied to metabolic rate.

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

lemurcat12

It's an interesting article and I don't disagree with the general points in it, but I don't think it explains (or has much to do) with people here claiming they can't lose. The problem with that theory, as well as the effort to connect the two in the article, is that differences in how many calories you actually take in DON'T provide an explanation for inability to lose. The variation is that some take in LESS than you'd expect so, well, they actually consume fewer calories than one would think, but setting that aside, let's assume that in some cases they think they are taking in 1500 calories but really are taking in 1700 (for reasons other than bad counting, which frankly is almost certainly the real issue). If that's the case, the answer is still the same, eat less.

I may be biased because I did this once before, without knowing about MFP (and possibly before it existed). I wrote down what I normally ate, rigorously honestly, and then I figured out how to cut out calories (without ever counting them at all, although I was curious so made a rough estimate of what I thought I'd been eating and what I thought I was going to eat that was probably way off). What WASN'T off was that I was eating less than I had been, moving more, and not making up for that in stuff I didn't count or days off. Had I not immediately started losing substantially, I would have adjusted. So all the stuff about calorie counting being imperfect is interesting but not relevant.

Now, the stuff about satiety I happen to agree is important, and think everyone does, but that's not an "in opposition to calories" but something that can be focused on with or without counting. I tend to eat more satiating foods (for me, what is satiating is not the same for everyone in that some claim fat is and for me it's completely not, and generally adding a bunch of oil and butter to the same meals probably is not going to cause the average American already eating the relatively high fat SAD to eat less IMO--and of course the article doesn't claim otherwise, so just a digression). However, my doing so didn't prevent me from overeating when I wasn't paying attention to what I ate much (or was using food for comfort, like I think many do). It can help me maintain without having to be more than somewhat mindful, but it's a lot easier for me to count in addition -- or do something to intentionally decrease calories like the time pre MFP. But all of this is psychological, so do some find counting or anything that seems similar a stumbling block? Probably, and then they should find another way.

Anyway, the idea that people try to count and completely ignore satiety seems so stupid that I think of it as a strawman. The reason that doesn't work isn't that you gain more eating 2000 calories of "junk" than 2000 calories of satiating foods, but because it's really hard to stick to a deficit for long if you aren't satisfied. The thing that I naturally did both times I have seriously tried to lose weight is eating in a way that made me satisfied and not hungry, and also that felt enjoyable. If people really try to lose without doing this -- and it seems many do -- of course that's harder, but it also just doesn't make sense to me. Of course it's not a good idea, but that has nothing to do with calories not working or whatever.

So anyway, that's why this discussion always seems so weird to me.

If someone is eating, say, 1200 and not losing (in the long run, not one week), I think it's not that calories are an imperfect measure, but that they are counting poorly, having binge or skipped days, or have some sort of reasonably rare medical issues that should be addressed first -- and counting is good in that case as it helps them show the doctor what's up. (On the other hand, trying to cut too low might be part of the problem if it is leading them to have more off days or not count as well, which I think is common, so having a reasonable for you based on stats calorie goal can often be a good approach and for some a good approach might involve not counting at all.)

CSARdiver

For the unsuccessful its majoring in the minors - focusing on what does not work rather than what does. Satiety is a personal matter and dependent upon an individual. CICO simply shows you how much intake you need to achieve a desired result. It is up to you how you can sustain this caloric intake. If 1400 kcal/day is you goal and you choose to eat two 700 kcal cheeseburgers and nothing else - fine, but this is not sustainable. If you choose a plan incorporating a wide variety of foods, timing, eating habits, and exercise you will be much more likely to succeed.

As for the margin of error in calorie estimations - this is where logging has purpose. If you are achieving your goals great! There is no reason to question the data. If you are not achieving your goals, then look to the accuracy of your logging. Identify the foods with the greatest potential for error - those calorie dense foods. Lessen these and continue tracking.

The problem I see with many of these so-called 'failures' is that the plans are self regulated and people are biased towards themselves. It is a difficult task for most, impossible for some, to take responsibility for their own actions. We have been conditioned for decades that others must be responsible. It is far easier to be a remain a victim.

MissusMoon

CSARdiver wrote: »

For the unsuccessful its majoring in the minors - focusing on what does not work rather than what does. Satiety is a personal matter and dependent upon an individual. CICO simply shows you how much intake you need to achieve a desired result. It is up to you how you can sustain this caloric intake. If 1400 kcal/day is you goal and you choose to eat two 700 kcal cheeseburgers and nothing else - fine, but this is not sustainable. If you choose a plan incorporating a wide variety of foods, timing, eating habits, and exercise you will be much more likely to succeed.

As for the margin of error in calorie estimations - this is where logging has purpose. If you are achieving your goals great! There is no reason to question the data. If you are not achieving your goals, then look to the accuracy of your logging. Identify the foods with the greatest potential for error - those calorie dense foods. Lessen these and continue tracking.

The problem I see with many of these so-called 'failures' is that the plans are self regulated and people are biased towards themselves. It is a difficult task for most, impossible for some, to take responsibility for their own actions. We have been conditioned for decades that others must be responsible. It is far easier to be a remain a victim.

All of this!!!

thisonetimeatthegym

I read some research where IMF rats and control rats ate the same amount of calories. The IMF rats were normal weight and the control rats were obese.

So, there is more there than cal in/cal out.

Sabine_Stroehm

ninerbuff wrote: »

Cool article. My one issue is that I didn't see any regulation of hormones and testing of it while in the boxes. I'm sure there's a difference in how people feel being couped up in a box versus being free out in the world. And this could easily change hormone balance which is directly tied to metabolic rate.

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

That's a great point. Cortisol levels and what not could vary wildly.

JeromeBarry1

People who fancy themselves Lovers of Science have a podcast. BFHD. That my proprietary acronym for Big Fat Hairy Deal. I do not turn to them for facts. I'll read the transcript for entertainment. The first error I caught, and I do not have a college degree of any kind was "Roughly speaking, one calorie is the heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius." Which is off by 3 orders of magnitude. One calorie is the heat required to raise the temperature of one cubic centimeter of water by one degree Celsius. You can get a better idea of this relationship by considering that a single cherry tomato has one calorie. How much work could the fire from one such desiccated vegetable do? That 1kg / 1 C error appears in many pop- and pseudo-science places.

I've read that link before and made that comment before, so let me amend my prior comment to strike the last sentence.

cmriverside

Lemurcat for the win.

You can tell when someone has been on these forums for a while - they catch all the arguments in one post.

I completely agree with lemur and CSAR. I also believe that proper nutrition leads to satiety, not moar fat or less carbs. I believe Nature has done a very good job in giving us cues to lead us to a healthy diet. Once again, Man comes along and invents a bunch of stuff to eat and Nature laughs and thins the herd.

Raptor2763

I'm a big believer in "simple is better". Now, having said that, I also know not all calories are created equal. But, for purposes of discussion, advice and mentoring, I stick with "the simpler, the better"

T1DCarnivoreRunner

All of these are good points to show that a calorie is not really a calorie (or, more precisely, there are several competing methods for measuring a calorie).

I am one of those people who gets frustrated because weight changes don't usually match CICO. It took more than 2 years to lose my first 20 lbs. I've lost 24 more lbs. in the last 9 months. The primary difference is what specific macros I've eaten.

I've had plateaus that nobody can explain, even with extremely meticulous logging. That includes switching during the plateau to what should be an enormous deficit, yet without sustained gain (i.e. a true plateau where no loss and no gain can result until the plateau ends).

In short, there is a tremendous amount more to weight loss than simple CICO. That's been very clear to me for years. I envy anyone who is actively losing weight and has the results expected based on CICO. Those are usually the people who believe CICO is the ultimate answer, so perhaps I should pity their ignorance rather than envy their success?

ndj1979

thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »

I read some research where IMF rats and control rats ate the same amount of calories. The IMF rats were normal weight and the control rats were obese.

So, there is more there than cal in/cal out.

run that experiment on yourself and see what happens...try eating 500 calories over maintenance for three months and report back ...

ndj1979

Raptor2763 wrote: »

I'm a big believer in "simple is better". Now, having said that, I also know not all calories are created equal. But, for purposes of discussion, advice and mentoring, I stick with "the simpler, the better"

they are equal from an energy standpoint, just not a nutritional standpoint.

seska422

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

People who fancy themselves Lovers of Science have a podcast. BFHD. That my proprietary acronym for Big Fat Hairy Deal. I do not turn to them for facts. I'll read the transcript for entertainment. The first error I caught, and I do not have a college degree of any kind was "Roughly speaking, one calorie is the heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius." Which is off by 3 orders of magnitude. One calorie is the heat required to raise the temperature of one cubic centimeter of water by one degree Celsius. You can get a better idea of this relationship by considering that a single cherry tomato has one calorie. How much work could the fire from one such desiccated vegetable do? That 1kg / 1 C error appears in many pop- and pseudo-science places.

I've read that link before and made that comment before, so let me amend my prior comment to strike the last sentence.

A food calorie is actually a kilocalorie. That's why you are seeing "heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius" in so many places talking about food.

stevencloser

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

People who fancy themselves Lovers of Science have a podcast. BFHD. That my proprietary acronym for Big Fat Hairy Deal. I do not turn to them for facts. I'll read the transcript for entertainment. The first error I caught, and I do not have a college degree of any kind was "Roughly speaking, one calorie is the heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius." Which is off by 3 orders of magnitude. One calorie is the heat required to raise the temperature of one cubic centimeter of water by one degree Celsius. You can get a better idea of this relationship by considering that a single cherry tomato has one calorie. How much work could the fire from one such desiccated vegetable do? That 1kg / 1 C error appears in many pop- and pseudo-science places.

I've read that link before and made that comment before, so let me amend my prior comment to strike the last sentence.

A calorie is for 1 cm³. A Calorie (with capital c), which is the common name given to the kilocalorie, kcal, which is used in food is 3 orders of magnitude bigger.

akoivisto

If I had a penny for every time this general post topic appeared on my "Recent Forum Topics" I could buy a Total Gym AND a couple of Shake Weights!

GottaBurnEmAll

ninerbuff wrote: »

Cool article. My one issue is that I didn't see any regulation of hormones and testing of it while in the boxes. I'm sure there's a difference in how people feel being couped up in a box versus being free out in the world. And this could easily change hormone balance which is directly tied to metabolic rate.

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

That's what I was going to post. Every metabolic ward study I've ever seen where everything was tightly controlled?

Calories were a close enough approximation. It's amazing.

GottaBurnEmAll

CSARdiver wrote: »

For the unsuccessful its majoring in the minors - focusing on what does not work rather than what does. Satiety is a personal matter and dependent upon an individual. CICO simply shows you how much intake you need to achieve a desired result. It is up to you how you can sustain this caloric intake. If 1400 kcal/day is you goal and you choose to eat two 700 kcal cheeseburgers and nothing else - fine, but this is not sustainable. If you choose a plan incorporating a wide variety of foods, timing, eating habits, and exercise you will be much more likely to succeed.

As for the margin of error in calorie estimations - this is where logging has purpose. If you are achieving your goals great! There is no reason to question the data. If you are not achieving your goals, then look to the accuracy of your logging. Identify the foods with the greatest potential for error - those calorie dense foods. Lessen these and continue tracking.

The problem I see with many of these so-called 'failures' is that the plans are self regulated and people are biased towards themselves. It is a difficult task for most, impossible for some, to take responsibility for their own actions. We have been conditioned for decades that others must be responsible. It is far easier to be a remain a victim.

So much truthiness.

n1terunner

It isn't perfect, but BMI is the first thing I think that should be gotten rid of.

Rocknut53

n1terunner wrote: »

It isn't perfect, but BMI is the first thing I think that should be gotten rid of.

I disagree on a personal level because I was in denial that I was borderline obese according to my doctor and her damn BMI calculation. After all, I was fairly active with hiking, snowshoeing, downhill skiing. How could I be fat? If nothing else it inspired me to get off my a** and change that number, as arbitrary as it seemed. So, for me, BMI is legitimate. And for most of the population as well.