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Calorie in calorie out method is outdated
Replies
-
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?
Yes, some foods do metabolize faster than others... no one disputes that. But that doesn't change the amount of calories/energy they contain, nor does it change/impact the idea of energy balance.4 -
When it comes down to it it probably isn't enough of a change to matter but I just think its interesting that different molecules do take different amounts of energy to break down and it makes complete sense.
Again, no one is arguing that. It's accounted for, and you're correct, it's not enough to matter.4 -
I'm not completely disagreeing I was just debating with a friend who asked: does it take longer to convert 500 calories of "unhealthy food" vs. 500 calories of "healthy" food. To be fair I was on the CICO side until we did extensive Google searches. And btw, the article does cite multiple peer reviewed studies.
Again, how long it takes has nothing to do with energy balance. Do you understand what CICO is/means?1 -
Silentpadna wrote: »
In today's snowflake little world, it's offensive to discredit peoples' "references" such as youtube, celebrity fad diets/anecdotes, marketing, the bible, google, etc. with real references.
+1 Sarcasm
"But at the end of the day, you can do whatever the **** you want"
-Hodge Twins12 -
Keto_Vampire wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »
In today's snowflake little world, it's offensive to discredit peoples' "references" such as youtube, celebrity fad diets/anecdotes, marketing, the bible, google, etc. with real references.
+1 Sarcasm
"But at the end of the day, you can do whatever the **** you want"
-Hodge Twins
Don't forget instagram.7 -
-
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »You've got to create a calorie deficit to lose weight. But... purely anecdotally... I seem to lose weight more quickly eating fresh, homemade foods than when I eat the exact same number of calories but it's processed.
To my mind, it's not that CICO doesn't work, it definitely does - but that it's part of a much broader picture that includes drinking more water, getting enough sleep, exercising and reducing your stress levels.
I *think* that's what a lot of people mean when they say looking at CICO alone is outdated.
Your "fresh homemade" foods are likely lower sodium, and potentially less carby than the "processed" foods you eat - this will lead to less fluid retention.
In addition to this, no one counts calories perfectly, and some do it more accurately than others. What I find is that for me (if I'm at all honest about my cuts of meat), whole foods of certain types (meat, veg, fruit) are likely things I can easily understand the calories from. I think when people eat more packaged stuff it can sometimes be easier to understate calories (or fool yourself that a little unlogged bit doesn't matter when it matters more the more calorie dense it is). This is ESPECIALLY true if there's a difference in how often one is getting food from a restaurant, as you indicate. (IME, food from a nice restaurant that makes everything from hand and all that is obviously no more processed than meals from whole foods I make at home, but if I eat a lot of restaurant stuff it's harder to lose since I can't track the calories as well and there are more calories -- from ingredients like butter -- than I use for similar things at home.) NOTHING to do with processing or flaws in CICO.
Indeed, none of this has anything to do with "processed" or not, I think the word "processed" may be being misused again. I certainly don't find that eating, say, plain greek yogurt makes it harder to lose weight.
I also find the dichotomy between eating "fresh, homemade foods" and "processed" puzzling. Don't most people eat a combination of whole foods, cooked at home, and processed ingredients and additions? Normal breakfast for me, for example, is a 2 egg omelet with fresh vegetables (although I occasionally will use frozen greens), plus some feta cheese (processed!) cooked in olive oil (processed!) with cottage cheese or greek yogurt on the side (processed!). On occasion I might add a little bacon to the omelet or have smoked salmon (processed!) or have fruit or avocado on the side. Mix of processed and not. Similarly, I might make a salad for lunch and add some tofu (processed) or goat cheese (processed!) or make a dressing out of olive oil and vinegar (processed and processed), but the salad is obviously still mostly fresh vegetables, so whole foods based.
Aren't most meals a mix like this? This is one of the things that puzzles me about people who act as if processed foods are inconsistent with eating healthfully.5 -
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.
An excellent detector of woo is generalized, non-specific statements that on the surface appear to contradict, but simply do not stand up to investigative rigor.
TEF is real; however the actual difference does not exceed the error in instrumentation. Same with metabolic adaptation, microbiome variance, hormone variance, adaptive thermogenesis, etc.
To put this into real numbers the amount of variance would go something like this:
Calculated calorie content in an apple = 80 kcals
Patient A's caloric use = 78
Patient B's caloric use = 80
Patient C's caloric use = 81
Bear in mind the instrument error in the detection device is +/- 3%, so error range puts this to 78 - 82 kcals.
This is the variance that allegedly "invalidates" CICO.21 -
@CSARdiver Awesome.
2 -
I know people have replied before, I haven't read it all properly, but just today I logged another lb less using the MFP app, I personally track macros and try to aim for more nutrient dense food cos it makes me more satisfied and I like it better but in the end, the weight I've lost is due to me eating less calories than the needed for maintenance, and keeping my TDEE at a higher level too, thus burning more, thus the deficit.
Keep using the app is very useful, everyone! 8 -
-
CICO isnt a "method" that can be outdated or not. Its simply a thermodynamics equation, or more plainly, its how biology works, in that if you take in more than you burn, you have more left, and if you take in less than you burn, you will have less left.
No different than putting objects into a finite space. If you add more than you take out, the pile will grow. Any (and all) method/diet/anything you want to call it, operates under this law whether someone knows it, likes it, or wants it to.
Counting the calories is a just a more precise way of making sure you are on the side of this equation you wanted to be.9 -
I think the point of the article is that just relying how many calories you eat to make weight loss easier can be a mistake for your weight and health depending on your circumstances.BOTTOM LINE:
Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause.
There is no one diet for all. Someone saying that they "lost weight while eating healthy/low carb/vegan/whatever so anyone can" is not always true. Denying that others can lose weight easier and faster if they take into account the foods they are eating, or even why they are eating, because it didn't work that way for them is pretty egocentric and not very helpful to the others.
For some people, what foods you eat will affect their weight whether it is from hormones, health insulin and BG levels, greater protein or fibre, or simply because they are more satiated. It isn't huge number differences, but it's there.
JMO YMMV
On a different note, I am seeing a LOT of articles along the same lines lately and MFP forums often responds that CICO is just an energy balance. I don't disagree, but I am starting to think that definition is outdated and NOT what the vast majority of the public, outside of MFP, thinks of it as.
Sort of like when my kids started calling good things sick. That word's definition has really grown. Perhaps it's time to consider CICO as coming with a broader definition?
20 -
I think the point of the article is that just relying how many calories you eat to make weight loss easier can be a mistake for your weight and health depending on your circumstances.
"BOTTOM LINE:
Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause."
I would say that this is exactly wrong (the claim, not your post).
That weight gain is caused by excess calories is important to understand, that IS the cause.
The next question is how come you were eating excess calories and how to stop, and OF COURSE everyone should do that too, it's necessary to do it to create a calorie deficit. For some it might mean planning meals and logging, for others it might mean cutting out trigger foods or changing the macros or just not snacking (or even just cutting out sugary pop). For others it is looking honestly at your diet and seeing where the excess calories were from.
But the basic understanding behind all these is that you were eating too much, and IMO any rational human should be able to take the step from that to figuring out how to stop. (It may involve some emotional or coping issues that therapy helps with or experiment and error or ways to keep mindful, of course, NOT saying it's always easy, but the understanding of why the excess calories isn't hard if you look at the diet.)
IMO pretending there's more to it is just a scam to tell you you need help from someone else, usually.
And I also think that's why there's this desire to pretend like CICO is not just energy balance, but a special diet that is just one of a million. Don't realize you can and should figure it out yourself, rely on special diet I'm selling or me, the diet guru or even think you need some nutritionist to tell you how to eat, as if it weren't really a pretty simple basic human skill.15 -
Adding a meaning that's opposite to the original meaning literally makes my blood boil. Of course, by literally, I mean figuratively.Sort of like when my kids started calling good things sick. That word's definition has really grown. Perhaps it's time to consider CICO as coming with a broader definition?
As for CICO =/= calorie counting, that is probably a fight we can't win since the press (and therefore people) keep conflating them.10 -
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?
TEF is part of the CO in the equation. It doesn't negate the equation or make it obsolete.
Yes, it will be harder for my body to breakdown 300 calories of chicken breast than it will to breakdown 300 calories of cotton candy...but in the context of an otherwise healthful and balanced diet, none of this really matters.
