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Calorie in calorie out method is outdated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
-
Thank you all for helping my curiosity. I posted this with a question. Any thoughts? And I guess apparently I didn't do my research so thanks I will read all the articles you have posted about this because I am just genuinely curious about the chemistry of it not the weight loss.24
-
diannethegeek wrote: »I have developed a personal hatred of healthline since at least 25% of the current woo on the boards come out of there.
Skimmed the article. Calories define weight gain or loss. The article doesn't disagree. Other things can affect hunger cues, health, performance, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees. It doesn't negate the first part, debunk it, or make it wrong. It just means people need to be cognizant of all the different parts of the equation.
Water is wet. The ocean is deep. That one is true doesn't negate the other.
^Pretty much what I was getting at with the nonsense of mixing up things that are not CICO with CICO.
I'm starting to wonder if something is lacking in public education these days since it seems so many people are unable to prioritize and categorize data points into a hierarchy or some kind of index.20 -
JerSchmare wrote: »This line from the article is absolute gold, “Cutting carbs while increasing fat and protein is proven to lead to automatic calorie restriction and weight loss.”
Think about what he’s saying there. Oh, the irony.
Stephan Guyenet had something to say about that, including a discussion of Hall's meta-analysis: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/meta-analysis-impact-of-carbohydrate-vs-fat-calories-on-energy-expenditure-and-body-fatness/12 -
Yeah. As someone who has tried every diet under the sun, let me tell you. What every, single one of them boils down to is manipulating your diet to cause a calorie deficit. The Keto diet? Doesn't work if there's no calorie deficit. Whole 30? Doesn't work if there's no calorie deficit. Paleo diet? Doesn't work if there's no calorie deficit. Weight Watchers? Flexitarian? Mediterranean? None of them work if there's no calorie deficit.32
-
JerSchmare wrote: »This line from the article is absolute gold, “Cutting carbs while increasing fat and protein is proven to lead to automatic calorie restriction and weight loss.”
Think about what he’s saying there. Oh, the irony.
Should I write and tell him about how I gained weight while I was low carbing?24 -
Thank you all for helping my curiosity. I posted this with a question. Any thoughts? And I guess apparently I didn't do my research so thanks I will read all the articles you have posted about this because I am just genuinely curious about the chemistry of it not the weight loss.
Start here: https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html/9 -
38 -
Thank you all for helping my curiosity. I posted this with a question. Any thoughts? And I guess apparently I didn't do my research so thanks I will read all the articles you have posted about this because I am just genuinely curious about the chemistry of it not the weight loss.
CICO doesn't, to my knowledge, do anything to describe how quickly a food is broken down or absorbed. It describes weight loss or gain. That's it. Not health, energy, absorption rates, vitamin deficiencies, sleep patterns, strength gains, or anything else. Those are all governed by different equations. The existence of many different equations about health doesn't negate any particular equation. It just means we have to pick and choose which ones we prioritize. If weight management is a goal then it's best if CICO is one of them alongside any others.17 -
Thank you all for helping my curiosity. I posted this with a question. Any thoughts? And I guess apparently I didn't do my research so thanks I will read all the articles you have posted about this because I am just genuinely curious about the chemistry of it not the weight loss.
The thing is, there are no absolute to the chemistry of this.
The hormones at play are leptin and ghrelin, which are the hunger and satiety hormones.
You don't need to worry about insulin unless you are prediabetic or diabetic.
Anyway, back to leptin and ghrelin. The thing with those? Well, what satiates one person and keeps them from feeling hungry is different from one person to the next. Most people find protein satiating. Most people need protein AND something. That AND is the big question mark... for some it's fat. For others it's fiber. For others it's starch. Finding the right combination of foods that keep you feeling satiated is an individual endeavor.
A lot of dieting gurus would have you believe there's a universal answer to this, but that's not true.18 -
While the author has a Bsc and I don't, he took a hell of a long time to get around to saying that fructose tastes sweet and protein has a TEF of 30%.
Since sweet makes the vast majority of us, who are undisciplined, want to eat more, the calories in fructose are therefore nefariously different from the calories in, say, sucrose.
For all the blather he dressed that in, I'd expect borders of rainbow unicorns.
9 -
6
-
It's physics.3
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »While the author has a Bsc and I don't, he took a hell of a long time to get around to saying that fructose tastes sweet and protein has a TEF of 30%.
Since sweet makes the vast majority of us, who are undisciplined, want to eat more, the calories in fructose are therefore nefariously different from the calories in, say, sucrose.
For all the blather he dressed that in, I'd expect borders of rainbow unicorns.
Hard to believe he thought he was making some major discovery/revelation by discussing TEF. That's a pretty well-known thing. Also pretty much irrelevant unless you're eating protein in a fasted state and in isolation from any other macronutrients, which is hardly a usual eating pattern. IIRC, the generally accepted TEF of a mixed macro meal is around 10%. And it's majoring in the minors in a big way anyway. Classic example of the charlatans in the weight loss industry convincing people to stare at the trees and ignore the forest.10 -
TEF is a real thing. Does not change the fact that you need to consume less energy than you burn to lose weight.4
-
Just as we could discuss how lift and velocity allow airplanes to seemingly defy gravity - but if you jump out of a tree you're still going to hit the ground. The fact that planes can fly is irrelevant to the fact that the law of gravity exists.TEF is a real thing. Does not change the fact that you need to consume less energy than you burn to lose weight.25 -
Just as we could discuss how lift and velocity allow airplanes to seemingly defy gravity - but if you jump out of a tree you're still going to hit the ground. The fact that planes can fly is irrelevant to the fact that the law of gravity exists.TEF is a real thing. Does not change the fact that you need to consume less energy than you burn to lose weight.
Thumbs up4 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions