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.
Calorie in calorie out method is outdated
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »estherdragonbat 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.
That's what I get for not running the nutrition on green leafies, lol! Though I don't think I could consume that much kale without 'cheating' and adding stuff to it...
Just the thought of 9.5 lb of kale, wow.
and dont they say too much kale can cause issues with your thyroid and other things? or is that just woo?
Kale *can* be high in thalium and lead to heavy metal poisoning when people eat a LOT of it (like 9.5 pounds a day maybe?). Not all kale will have a lot of it, it depends on the soil that it is grown in.
Kale like all green leafies is also high in K. Which can promote clotting5 -
diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat 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.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
I am the special snowflake who developed insulin resistance while active, not overweight, without any strong family history of T2D, while eating a low fat diet.
Obesity and genetics are the primary risk factors, not necessarily the only ones.
There are non smokers who get lung cancer. Your argument is akin to one of them claiming that smoking doesn't cause cancerI think diet has something to do with developing T2D too. I have never heard of a case of T2D developing in someone who followed a chronically low carb diet (and didn't switch to it to treat obesity or IR). Ever.
Argumentum ad ignorantum
13 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wait. Did I seriously just read an argument predicated on the assertion that scientifically backed reasoning is an appeal to emotion?
Alice just went down the rabbit hole. There is no discussion to be had with this kind of "reasoning".
To be fair, I think they're under the mistaken impression that those who are referencing studies are willing to accept any study and aren't using their own critical thinking skills and ability to evaluate the quality of individual studies. Which, you know, can happen when you don't bother to read a thread, you wind up being really mistaken about what is being discussed and how people are discussing it.
Oh, like the people who deny the CICO model
I don't think the people who question the model, deny it, they are just open to the possibilty that there maybe more to it. But there may not be.
The thing is that there are a lot of factors involved in weight management, but they are separate and distinct from each other.
By you saying there's more to it, you're acknowledging the fact that there are more factors to weight management, but confusing calorie management with the whole of it.
Weight management also involves elements of satiety and compliance, and of course nutrition. While all the elements are entwined and somewhat inter-related, they are still distinct and need individual consideration.
For example: I can comply perfectly well to a nutrient dense diet, not feel full, and not lose weight.
How? But not eating foods that satiate me, white knuckling it through some meal plan thought of by someone else, and not eating the appropriate number of calories needed to achieve weight loss.
So, yes, more is involved in weight management. You're right about that, but weight management is a broader topic than just CICO. CICO is just one factor and the main driver of it. The other factors enable CICO to be implemented.9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Lol...I gained 40 Lbs doing 16:8 IF. It's how I naturally used to eat. I gained 40 Lbs because I was overeating.
And nobody is saying that hormones don't have an impact on the equation...it's just that it's relatively small in most cases. For someone who is insulin resistant, a lower carb diet is probably going to be beneficial, but they're still going to have to follow the math.
Conversely, a diabetic could have major issues doing IF due to very low blood sugar.10 -
johnslater461 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat 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.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
I am the special snowflake who developed insulin resistance while active, not overweight, without any strong family history of T2D, while eating a low fat diet.
Obesity and genetics are the primary risk factors, not necessarily the only ones.
There are non smokers who get lung cancer. Your argument is akin to one of them claiming that smoking doesn't cause cancerI think diet has something to do with developing T2D too. I have never heard of a case of T2D developing in someone who followed a chronically low carb diet (and didn't switch to it to treat obesity or IR). Ever.
Argumentum ad ignorantum
Nah. I've looked. There's nothing I can find.
And I DID call myself the special snowflake. 8 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
This is a strawman, hence no need to part ways.
CICO is the underlying principle of energy conservation - in this case weight management.
Nutrition is a higher level concept. Intermittent fasting is a means of implementing calorie restriction and is still CICO.
Hormonal impact is a different topic and plays almost no part in weight management. Hormones impact metabolism by ~5% from clinical observation. That amounts to ~80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day calorie budget. The only population which has the potential to see impact is the elite bodybuilders with an extremely low body fat %.
7 -
johnslater461 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat 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.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
I am the special snowflake who developed insulin resistance while active, not overweight, without any strong family history of T2D, while eating a low fat diet.
Obesity and genetics are the primary risk factors, not necessarily the only ones.
There are non smokers who get lung cancer. Your argument is akin to one of them claiming that smoking doesn't cause cancerI think diet has something to do with developing T2D too. I have never heard of a case of T2D developing in someone who followed a chronically low carb diet (and didn't switch to it to treat obesity or IR). Ever.
Argumentum ad ignorantum
Nah. I've looked. There's nothing I can find.
And I DID call myself the special snowflake.
Look harder
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/1/43
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-pdf/93/4/844/23871245/844.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_-qnj9fvaAhWiUt8KHQE4C0kQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2c9A8v2eY1g0vMNtN87xWl12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Again if you read the thread or other threads like it I think you would better understand what is actually meant when people say CICO is the underlying principle behind all weight loss and gain.
Underlying it is a simple math equation. The calories you intake compared to the calories that you expend is going to be what determines if you gain, lose or maintain weight. That is all CICO says and that is absolutely true.
What CICO does not say is how one accurately judges CI and CO and yes, of course, that is VERY complicated....so complicated it is impossible to actually just straight up calculate so we have to rely on studies of populations and statistics and averages. That your CO doing an activity may be extremely different than my CO doing the exact same activity. People understand that.
When I say the reason you lose weight is because of CICO I don't mean that it is because you employed the strategy of calorie counting or because you didn't care whether you ate vegetables or twinkies, I am simply saying that if you lose weight that through whatever method you employed to do so the underlying principle behind your weight loss was that you took in less calories than your body used. I am not saying what the source of those calories were, I am not saying whether the calories printed on the side of the box is an accurate representation of how many calories your body can actually get from that. I am not saying that factors like microbiome, hormones, cooking etc don't all influence how many calories you derive from a meal. I am just saying that if you knew exactly how many calories your body was getting in usable energy and exactly how many calories your body was using up, then you would know whether or not you were gaining or losing weight. That is it...it literally is that simple.
Saying it is simple though does not at ALL mean that weight loss is simple or strategies are clear or how you get an accurate CI or CO value is easy. But again...who is saying that? Who are you even talking to when you are complaining that people say that? I mean it certainly seems like you are directing that towards people in this forum but to what I have seen and read no one has actually said anything like that.
Do you disagree with any of that? Does anyone actually disagree with any of that? That is what is so frustrating about this "debate" as you put it, I'm pretty sure everyone actually thinks the same thing they are just getting tangled up in the semantics and minutia of it.14 -
Just as a quick summary of my previous post.
Just because accurately determining CI or CO values is difficult and complicated by many different factors does not mean that the concept that CI>CO = weight gain, CI=CO = maintenance and CI<CO = weight loss is somehow "outdated" or wrong. If you were to somehow be able to accurately determine your actual CI (meaning the calories your body actually derives from food, not just what is listed on a box) and were able to accuarelty determine your actual CO (meaning the amount of calories your body actually expends, not what is stated on your fitbit) then you would most certainly be able to use the fundamental principle that is CICO to determine if you were in the process of losing or gaining weight. The fact that that is really hard to do does not somehow disprove the underlying physics of energy conservation.9 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't think this is a debate.
IS that because you're just arguing with no support or substance to your opinions?
TBH, it's not a debate, it's settled fact.
A debate can only happen when there are alternative interpretations of an established set of facts.
There is no such thing as a settled fact. We can debate that.
Sigh.
The problem is that people believe that their 'feelings' are just as relevant as established facts.
Anything they don't like to hear is 'fake news'.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Fact:
People lose, gain, and maintain their weight Intermittent Fasting. (Which I am a big fan of).
Fact:
Hormones affect the numbers involved in energy balance. (energy_in vs energy_out CICO), but they do not change the equation in any way. (i.e. they can depress or increase your energy_out CO, they can also make you hungrier than usual, causing you to eat more CI) At the end of the day though, gaining/losing/maintaining weight is still about that energy balance (CICO). No one is saying that hormone issues do not make it challenging to find the right balance of food intake vs. energy expenditure.
12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Read the entire thread (much of this BS has already been addressed repeatedly). Then study this chart and let us know your opinion on it:
http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html8 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Ahhh, so it's an intermittent fasting thing. That explains all the hoodoo. A lot of people have been suckered by pseudoscientific quacks like Jason Fung into thinking that intermittent fasting is magical and somehow defies the laws of energy balance.
It's not true.And, for all you people who keep saying "there are no scientific studies..." you should consider opening up your mind just a bit....
We've heard this one before. Most often, this is the roundabout way of saying "I don't have so much as a single shred of scientific evidence to support my beliefs, but I blindly believe them anyway - and if you don't blindly believe it without proof too, you're the closed-minded one!".
17 -
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Lol...I gained 40 Lbs doing 16:8 IF. It's how I naturally used to eat. I gained 40 Lbs because I was overeating.
And nobody is saying that hormones don't have an impact on the equation...it's just that it's relatively small in most cases. For someone who is insulin resistant, a lower carb diet is probably going to be beneficial, but they're still going to have to follow the math.
Conversely, a diabetic could have major issues doing IF due to very low blood sugar.
same here I gained weight doing IF because I ate too many calories. I dont lose any faster doing IF than if I dont do IF.8 -
Just a few friendly reminders:
1. Be nice to each other- attacking breaks guideline 1
if you have not found your way to the forum guidelines please read them:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
2. This is the debate section, it was created so posters could respectfully argue their position and explore new information. Please post thought out responses, prepare to support your opinion, and plan to respond to other posters. If you don't want to do that this is not the board for you.
Thanks,
4legs
MFP moderator
p.s. sorry if my "clean up" is a bit spotty, I am experiencing technical difficulties this morning.1 -
"Oh, it's just calories in versus calories out" is so flippant. The brain controls the flow in and out of those calories. Emotions, hormones, environmental conditions, all sorts of things play into how and what we eat. So saying the model of simply looking at calories in versus calories out is outdated. It doesn't work. You have to consider how you eat, when you eat and what you eat. I'm sure everyone on this site knows how much more complicated it is. If you don't deal with the brain and all it's glory, you will not suceed.
Wether you gain, lose or maintain, CICO is always "working"...2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I understand the points that you are making. The debate started with the following: "I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?"
I gave my thoughts as an agreement with the sentiment that not all calories have the same effect on your long-term weight loss. I agree that some food metobolizes differently than others. So, because of the way your body uses the energy, I believe that certain foods, even thought they may have the same number of calories, will not have the same long term effect on weight loss as others.
So maybe if you consume a lot of sugar, it could change how your body reacts to sugar when it is consumed. At first, your body handles sugar like any other calorie. But after a period of time your body would become sensative to sugar. Maybe your cells can only absorb a certain amount of sugar and when it reaches that tipping point it will push out the extra sugar as waste without metabolizing it. So, in that case, the calories in did not translate directly, so the equation does not work. It may work in the beginning, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar vs 1500 calories of kale you will have the same effect, but not in the long run.
Do you disagree with any of that?9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I understand the points that you are making. The debate started with the following: "I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?"
I gave my thoughts as an agreement with the sentiment that not all calories have the same effect on your long-term weight loss. I agree that some food metobolizes differently than others. So, because of the way your body uses the energy, I believe that certain foods, even thought they may have the same number of calories, will not have the same long term effect on weight loss as others.
So maybe if you consume a lot of sugar, it could change how your body reacts to sugar when it is consumed. At first, your body handles sugar like any other calorie. But after a period of time your body would become sensative to sugar. Maybe your cells can only absorb a certain amount of sugar and when it reaches that tipping point it will push out the extra sugar as waste without metabolizing it. So, in that case, the calories in did not translate directly, so the equation does not work. It may work in the beginning, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar vs 1500 calories of kale you will have the same effect, but not in the long run.
Do you disagree with any of that?
Did you go back and read the whole thread? I already know the answer because if you had you would have seen that straw man examples like yours have been discussed and refuted.
Read the thread please, then come back with your assertions.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I understand the points that you are making. The debate started with the following: "I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?"
I gave my thoughts as an agreement with the sentiment that not all calories have the same effect on your long-term weight loss. I agree that some food metobolizes differently than others. So, because of the way your body uses the energy, I believe that certain foods, even thought they may have the same number of calories, will not have the same long term effect on weight loss as others.
So maybe if you consume a lot of sugar, it could change how your body reacts to sugar when it is consumed. At first, your body handles sugar like any other calorie. But after a period of time your body would become sensative to sugar. Maybe your cells can only absorb a certain amount of sugar and when it reaches that tipping point it will push out the extra sugar as waste without metabolizing it. So, in that case, the calories in did not translate directly, so the equation does not work. It may work in the beginning, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar vs 1500 calories of kale you will have the same effect, but not in the long run.
Do you disagree with any of that?
Did you go back and read the whole thread? I already know the answer because if you had you would have seen that straw man examples like yours have been discussed and refuted.
Read the thread please, then come back with your assertions.
I did go back and read the whole thread. And as I waded through all of the responses, I did notice a pattern that made me a little sad. None the less, I didn't read anything that made be not believe that different types of food that you consume will have an effect on your weight loss long term.11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I understand the points that you are making. The debate started with the following: "I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?"
I gave my thoughts as an agreement with the sentiment that not all calories have the same effect on your long-term weight loss. I agree that some food metobolizes differently than others. So, because of the way your body uses the energy, I believe that certain foods, even thought they may have the same number of calories, will not have the same long term effect on weight loss as others.
So maybe if you consume a lot of sugar, it could change how your body reacts to sugar when it is consumed. At first, your body handles sugar like any other calorie. But after a period of time your body would become sensative to sugar. Maybe your cells can only absorb a certain amount of sugar and when it reaches that tipping point it will push out the extra sugar as waste without metabolizing it. So, in that case, the calories in did not translate directly, so the equation does not work. It may work in the beginning, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar vs 1500 calories of kale you will have the same effect, but not in the long run.
Do you disagree with any of that?
In a concept called Calories In, Calories Out, what do you think the italicized and bolded would fall under?
5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions