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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Calorie in calorie out method is outdated

16781012

Replies

  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,563 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever seen anyone in any of these threads directly support on a point by point basis the logic of how a person could gain weight eating in a deficit. It's always about how eating oreos in a deficit will cause you not to lose weight. Never about how eating a "healthy" diet will prevent weight gain, unless its presented as a "you can't eat enough salad to gain weight".

    I always wonder about this too.

    It's kind of like how people keep going in the '70s thread and saying that people weren't fat because no GMOs. There's a strong desire to believe that they aren't really overweight because of overeating, but that food makes them get fat despite them having a dainty appetite and not really enjoying eating. (Indeed, I think for some the idea that they overeat feels like a stigma, so they want to cling to other explanations.)

    I think there's also this idea that one must suffer to lose weight. If you can eat Oreos, it must not be sufficient suffering, so it just can't work -- I think it's a form of magical thinking.

    Perfect! I was trying to formulate a coherent thought around these ideas and I completely agree.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    BayouMoon wrote: »
    BayouMoon wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    BayouMoon wrote: »
    One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)

    Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)

    9.5 lb of kale actually has a good amount of protein: 125 g. Also 64 g of fat, and 190 g of carbs. Not terrible macros. The whopping 176 g of fiber would be something of a problem, among other things (not least 9.5 lb of kale -- LOL!). Other issues include no B12, no D, no EPA/DHA, perhaps an inadequate amino acid profile (didn't check that), etc.

    Monodiets are bad news, and you are right, of course, that the cookie diet is less of a monodiet.

    Right off, I don't know what "TBH" means....to be helpful?....to be healthy?..to be happy?...to be hangry? Yesterday was a fast day so I wasn't at my best thought wise. Also, I under estimated how personally people would take my thoughts. There is a reason people don't have the ability to read minds.

    That's true, the cookies are a complex food, so it really isn't a fair comparison. My wood example has already be disallowed. So how about this: 1500 calories of vodka vs. 1500 calories of kale? I think if we made it a 1 month challenge and offered compensation we could probably actually get some volunteers to try it. I still think there would be a difference in weight loss or gain, all other things being equal.

    You don't think the impact of having around 23 and a half ounces of vodka per day (assuming you're using 80 proof vodka) would completely confound whatever it is you think you're proving about calories?

    Exactly! The type of calories matter.....

    All you're demonstrating there is that if you drink 1500 calories worth of poison (which is what alcohol is in that dosage), you will not lose weight. Because you'll die. Very quickly. Possibly that very day.

    The kale might kill you fairly quickly too (vitamin K?), but the alcohol would kill you quicker. Not a great weight loss experiment.

    How about we compare 1400 calories of a well balanced diet (but no kale) every day plus 100 calories of pure cane sugar, to 1400 calories of a well balanced diet (but no sugar) plus 100 calories of kale? There will not be a material difference in the body weight effect. Or, if you want to stick to pretty-pure macronutrients, 100 calories of olive oil ("healthy", right?) vs. 100 calories of sugar? I'd put money on no material difference in either body weight or health.

    I just wanted to quote this and compliment you on the bolded... I truly hope @BayouMoon comes back and addresses that question.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    BayouMoon wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    BayouMoon wrote: »
    To wrap up my thoughts on this debate, I do still believe that the types of calories matter and that the CICO equation is outdated. I know, I know..."It's math!! It can't be outdated!!". If that is your rebuttal to the debate, then I don't think your understood the question. She wasn't asking a math question, she was asking about the effects of what you eat long term. The majority of the rebuttals to the initial ascertion seem to be along the lines of "that's included in the calculation". So if some calories burn faster, that's in the calculation, if some calories don't get metabolized, that's in the calculation, if the way your body metabolizes calories changes over time, that's included in the calculation. If certain foods trigger hormones and other reactions, that's in the calculation. Even if all these things are included in the calculation, they matter and updating and expanding the equation to include them will help in the long term.

    That is because it is included in the calculation. The recommended daily calorie intakes and the calculators that predict your calorie requirements and suggest how much you should eat take that into account because they are statistical models based on large studies of actual people eating actual food. Therefore they take into account what people derive from that food. Your examples of well what if someone eats nothing but kale or nothing but sugar or they eat wood are just irrelevant because that isn't a thing...no one does that. For people who eat normal food the calorie values are very close approximations and if you track your calories in terms of your intake and use the calculators to predict your calorie requirements you will find it is a fairly close approximation. It will be off, it will not be exact...but you can find that out only if you measure the calories and track them over time and then adjust accordingly.

    Crossing your arms and saying I don't believe it I think its inaccurate offers no alternative or no improvement to a model. Saying it is "outdated" suggests we should throw it out or change it. Okay, so you don't believe tracking calories is useful for weight management....what is your suggested alternative?

    Oh, quite the contrary, I count calories. I just think it matters if it's a 100 cal oreo or a 100 cal salad.

    One I can digest (oreo)and one will send me to the ER in excruciating pain (salad).

    IBS? I'm the opposite, Oreos would spike my blood glucose and salad would be fine. But good post, pointing out that diet depends on individual needs. For another example, simple, quick digesting sugars such as candies increase my blood sugar quickly, which is why I carry a roll of smarties to eat on my long runs. Almost every food, except maybe trans fats, has a time and place when it's beneficial and when it's harmful. People die from drinking too much water at a time.

    @rheddmobile Crohn's and gastroparesis
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,035 Member
    deckerjj wrote: »
    Meh, calorie tracking worked for me (down 103lbs since my pic.) More important than anything, IMO, is to take simple sugars out of your diet, and that also helps keep calories down. And yes, simple sugars metabolize super fast, even to the point of storing directly as fat (hence soda and fruit juice will make you fat, even though it's all liquid.)

    Really? Even in calorie deficit?
  • johnslater461
    johnslater461 Posts: 449 Member
    Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.

    Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.

    I have done keto. It is all kitten. Get back to us in a year and maybe we can talk. Right now, it’s called the honeymoon phase for you.

    ETA spelling

    As I said. You have not done both keto combined with high ratio window of fasting ie 20 to 23 hrs between every meal. That is where the metabolism/rate of fat burn changes. Not keto alone. If you read my post in full you would have seen that. So you saying "I have done keto. It is all kitten" is irrelevant to my points and my results.

    Put up or shut up.

This discussion has been closed.