2 -
I think the point of the article is that just relying how many calories you eat to make weight loss easier can be a mistake for your weight and health depending on your circumstances.BOTTOM LINE:
Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause.
There is no one diet for all. Someone saying that they "lost weight while eating healthy/low carb/vegan/whatever so anyone can" is not always true. Denying that others can lose weight easier and faster if they take into account the foods they are eating, or even why they are eating, because it didn't work that way for them is pretty egocentric and not very helpful to the others.
For some people, what foods you eat will affect their weight whether it is from hormones, health insulin and BG levels, greater protein or fibre, or simply because they are more satiated. It isn't huge number differences, but it's there.
JMO YMMV
On a different note, I am seeing a LOT of articles along the same lines lately and MFP forums often responds that CICO is just an energy balance. I don't disagree, but I am starting to think that definition is outdated and NOT what the vast majority of the public, outside of MFP, thinks of it as.
Sort of like when my kids started calling good things sick. That word's definition has really grown. Perhaps it's time to consider CICO as coming with a broader definition?
In my view, one of the problems with this strategy in this case is that it's really tough to explain what's actually going on (the influence of energy balance) without using any of the terms that have now been redefined to mean something different. Can it be done? Yes. But it's more confusing.
The terminology (or at least the concept) being central to any sensible discussion is part of what makes "CICO" redefinition more challenging than redefinition of "sick" or "literally".
That's without even getting into considering whether "new CICO" has any kind of clearer definition than does (say) "clean eating".
4 -
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.
An excellent detector of woo is generalized, non-specific statements that on the surface appear to contradict, but simply do not stand up to investigative rigor.
TEF is real; however the actual difference does not exceed the error in instrumentation. Same with metabolic adaptation, microbiome variance, hormone variance, adaptive thermogenesis, etc.
To put this into real numbers the amount of variance would go something like this:
Calculated calorie content in an apple = 80 kcals
Patient A's caloric use = 78
Patient B's caloric use = 80
Patient C's caloric use = 81
Bear in mind the instrument error in the detection device is +/- 3%, so error range puts this to 78 - 82 kcals.
This is the variance that allegedly "invalidates" CICO.
Darn science guys wreck all our useful delusions. Hrmph.
4 -
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.
An excellent detector of woo is generalized, non-specific statements that on the surface appear to contradict, but simply do not stand up to investigative rigor.
TEF is real; however the actual difference does not exceed the error in instrumentation. Same with metabolic adaptation, microbiome variance, hormone variance, adaptive thermogenesis, etc.
To put this into real numbers the amount of variance would go something like this:
Calculated calorie content in an apple = 80 kcals
Patient A's caloric use = 78
Patient B's caloric use = 80
Patient C's caloric use = 81
Bear in mind the instrument error in the detection device is +/- 3%, so error range puts this to 78 - 82 kcals.
This is the variance that allegedly "invalidates" CICO.
Save this. The way the forums are going you're going to have to repeat it a million times. By the way, it's awesome.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think the point of the article is that just relying how many calories you eat to make weight loss easier can be a mistake for your weight and health depending on your circumstances.
"BOTTOM LINE:
Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause."
I would say that this is exactly wrong (the claim, not your post).
That weight gain is caused by excess calories is important to understand, that IS the cause.
The next question is how come you were eating excess calories and how to stop, and OF COURSE everyone should do that too, it's necessary to do it to create a calorie deficit. For some it might mean planning meals and logging, for others it might mean cutting out trigger foods or changing the macros or just not snacking (or even just cutting out sugary pop). For others it is looking honestly at your diet and seeing where the excess calories were from.
But the basic understanding behind all these is that you were eating too much, and IMO any rational human should be able to take the step from that to figuring out how to stop. (It may involve some emotional or coping issues that therapy helps with or experiment and error or ways to keep mindful, of course, NOT saying it's always easy, but the understanding of why the excess calories isn't hard if you look at the diet.)
IMO pretending there's more to it is just a scam to tell you you need help from someone else, usually.
And I also think that's why there's this desire to pretend like CICO is not just energy balance, but a special diet that is just one of a million. Don't realize you can and should figure it out yourself, rely on special diet I'm selling or me, the diet guru or even think you need some nutritionist to tell you how to eat, as if it weren't really a pretty simple basic human skill.
I would say weight gain is sometimes, not always, the byproduct of the cause. If one is gaining weight on medication, or so health issue, or some emotional/psychological issue, then that is the cause of eating too many calories. If they did not have that issue then CI would be lower or CO would be higher.
Although I am sure that there are people out there that choose to eat too much.
Weight gain does come down to eating to much, but there may be a reason behind that why that can be addressed or treated with food choices and quality... For some. Not all.
JMO13 -
Adding a meaning that's opposite to the original meaning literally makes my blood boil. Of course, by literally, I mean figuratively.Sort of like when my kids started calling good things sick. That word's definition has really grown. Perhaps it's time to consider CICO as coming with a broader definition?
As for CICO =/= calorie counting, that is probably a fight we can't win since the press (and therefore people) keep conflating them.
LOL
I think it may be a losing battle.5 -
I think the point of the article is that just relying how many calories you eat to make weight loss easier can be a mistake for your weight and health depending on your circumstances.BOTTOM LINE:
Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause.
There is no one diet for all. Someone saying that they "lost weight while eating healthy/low carb/vegan/whatever so anyone can" is not always true. Denying that others can lose weight easier and faster if they take into account the foods they are eating, or even why they are eating, because it didn't work that way for them is pretty egocentric and not very helpful to the others.
For some people, what foods you eat will affect their weight whether it is from hormones, health insulin and BG levels, greater protein or fibre, or simply because they are more satiated. It isn't huge number differences, but it's there.
JMO YMMV
On a different note, I am seeing a LOT of articles along the same lines lately and MFP forums often responds that CICO is just an energy balance. I don't disagree, but I am starting to think that definition is outdated and NOT what the vast majority of the public, outside of MFP, thinks of it as.
Sort of like when my kids started calling good things sick. That word's definition has really grown. Perhaps it's time to consider CICO as coming with a broader definition?
In my view, one of the problems with this strategy in this case is that it's really tough to explain what's actually going on (the influence of energy balance) without using any of the terms that have now been redefined to mean something different. Can it be done? Yes. But it's more confusing.
The terminology (or at least the concept) being central to any sensible discussion is part of what makes "CICO" redefinition more challenging than redefinition of "sick" or "literally".
That's without even getting into considering whether "new CICO" has any kind of clearer definition than does (say) "clean eating".
I think I understand what you mean. But CICO as just an energy balance is often more confusing to newbies. The frequency of CICO debates is becoming quite high.5 -
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.
An excellent detector of woo is generalized, non-specific statements that on the surface appear to contradict, but simply do not stand up to investigative rigor.
TEF is real; however the actual difference does not exceed the error in instrumentation. Same with metabolic adaptation, microbiome variance, hormone variance, adaptive thermogenesis, etc.
To put this into real numbers the amount of variance would go something like this:
Calculated calorie content in an apple = 80 kcals
Patient A's caloric use = 78
Patient B's caloric use = 80
Patient C's caloric use = 81
Bear in mind the instrument error in the detection device is +/- 3%, so error range puts this to 78 - 82 kcals.
This is the variance that allegedly "invalidates" CICO.
I thought TEF was more about the 80 cals in an apple requiring 20 cals to digest, and thus supplying a net of 60 cals of energy to the body (just using round numbers for conversation)... so when talking about difference in TEF, it's not person to person, it's comparing the TEF of that apple to the TEF of gummy bears or a ribeye.
So proponents of this would say something like, "eating xyz foods increases fat loss because those foods require more energy to digest than do abc foods".. completely ignoring the fact that, while factually true, the difference is still insignificant in the scope of an overall diet.
Am I mistaken?1 -
LOL watch enough 600lb ers try to rationalize why eating fast food is good for them, still CCO6
-
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.
An excellent detector of woo is generalized, non-specific statements that on the surface appear to contradict, but simply do not stand up to investigative rigor.
TEF is real; however the actual difference does not exceed the error in instrumentation. Same with metabolic adaptation, microbiome variance, hormone variance, adaptive thermogenesis, etc.
To put this into real numbers the amount of variance would go something like this:
Calculated calorie content in an apple = 80 kcals
Patient A's caloric use = 78
Patient B's caloric use = 80
Patient C's caloric use = 81
Bear in mind the instrument error in the detection device is +/- 3%, so error range puts this to 78 - 82 kcals.
This is the variance that allegedly "invalidates" CICO.
I thought TEF was more about the 80 cals in an apple requiring 20 cals to digest, and thus supplying a net of 60 cals of energy to the body (just using round numbers for conversation)... so when talking about difference in TEF, it's not person to person, it's comparing the TEF of that apple to the TEF of gummy bears or ribeye.
So proponents of this would say something like, "eating xyz foods increases fat loss because those foods require more energy to digest than do abc foods" completely ignoring the fact that, while factually true, the difference is still insignificant in the scope of an overall diet.
Am I mistaken?
Every discussion I've seen of TEF centers around macronutrients, not individual foods. The values I've commonly seen are ~20-30% for protein, ~5-6% for carbs and ~2-3% for fats, with the TEF of a mixed macronutrient meal being commonly accepted as 10% (source).
So with an apple being almost entirely carbohydrates, the TEF would be around 5-6%. Thus, using your example of an 80 calorie apple, it would supply a net of about 76 calories.
4 -
LOL watch enough 600lb ers try to rationalize why eating fast food is good for them, still CCO
no one here is saying living on fast food is good for you - but the principles of CICO still apply - there is a difference between energy intake (calories) and nutrition (macros,salt etc)7 -
I was just reading a list of foods that turn to energy way faster than we think..so although healthy foods are not good weight loss foods. so I do agree w the findings.21
-
I was just reading a list of foods that turn to energy way faster than we think..so although healthy foods are not good weight loss foods. so I do agree w the findings.
You should avoid websites with silly lists like that. The speed at which macronutrients are metabolized and converted to energy has no relevance whatsoever to their calorie value in terms of energy balance.
And what even does "healthy foods are not good weight loss foods" mean? Not sure of the point you're trying to make there.16 -
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.
An excellent detector of woo is generalized, non-specific statements that on the surface appear to contradict, but simply do not stand up to investigative rigor.
TEF is real; however the actual difference does not exceed the error in instrumentation. Same with metabolic adaptation, microbiome variance, hormone variance, adaptive thermogenesis, etc.
To put this into real numbers the amount of variance would go something like this:
Calculated calorie content in an apple = 80 kcals
Patient A's caloric use = 78
Patient B's caloric use = 80
Patient C's caloric use = 81
Bear in mind the instrument error in the detection device is +/- 3%, so error range puts this to 78 - 82 kcals.
This is the variance that allegedly "invalidates" CICO.
I thought TEF was more about the 80 cals in an apple requiring 20 cals to digest, and thus supplying a net of 60 cals of energy to the body (just using round numbers for conversation)... so when talking about difference in TEF, it's not person to person, it's comparing the TEF of that apple to the TEF of gummy bears or ribeye.
So proponents of this would say something like, "eating xyz foods increases fat loss because those foods require more energy to digest than do abc foods" completely ignoring the fact that, while factually true, the difference is still insignificant in the scope of an overall diet.
Am I mistaken?
Every discussion I've seen of TEF centers around macronutrients, not individual foods. The values I've commonly seen are ~20-30% for protein, ~5-6% for carbs and ~2-3% for fats, with the TEF of a mixed macronutrient meal being commonly accepted as 10% (source).
So with an apple being almost entirely carbohydrates, the TEF would be around 5-6%. Thus, using your example of an 80 calorie apple, it would supply a net of about 76 calories.
Precisely. This is my assessment as well. Bear in mind that this variance is practically useless to the individual at 30% bodyfat looking to get to a healthy BMI. This is only useful in the elite athlete population.
I incorporated the mean degree of error in this. Metabolic rates present similar to a sine wave, so stressing about a snapshot BMR and the variance involved is statistically irrelevant.6 -
Even though it is true that obesity is caused by excess calories and weight loss caused by a calorie deficit, this is still such a drastic oversimplification that it is downright wrong.
Stopped reading here. Really? A "drastic" oversimplification? No. Is it a simplification? Yes for sure but Human physiology is no joke and CICO works if you actually do it, for the vast majority of people. It is not a "drastic" oversimplification.
Sensational journalism for page views, that's the new thing. You don't have to be right, you have to be popular.9
) Seriously, this went around back in my younger days
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions