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Calorie in calorie out method is outdated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
-
No one says that acknowledging and leveraging the fact of CICO requires ignoring all these factors. Just that these factors don't ever make CICO untrue. I'm still not sure why that is such a complicated thing to understand
From participating in a number of these threads, I'm not sure that it comes down to it being a complicated thing to understand. It's been explained so many times in so many ways, mountains of links to peer-reviewed studies have been posted over and over, etc.
I think it's more of a thing that people actively don't want to believe it.
Is it a tribal thing?
"I eat only cabbage/doritos/kale, and everyone else is stupid and doing it wrong"1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Aaron_K123 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wrap up my thoughts on this debate, I do still believe that the types of calories matter and that the CICO equation is outdated.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 It can't be outdated!!".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.2 -
Honestly, I think a lot of these nonsense arguments have to do with people not understanding, at root, how symbols work, and that words are symbols; and not understanding what abstractions are and how to use them conceptually. They deeply confuse "things" with characteristics of those things, measurements of those things, impacts of those things, and more. They think in "states" (snapshots) not processes (where things influence other things but they're not all the same thing, and they don't grasp that, in reality, "things" and processes never hold still). And that's just the tip of the cognitive iceberg.17
-
Honestly, I think a lot of these nonsense arguments have to do with people not understanding, at root, how symbols work, and that words are symbols; and not understanding what abstractions are and how to use them conceptually. They deeply confuse "things" with characteristics of those things, measurements of those things, impacts of those things, and more. They think in "states" (snapshots) not processes (where things influence other things but they're not all the same thing, and they don't grasp that, in reality, "things" and processes never hold still). And that's just the tip of the cognitive iceberg.
Like Shouty Guy insisting that calories have nothing to do with weight loss, because he can't accept that an abstraction such as a measurement is a thing!4 -
I wish these debates weren't always forced to circle around the drain of "compare two diets no one would ever eat and tell me which is better". To insist the debate go back there hints that debating in more realistic terms wouldn't support your conclusion.
No one eats wood. No one here suggests eating a 1500 cal monodiet of kale or Twinkies or alcohol. No one says that what you eat has no effect on your health or your satiety or your state of mind.
All CICO says is that if your body needs 2000 calories to get through the day, and you eat 1500 calories, you will lose weight; if you eat 2500 calories, you will gain weight. That's it.
A calorie deficit causes weight loss. Full stop.
What you eat, when you eat it, how fast you eat, what you think about what you're eating, what exercise you do, how long you sleep, and many more variables will affect your ability to get into a calorie deficit. It may affect your NEAT or your energy level or your satiety or your willpower. And each of these variables will be highly personal. Some people will have a harder time figuring out what calorie level gives them a deficit because of these variables, will require more trial and error, may even require medical intervention.
No one says that acknowledging and leveraging the fact of CICO requires ignoring all these factors. Just that these factors don't ever make CICO untrue. I'm still not sure why that is such a complicated thing to understand
Well said. When I first started trying to lose weight about a year and a half ago, one of the first things I did was start reading up on how the body uses energy and what I could do to best ensure my long term success.
As soon I saw "CICO" and an accompanying explanation, it make perfect sense. It was almost stupidly simple and I was thrilled to finally "get it". I didn't have to make this process complicated. I just had to focus on eating less than I burned over time. I chose to do this by learning to moderate foods (and drinks) I really enjoy instead of cutting them out and getting more active to burn more than I had been at my previously fairly sedentary state.
I also chose to start focusing on adding in or increasing lower calorie/higher nutrient foods so I could also be healthier and not just thinner.
So far so good.7 -
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".2
-
Do what makes you happy and what you can stick to2
-
rheddmobile wrote: »Honestly, I think a lot of these nonsense arguments have to do with people not understanding, at root, how symbols work, and that words are symbols; and not understanding what abstractions are and how to use them conceptually. They deeply confuse "things" with characteristics of those things, measurements of those things, impacts of those things, and more. They think in "states" (snapshots) not processes (where things influence other things but they're not all the same thing, and they don't grasp that, in reality, "things" and processes never hold still). And that's just the tip of the cognitive iceberg.
Like Shouty Guy insisting that calories have nothing to do with weight loss, because he can't accept that an abstraction such as a measurement is a thing!
Honestly, Shouty’s arguments make just as much sense (or lack thereof) as some I’ve seen in these CICO threads.1 -
annaskiski wrote: »No one says that acknowledging and leveraging the fact of CICO requires ignoring all these factors. Just that these factors don't ever make CICO untrue. I'm still not sure why that is such a complicated thing to understand
From participating in a number of these threads, I'm not sure that it comes down to it being a complicated thing to understand. It's been explained so many times in so many ways, mountains of links to peer-reviewed studies have been posted over and over, etc.
I think it's more of a thing that people actively don't want to believe it.
Is it a tribal thing?
"I eat only cabbage/doritos/kale, and everyone else is stupid and doing it wrong"
It's odd. There seems to be a deep-seated desire to believe that people who say that CICO is what matters for weight loss don't care about nutrition, and that SAYING CICO is "outdated" or whatever means you care more about nutrition than the hoi polloi, no matter how you eat (kind of how people like to claim they don't eat "processed foods" when they eat lots of Taco Bell and protein powder and what not). I get the sense there's a fear for some that if they don't tell themselves that "bad foods" will make them fat, not calories, that they will eat poorly. It's a point janejellyroll made well on another thread and it fits here too.
What I no longer really believe is that it's a genuine misunderstanding, as it's been explained so often and so clearly and people completely refuse to engage at the point where they must understand. Again, very odd.4 -
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.9 -
lemurcat12 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.1 -
janejellyroll 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.
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.3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Aaron_K123 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 gastroparesis2 -
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?
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.) Counting calories also helps you reduce portions and/or stick to low calorie density stuff, and it is proven to work provided you don't have too big of a calorie deficit. But sugar has a very strong flavor that people tend to crave, so they often just want to eat more sugar, regardless of whether they are hungry, and therefore find it hard to resist larger portions, and the more simple sugars there is in a given food, the faster it will metabolize.
And because I hear this a lot from people who insist "natural" sugar is just fine to eat: No matter what anybody says, natural is NOT better, a fact well supported by science, so the sugar in fruit counts, as do other "natural" sugars. Simple sugars are simple sugars. Even if you believe "natural is better", there's very high odds that you have never eaten the REAL natural food, especially natural fruit. Most fruit doesn't want to be eaten, so they evolved to be dark colored to avoid attracting animals, and bitter and toxic to pests. Usually mildly toxic, but sometimes very toxic, i.e. producing their own hydrogen cyanide, which will kill insects, animals, and humans alike. Fruit also evolved for just enough sugar to nourish seeds. More sugar needs more energy, so more than needed is harder to survive. Fruit you're used to is bred to be obese: Very sugary, very big, and the bitter stuff (mostly) bred out, though some (including carcinogens) remain. Ditto for vegetables. Example: Sweet corn was bred from wheat, wheat was bred from a type of grass similar to the foxtails that grow in your back yard and stick to your dog.
Sugars rarely convert into body fat, regardless if it's simple or complex. More often than not, your body will utilize those sugars as immediate needs or store them as glycogen. And in fact, based on de novo lipogenesis studies, only about 10 or 15% of carbs will store as fat. Largely what will happen is carbs will suppress fat oxidation, which will drive fats to be stored for later use, while carbs will be used immediately. The biggest difference is rate of absorption and in the case of fructose where it's metabolize; fructose is metabolized in the liver.
There isn't a difference between fructose in soda vs fruit (it's still fructose) but there is a significant difference between the nutrient composition between a piece of fruit and soda. There is also a huge difference between pork rinds (fried fat) and extra virgin olive oil.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.28 -
Sillies. It's outdated because we all know by now that calories don't really exist, and energy is a fake thing that can not affect us in any way whatsoever. We have a "friend" of "elite physicists" who has been kind enough to educate and frequently remind us of this "fact".10
-
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?
2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.
Which is I guess why those same people ignore science because in the end science is "pretend" in the exact same way....models based off of samples of observable data from studies. The only thing in this world that is exact is mathematics itself and abstract concepts from it like perfect geometric shapes, everything else is a statistical approximation. Pointing out something is a statistical approximation doesn't somehow invalidate its usefulness or efficacy.16 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.
And yet it's literally the only way to lose weight. Whether you focus on it or not, eating less than you expend is what takes place during weight loss, no exceptions. It may not be possible to exactly calculate what you eat or what you expend, but those pieces of information aren't "pretend" - they are very, very real, regardless of how exact your observations of them are.13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.
Yet the weight that many, many people have lost by creating a caloric deficit is not "pretend" at all. Funny how a "pretend" thing can have such real, tangible, verifiable results.
If we want to discuss "pretend" things, let's discuss the insulin theory of obesity/sugar makes you fat. Because that is truly "pretend" and has no legitimate scientific backing whatsoever.19
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K 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