Is a calorie a calorie?
tfield98
Posts: 28 Member
I'm a first time, short-time dieter, successful with CICO, somewhat of a fanatic (in a good way!) in fact.
However, now and then I see things on the web by seemingly reputable sources that somewhat contradict CICO.
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/4-myths-nutritionists-wish-people-would-forget/ says:
“Unfortunately, there is no magic equation or straightforward formula for losing weight,” she says. “I think this myth [CICO, 500 calories/week/pound] has staying power because it allows people to focus on cutting calories with the hope of accomplishing a weight-loss goal in a short amount of time. However, it’s a false hope that promotes unrealistic expectations.”
The relationship between changes in caloric intake and weight loss simply isn’t that linear, she adds. As you increase or decrease your calories per day, your body and its metabolic system adapts to compensate for the change. That doesn’t mean changing your calorie intake has no effect on weight, of course, but Dubost emphasizes that if you’re doing the “500 calorie cut” plan and not seeing results, you’re not alone."
And, https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/dos-donts-counting-calories#2 says:
"Food produces hormonal effects in the body," he says. "Some hormones say 'store that fat'; others say 'release sugar'; others say 'build muscle.' Study after study shows that diets based on the same amount of calories, but different proportions of fat, protein and carbohydrates, result in different amounts of weight loss."
I'm happy with it; it's working for me. But, it seems pure CICO isn't quite the gospel I thought it was?
SW: 181, CW: 168. GW: 160 Ht: 5'10 Age: 66 Male
However, now and then I see things on the web by seemingly reputable sources that somewhat contradict CICO.
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/4-myths-nutritionists-wish-people-would-forget/ says:
“Unfortunately, there is no magic equation or straightforward formula for losing weight,” she says. “I think this myth [CICO, 500 calories/week/pound] has staying power because it allows people to focus on cutting calories with the hope of accomplishing a weight-loss goal in a short amount of time. However, it’s a false hope that promotes unrealistic expectations.”
The relationship between changes in caloric intake and weight loss simply isn’t that linear, she adds. As you increase or decrease your calories per day, your body and its metabolic system adapts to compensate for the change. That doesn’t mean changing your calorie intake has no effect on weight, of course, but Dubost emphasizes that if you’re doing the “500 calorie cut” plan and not seeing results, you’re not alone."
And, https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/dos-donts-counting-calories#2 says:
"Food produces hormonal effects in the body," he says. "Some hormones say 'store that fat'; others say 'release sugar'; others say 'build muscle.' Study after study shows that diets based on the same amount of calories, but different proportions of fat, protein and carbohydrates, result in different amounts of weight loss."
I'm happy with it; it's working for me. But, it seems pure CICO isn't quite the gospel I thought it was?
SW: 181, CW: 168. GW: 160 Ht: 5'10 Age: 66 Male
25
Replies
-
It's still the gospel. Don't drink the KoolAid.14
-
Maybe not absolute gospel because the body is highly complicated and calorie/energy is not used and stored the same for everyone all the time. There are far too many factors to try and track and account for, the calorie in is the simplest to track and generally the simplest to control. If you are tracking correctly and not losing after a few weeks then I think it is time to see a doctor or dietician to explore other possible things interrupting the process. But I think for most of us if tracked accurately it will give the desired results so yes a calorie is a calorie.10
-
Niagara Falls flows at about 84750 cubic feet per second. That's a fact, except almost never. It's almost always above or below that amount. However, it's still a fine and useful fact because -- on average -- it's about 84750. People can use that fact as accurate for planning, marketing, and whatever.
The CICO facts (TDEE, BMR, Calories in a pound/kilogram, exercise equivalence) are similar. They're usefully accurate yet almost always a little-bit imperfect.
Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good is a nice guiding saying for facts like these. That it's not perfect doesn't make it useless. It's definitely good enough for weight loss: I've lost 115 lb. and kept them off for 3½ years following CICO.58 -
Scientifically, a calorie is a calorie. You don't change a value of a unit of measurement just because the material is different. A foot is a foot, a yard is a yard. You can have a foot of string and and foot of tape. It's still a foot.
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
21 -
Niagara Falls flows at about 84750 cubic feet per second. That's a fact, except almost never. It's almost always above or below that amount. However, it's still a fine and useful fact because -- on average -- it's about 84750. People can use that fact as accurate for planning, marketing, and whatever.
The CICO facts (TDEE, BMR, Calories in a pound/kilogram, exercise equivalence) are similar. They're usefully accurate yet almost always a little-bit imperfect.
Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good is a nice guiding saying for facts like these. That it's not perfect doesn't make it useless. It's definitely good enough for weight loss: I've lost 115 lb. and kept them off for 3½ years following CICO.
True, the average doesn't tell much about the volume of water in one day. But one can figure the expected volume in one year.
The same is true with CICO and weight. Measuring on the scale is a pretty crude measurement. It doesn't tell us anything about body composition. Over the long term, weeks, months or a year, Weight and CICO will be pretty close. But CICO cannot account for other factors such as water weight, or changes in lean body mass, or blood sugar values, or cholesterol and other liver panel values.
Doesn't mean it doesn't work. The scale works and CICO works. But it may not be the right measurement tool in a short time horizon.
14 -
loltbright1965 wrote: »Niagara Falls flows at about 84750 cubic feet per second. That's a fact, except almost never. It's almost always above or below that amount. However, it's still a fine and useful fact because -- on average -- it's about 84750. People can use that fact as accurate for planning, marketing, and whatever.
The CICO facts (TDEE, BMR, Calories in a pound/kilogram, exercise equivalence) are similar. They're usefully accurate yet almost always a little-bit imperfect.
Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good is a nice guiding saying for facts like these. That it's not perfect doesn't make it useless. It's definitely good enough for weight loss: I've lost 115 lb. and kept them off for 3½ years following CICO.
True, the average doesn't tell much about the volume of water in one day. But one can figure the expected volume in one year.
The same is true with CICO and weight. Measuring on the scale is a pretty crude measurement. It doesn't tell us anything about body composition. Over the long term, weeks, months or a year, Weight and CICO will be pretty close. But CICO cannot account for other factors such as water weight, or changes in lean body mass, or blood sugar values, or cholesterol and other liver panel values.
Doesn't mean it doesn't work. The scale works and CICO works. But it may not be the right measurement tool in a short time horizon.
12 -
https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/dos-donts-counting-calories#2[/url] says:
"Food produces hormonal effects in the body," he says. "Some hormones say 'store that fat'; others say 'release sugar'; others say 'build muscle.' Study after study shows that diets based on the same amount of calories, but different proportions of fat, protein and carbohydrates, result in different amounts of weight loss."
I'm happy with it; it's working for me. But, it seems pure CICO isn't quite the gospel I thought it was?
SW: 181, CW: 168. GW: 160 Ht: 5'10 Age: 66 Male
I don't consider statements that say "Study after study shows..." and then doesn't note the studies to be a reputable source.
I've seen studies that showed no statistically significant difference in weight loss between low-carb groups and low fat groups. But I can't find that, so am not sourcing that, so see how much value my comment has?
Also, self reported calories are not to be trusted.
The men in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, whose calories were monitored, had no problem losing weight.21 -
There are several threads, and literally hundreds of posts, over in the debate forum, with people hashing out the subtleties of this.
She's not saying anything controversial in the article, once you get beyond the "calorie is/isn't a calorie" slogan.
Think of it in common sense terms.
Suppose my daily calorie need to maintain my weight is 2000, and that I could somehow know this exactly. I cut 500, and I somehow also manage to do this exactly. I "should" lose a pound a week. I probably will come close, if nothing else changes.
But there are 3 impossible things in that paragraph:
1. I don't know my calorie needs exactly - I can't possibly - and they're different every day. (But by experimenting and watching my results over time, I can estimate them to a useful degree).
2. I can't measure my intake, or my calorie cut, exactly. (Again, if I'm meticulous enough, and watch my results, I can estimate this to a useful degree.)
3. I can't "change nothing else". In particular, imagine a scenario like this: I cut those calories, but doing so makes me feel just a tiny bit fatigued. Over time, I do a little less in daily life to compensate, without really noticing. I drive more, walk less. I fix simpler meals. I put off the Spring cleaning, and do the minimum yard work. Maybe I keep doing workouts, but I drag through them a bit. My calorie burn goes down from all this. It could go down a couple of hundred calories, even. So I'm losing weight, but more slowly than I expected. Lighter me burns even fewer calories, because I'm not hauling all those pounds around anymore. My loss rate slows, maybe I even stop losing. This is the kind of thing that her statement about "the body and metabolism adapt" comes down to. And that's without even getting into things like undereating maybe causing binges or irresistible cravings or water weight retention (which is that science-y sounding "hormones" stuff in action).
But that 3rd front can be usefully managed to a fair degree, too: Don't cut calories too far, too fast. Pay attention to your energy level. Watch and push yourself to maintain or increase your daily-life activity. Learn satiation strategies that work for you, and are practical. Recognize that calorie needs will change as you get smaller. Etc.
So, don't think about things too simplistically (you can't run a so-called "calculator", get a totally accurate calorie deficit, log sloppily, and get results). It takes a little more thought and understanding than that. Watch your results, and adjust.
But it also isn't so mumbo-jumbo scientifically complex and difficult that you can't succeed (metabolic adaptation! hormones! oh, my!). Use common sense, understand what those things mean in actual practical terms, and you can succeed. Watch your results, and adjust.
In general, if you ask questions around here, and read the answers thoughtfully, you'll get good practical advice. You'll learn to distinguish the sad, deluded slogan slingers from the practical and knowledgeable people. It works.
Oh, and: A calorie is just a unit of energy measurement. Is a degree centigrade a degree centigrade? Is an inch an inch? Of course. But that doesn't make boiling motor oil and tonight's soup the same thing, even though I can measure both with degrees centigrade; not does it make an inch of printer paper the same as an inch of gravel road. Don't think in slogans, but do think . . . with practical common sense.
39 -
Ps - I should note that composition of calories is very important to me for satiety, and thus being able to create a calorie deficit.
And foods made from flour make me sleepy, and so disinclined to exercise. So what I eat is very important to me for weight loss, but not directly.
I have no doubt that if I were locked in a lab and my food and exercise monitored, I would lose weight just fine no matter what I was fed. I might not feel great, but that's another matter.
When I was in Costa Rica, I ate a very high carb, low protein diet, and lost weight without even trying. But I had no access to hyper-palatable, calorie-dense food.14 -
Digestibility is a wild card. I read an article about a study where they tested poop for calories that went through the system without being absorbed. Crunchy and smooth peanut butter have the same calories per gram, but you will absorb more from the smooth. They tested a lot of whole nuts and some were as high as 20% of calories passing through unabsorbed. Does that mean you can eat a lot of whole nuts and up your intake? I wouldn't; it probably will just offset that juice made from concentrate that you didn't really add 3 cans of water to because it tastes better with two and a half...
8 -
Calories?
You mean delicious points.10 -
1) The MFP blog is a worthless source for reliable information. It's filled with woo and silliness.
2) This subject has been debated over and over again. Here's one of the more recent threads with plenty of discussion about it: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10654872/why-do-people-deny-cico/p1
3) A calorie is a calorie. And if you want science rather than MFP blog dreck to back that up, here's a link which references 148 different scientific studies proving it: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/17 -
A calorie is a calorie in the same way a brick is a brick. It's part of the whole structure, but the overall structure will vary.8
-
Thanks, everyone, for the helpful posts.
+1 for funchords for "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good."
+10 for AnvilHead for pointing to this EXCELLENT tough love, straight-talking, no nonsense article at completehumanperformance: link which, IMO, should be pinned somewhere very visible here in the forum.8 -
A calorie is absolutely still a calorie. But a calorie's worth of spinach is probably going to be more useful to your body in terms of vitamins and nutritional needs than a calorie's worth of twinkie.
Doesn't mean no twinkies, just means eat your spinach first.
5 -
A calorie is absolutely still a calorie. But a calorie's worth of spinach is probably going to be more useful to your body in terms of vitamins and nutritional needs than a calorie's worth of twinkie.
Doesn't mean no twinkies, just means eat your spinach first.
Even that's not a hard/fast rule.
Scenario A: You're eating far below your recommended fat intake to the point where you're not absorbing adequate amounts of vitamins A, D, E and K (Source: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/three-functions-fat-body-3402.html).
Scenario B: You have Type 1 diabetes and your blood sugar has just dipped. You need sugar and you need it fast.
In either case, your body would make better use of the twinkie at that particular moment in time.13 -
A calorie is absolutely still a calorie. But a calorie's worth of spinach is probably going to be more useful to your body in terms of vitamins and nutritional needs than a calorie's worth of twinkie.
Doesn't mean no twinkies, just means eat your spinach first.
comparing individual foods is rarely helpful since it all comes down to context and dosage...11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »A calorie is absolutely still a calorie. But a calorie's worth of spinach is probably going to be more useful to your body in terms of vitamins and nutritional needs than a calorie's worth of twinkie.
Doesn't mean no twinkies, just means eat your spinach first.
comparing individual foods is rarely helpful since it all comes down to context and dosage...
True.
My point is fewer calories will help you lose weight either way, but paying attention to nutrition will help you feel better while doing it.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »A calorie is absolutely still a calorie. But a calorie's worth of spinach is probably going to be more useful to your body in terms of vitamins and nutritional needs than a calorie's worth of twinkie.
Doesn't mean no twinkies, just means eat your spinach first.
comparing individual foods is rarely helpful since it all comes down to context and dosage...
True.
My point is fewer calories will help you lose weight either way, but paying attention to nutrition will help you feel better while doing it.
Not necessarily, I am currently bulking and if I were to bulk on just healthy food, I'd be going to the bathroom every 2 seconds and I would feel too full and making it harder to hit my daily calories intake since healthier foods are usually less caloric than junk food.9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »A calorie is absolutely still a calorie. But a calorie's worth of spinach is probably going to be more useful to your body in terms of vitamins and nutritional needs than a calorie's worth of twinkie.
Doesn't mean no twinkies, just means eat your spinach first.
comparing individual foods is rarely helpful since it all comes down to context and dosage...
True.
My point is fewer calories will help you lose weight either way, but paying attention to nutrition will help you feel better while doing it.
Not necessarily, I am currently bulking and if I were to bulk on just healthy food, I'd be going to the bathroom every 2 seconds and I would feel too full and making it harder to hit my daily calories intake since healthier foods are usually less caloric than junk food.
You must remember though while here on MFP there is a higher percentage of people that "bulk" vs the general population(at least intentionally)...I dare say that percentage is very small. While I am not opposed to the Twinkie(they bring back good childhood memories) IMO we might not have the obesity problem that currently exists if we swapped the Twinkie for the spinach.
Actually...if we were talking about those Hostess cupcakes...all chocolate with a cream filled center...sigh...would be hard to resist. Sadly a few years ago I had one...it just didn't taste the same as the ones from childhood. I dare say the Twinkie doesn't either.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »A calorie is absolutely still a calorie. But a calorie's worth of spinach is probably going to be more useful to your body in terms of vitamins and nutritional needs than a calorie's worth of twinkie.
Doesn't mean no twinkies, just means eat your spinach first.
comparing individual foods is rarely helpful since it all comes down to context and dosage...
True.
My point is fewer calories will help you lose weight either way, but paying attention to nutrition will help you feel better while doing it.
Not necessarily, I am currently bulking and if I were to bulk on just healthy food, I'd be going to the bathroom every 2 seconds and I would feel too full and making it harder to hit my daily calories intake since healthier foods are usually less caloric than junk food.
You must remember though while here on MFP there is a higher percentage of people that "bulk" vs the general population(at least intentionally)...I dare say that percentage is very small. While I am not opposed to the Twinkie(they bring back good childhood memories) IMO we might not have the obesity problem that currently exists if we swapped the Twinkie for the spinach.
Actually...if we were talking about those Hostess cupcakes...all chocolate with a cream filled center...sigh...would be hard to resist. Sadly a few years ago I had one...it just didn't taste the same as the ones from childhood. I dare say the Twinkie doesn't either.
But your comparing their nutritional value, for body composition, both have the same values. The whole topic here is if a calorie is a calorie, in this case, it is.5 -
@fb47 I just followed your post that I responded to. You were talking about "bulking"...how hard that would be on healthy foods because of quantity. My point was...the majority of people in the world do not "bulk" and most likely would not require that level of calories.
Yes...I know...calorie = unit of measure has nothing to do with quality...until it comes to health. IMO...doesn't have to be anyone elses...the quality of that calorie is important. It is also my opinion that there are many others that need to be concerned about the nutritional value. I am not anti any food group. I am not against carbs, fat, sugar or even a Twinki. I think for the most part (I know it was true for me) I never worried about the nutritional value of the calories that I ate. For a long time I was healthy...until I was not. Now, no matter how healthy I eat I will never regain that healthy self that I was.
Most people in the real world outside of MFP does not have a well balanced diet nor do they worry about a calorie being a unit of measure they just eat...some are trying to lose weight and failing because they can't fill up on a Twinki(or whatever else). I eat between 1200 - 1600 calories depending upon the day. On those 1200 - 1400 days I am more worried about nutritional value. On those 1600 calorie days I have more leeway.
BTW...you talked about when you "bulk"...I assume that you also at times "cut". Is the nutritional value of that calorie more important then?
I am not trying to argue with you (I have eaten my share of Twinkis) I just think that when the poster compared spinach to Twinkis she had a point. MOST people in the world would be better off filling their plate with spinach and a healthier fat than what comes from a Twinki.
Now...I will spend the rest of my day thinking about a TWINKI.12 -
@fb47 I just followed your post that I responded to. You were talking about "bulking"...how hard that would be on healthy foods because of quantity. My point was...the majority of people in the world do not "bulk" and most likely would not require that level of calories.
Yes...I know...calorie = unit of measure has nothing to do with quality...until it comes to health. IMO...doesn't have to be anyone elses...the quality of that calorie is important. It is also my opinion that there are many others that need to be concerned about the nutritional value. I am not anti any food group. I am not against carbs, fat, sugar or even a Twinki. I think for the most part (I know it was true for me) I never worried about the nutritional value of the calories that I ate. For a long time I was healthy...until I was not. Now, no matter how healthy I eat I will never regain that healthy self that I was.
Most people in the real world outside of MFP does not have a well balanced diet nor do they worry about a calorie being a unit of measure they just eat...some are trying to lose weight and failing because they can't fill up on a Twinki(or whatever else). I eat between 1200 - 1600 calories depending upon the day. On those 1200 - 1400 days I am more worried about nutritional value. On those 1600 calorie days I have more leeway.
BTW...you talked about when you "bulk"...I assume that you also at times "cut". Is the nutritional value of that calorie more important then?
I am not trying to argue with you (I have eaten my share of Twinkis) I just think that when the poster compared spinach to Twinkis she had a point. MOST people in the world would be better off filling their plate with spinach and a healthier fat than what comes from a Twinki.
Now...I will spend the rest of my day thinking about a TWINKI.
The reason many people would be better off filling their plate with spinach is because a plateful of spinach would have fewer calories than a Twinkie. If spinach was as calorie-dense as Twinkies are, filling your plate with it would no longer be such a good idea for many people.
10 -
I'm a first time, short-time dieter, successful with CICO, somewhat of a fanatic (in a good way!) in fact.
However, now and then I see things on the web by seemingly reputable sources that somewhat contradict CICO.
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/4-myths-nutritionists-wish-people-would-forget/ says:
“Unfortunately, there is no magic equation or straightforward formula for losing weight,” she says. “I think this myth [CICO, 500 calories/week/pound] has staying power because it allows people to focus on cutting calories with the hope of accomplishing a weight-loss goal in a short amount of time. However, it’s a false hope that promotes unrealistic expectations.”
The relationship between changes in caloric intake and weight loss simply isn’t that linear, she adds. As you increase or decrease your calories per day, your body and its metabolic system adapts to compensate for the change. That doesn’t mean changing your calorie intake has no effect on weight, of course, but Dubost emphasizes that if you’re doing the “500 calorie cut” plan and not seeing results, you’re not alone."
And, https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/dos-donts-counting-calories#2 says:
"Food produces hormonal effects in the body," he says. "Some hormones say 'store that fat'; others say 'release sugar'; others say 'build muscle.' Study after study shows that diets based on the same amount of calories, but different proportions of fat, protein and carbohydrates, result in different amounts of weight loss."
I'm happy with it; it's working for me. But, it seems pure CICO isn't quite the gospel I thought it was?
SW: 181, CW: 168. GW: 160 Ht: 5'10 Age: 66 Male
In my own experience, yes-a calorie is a calorie. I lost the extra weight and am now maintaining, regardless of what foods I eat, as long as I'm hitting my calorie targets. In all the years I've been at this I've tried all sorts of macro combinations, food plans (everything from primal to vegetarian) etc. At the end of the day it hasn't mattered at all for my weight management-it comes down to CICO.3 -
1) The MFP blog is a worthless source for reliable information. It's filled with woo and silliness.
2) This subject has been debated over and over again. Here's one of the more recent threads with plenty of discussion about it: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10654872/why-do-people-deny-cico/p1
3) A calorie is a calorie. And if you want science rather than MFP blog dreck to back that up, here's a link which references 148 different scientific studies proving it: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
Bookmarking, thanks.
Highlights:
https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
People Have No Clue How Much they Eat
People are horrible at estimating their calorie intake.(72-120)
Overweight and obese people (especially women) are often the worst, but most people underestimate their calorie intake to some degree.
It’s true for men and women and people of all ages.
It’s true when people are given specific instructions on how to measure their food intake.
It’s true for dietitians.(102)
It’s true even when people are paid to track their food intake.(104)
In some cases, people who claim they can’t lose weight by cutting calories underestimate their food intake by 47%, and overestimate their exercise levels by 51%.(75) Other data has shown that people can underreport their food intake by up to 2,000 calories per day.(89)
It’s likely that the people on high carb diets are more likely to underreport their food intake. This would make it seem as if people on low-carb diets are losing weight despite eating more calories.
The people on high carb diets in weight loss studies are often told to consciously restrict their calorie intake and avoid “unhealthy” or “bad” foods, especially fat. These are all behaviors that generally increase the likelihood that people will underreport their food intake.(81,92,97-101,121)
On the other hand, the people eating the low-carb diets are often told to eat as much fat and protein as they want.
Remember that most of these people were probably making some attempt to control fat intake before the study, or were at least used to the idea that fat is “bad” (thanks largely to the USDA, FDA, and other health agencies). When they’re told to eat a low-carb high-fat diet and to eat as much of these previously “forbidden” foods as they want, even small amounts can feel like a lot of food.
People on low-carb diets often eat more total protein and fat, which helps blunt their appetite.(65-70,122) In contrast, the people in the high-carb groups in these studies are often eating lots of refined carbs which tend to be far less filling. In fact, studies have shown that it’s actually the high protein content of the diet that helps control appetite and cause weight loss, not the avoidance of carbs.(123)
Enjoying previously taboo foods, eating more protein and fat, and not being told to restrict calories drives people in the low-carb groups to eat less and report they’re eating more than they really are.
This effect wears off, however. These people generally get used to their new diet and start eating more of the low-carb high-fat foods — and thus total calories. Over time they also tend to get bored with their diet and become less compliant.
This is why most free-living studies lasting longer than six months have found that people on high- or low-carb diets lose the same amount of weight.(33,43,45,62,124,125) It’s probably also why many free-living studies have found that people lose the same amount of weight eating high- or low-carb diets.
This is why you should be highly skeptical of people who claim they lost weight without eating fewer calories. Calories count. These people are just not counting them accurately, if at all.13 -
kshama2001 wrote: »1) The MFP blog is a worthless source for reliable information. It's filled with woo and silliness.
2) This subject has been debated over and over again. Here's one of the more recent threads with plenty of discussion about it: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10654872/why-do-people-deny-cico/p1
3) A calorie is a calorie. And if you want science rather than MFP blog dreck to back that up, here's a link which references 148 different scientific studies proving it: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
Bookmarking, thanks.
Highlights:
https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
People Have No Clue How Much they Eat
People are horrible at estimating their calorie intake.(72-120)
Overweight and obese people (especially women) are often the worst, but most people underestimate their calorie intake to some degree.
It’s true for men and women and people of all ages.
It’s true when people are given specific instructions on how to measure their food intake.
It’s true for dietitians.(102)
It’s true even when people are paid to track their food intake.(104)
In some cases, people who claim they can’t lose weight by cutting calories underestimate their food intake by 47%, and overestimate their exercise levels by 51%.(75) Other data has shown that people can underreport their food intake by up to 2,000 calories per day.(89)
It’s likely that the people on high carb diets are more likely to underreport their food intake. This would make it seem as if people on low-carb diets are losing weight despite eating more calories.
The people on high carb diets in weight loss studies are often told to consciously restrict their calorie intake and avoid “unhealthy” or “bad” foods, especially fat. These are all behaviors that generally increase the likelihood that people will underreport their food intake.(81,92,97-101,121)
On the other hand, the people eating the low-carb diets are often told to eat as much fat and protein as they want.
Remember that most of these people were probably making some attempt to control fat intake before the study, or were at least used to the idea that fat is “bad” (thanks largely to the USDA, FDA, and other health agencies). When they’re told to eat a low-carb high-fat diet and to eat as much of these previously “forbidden” foods as they want, even small amounts can feel like a lot of food.
People on low-carb diets often eat more total protein and fat, which helps blunt their appetite.(65-70,122) In contrast, the people in the high-carb groups in these studies are often eating lots of refined carbs which tend to be far less filling. In fact, studies have shown that it’s actually the high protein content of the diet that helps control appetite and cause weight loss, not the avoidance of carbs.(123)
Enjoying previously taboo foods, eating more protein and fat, and not being told to restrict calories drives people in the low-carb groups to eat less and report they’re eating more than they really are.
This effect wears off, however. These people generally get used to their new diet and start eating more of the low-carb high-fat foods — and thus total calories. Over time they also tend to get bored with their diet and become less compliant.
This is why most free-living studies lasting longer than six months have found that people on high- or low-carb diets lose the same amount of weight.(33,43,45,62,124,125) It’s probably also why many free-living studies have found that people lose the same amount of weight eating high- or low-carb diets.
This is why you should be highly skeptical of people who claim they lost weight without eating fewer calories. Calories count. These people are just not counting them accurately, if at all.
Gold ^^^^^
All of it.2 -
That weight loss is not totally linear is not an argument against CICO.
The hormone thing seems to be used to imply that you can gain if you eat the wrong foods or lose eating the right foods no matter what the calories consumed are, and that's not accurate (I've never seen any studies that actually support it, those I've seen pointed to when people claim that typically were not actually calorie controlled and really show that increasing protein or monitoring the diet more closely results in people eating fewer calories). It also conflates this point, which is wrong and often used to convince people they need to follow some complicated plan, with the common sense and true point that you should pay attention to whether your diet is filling and satisfying for you or if you are left hungry due to your food choices. That, again, is not an argument against CICO.9 -
The discussion is veering off into "Is what you think is a calorie actually just a calorie?" which is an interesting, but different, question.1
-
@fb47 I just followed your post that I responded to. You were talking about "bulking"...how hard that would be on healthy foods because of quantity. My point was...the majority of people in the world do not "bulk" and most likely would not require that level of calories.
Yes...I know...calorie = unit of measure has nothing to do with quality...until it comes to health. IMO...doesn't have to be anyone elses...the quality of that calorie is important. It is also my opinion that there are many others that need to be concerned about the nutritional value. I am not anti any food group. I am not against carbs, fat, sugar or even a Twinki. I think for the most part (I know it was true for me) I never worried about the nutritional value of the calories that I ate. For a long time I was healthy...until I was not. Now, no matter how healthy I eat I will never regain that healthy self that I was.
Most people in the real world outside of MFP does not have a well balanced diet nor do they worry about a calorie being a unit of measure they just eat...some are trying to lose weight and failing because they can't fill up on a Twinki(or whatever else). I eat between 1200 - 1600 calories depending upon the day. On those 1200 - 1400 days I am more worried about nutritional value. On those 1600 calorie days I have more leeway.
BTW...you talked about when you "bulk"...I assume that you also at times "cut". Is the nutritional value of that calorie more important then?
I am not trying to argue with you (I have eaten my share of Twinkis) I just think that when the poster compared spinach to Twinkis she had a point. MOST people in the world would be better off filling their plate with spinach and a healthier fat than what comes from a Twinki.
Now...I will spend the rest of my day thinking about a TWINKI.
You do know that in a diet, you don't need to go from one extreme to another, on my cut, I was able to fit both of them. yes I ate Mcdonald's during my cut, it didn't stop me from getting quality nutrients through out the day. The whole post here is about "is a calorie a calorie", the answer is yes, you can talk about quality all you want, but like I said, you can fit some junk food and healthy food into your diet....which is why the term IIFYM exists.3 -
CarvedTones wrote: »The discussion is veering off into "Is what you think is a calorie actually just a calorie?" which is an interesting, but different, question.
100% predictable. It happens in Every. CICO. Thread. Ever.
Hormonal fluctuations, water retention, the inaccuracies involved with calorie counting, etc., etc. have absolutely zero to do with the law of energy balance (which is precisely what CICO is). Nor does nutrition, if we're hypothetically speaking purely in terms of weight loss.
If a person is put in a metabolic ward, where intake and expenditure is measured (and adjusted for) as accurately as scientifically possible, and they're put in a sustained calorie deficit, they will lose weight. Not "might" lose weight, or "could" lose weight, or "should" lose weight....they WILL lose weight. Period.
In a metabolic ward, there are no unaccounted-for licks, nibbles, bites, snacks, etc. There are no 1,000 calorie burns from 20 minutes of Zumba class. There are no 'eyeballed' food portions or guesstimates at a restaurant or party. There are no hidden goodie stashes in the back of the cabinet. We can't replicate that degree of control and/or accuracy in day-to-day life, but that doesn't invalidate CICO. Plenty of people have successfully lost weight eating less calories than they expend - some in a healthy, reasonable manner and some in an extreme, unhealthy, poorly-managed manner.
We're not talking about some pie-in-the-sky "maybe it will, maybe it won't" theory here. We're talking about established scientific fact which has been clinically verified a million times in a million different studies. The results are reliable, repeatable and undeniable.14
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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