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Calorie in calorie out method is outdated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
-
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 I don't disagree, but I am starting to think that definition is outdated and NOT what the vast majority of the public, outside of MFP, thinks of it as.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 -
When I went looking I was surprised to find that Whey Protein gets metabolised fast. Like really fast. Like faster than sugar. Does that make Whey Protein bad or just different?0
-
It makes sense that a mother’s milk will be optimized for a baby’s growth and development. Calves grow a freaking two pounds a day.
For the longest time I was confused by the presence of protein in both whey and cheese. Wasn’t the whole process intended to separate the protein? But my aha moment was that the whey is fast acting and the casein longer acting. Makes sense to feed a growing calf a distributed load.1 -
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.
But again, it's important to understand the basic biology of WHY you are gaining weight (eating too many calories for the amount you burn). If you think the medication is causing it, and not the calories, it feels out of control, but understanding it's the calories allows you to then move to step two: why is my calorie balance out of whack and what can I do to stop it (which usually involves thinking through eating patterns and habits).
When I gained it was precipitated by me being depressed and becoming sedentary after years of being active. My CO declined. But CICO was still the cause, of course. Now, before I could deal with it I had to deal with other things, but none of that changes the value of understanding WHY the weight came on (CICO).Although I am sure that there are people out there that choose to eat too much.
Choice has nothing to do with it. Most people overeat mindlessly, I expect. It's like some think that acknowledging CICO = saying it's your fault (bad you!) and saying it's some other reason means it's not your fault. I think that's all irrelevant (most people do lots of things without thinking about them much, and that certainly goes for lots of eating habits).
Once you realize WHY the weight gain (eating too many calories for the amount you burn) you can figure out how to correct that.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.
It can be addressed with food choices (how much, what you eat, eating habits) for everyone, IMO (although if someone has a medical problem like a thyroid issue affecting it it may be important to fix that first, and sometimes we aren't in the right place to make weight loss a top priority or lack the will to do so, and that's IMO fine too). What particular changes are easiest will depend on the person, but to really figure that out I think it's better and more sensible to acknowledge the weight gain WAS caused by eating more calories than one burned, and that that itself was a result of choices or the absence of choices (which again is not saying they are blameworthy or whatever loaded concept some may add onto this).6 -
diannethegeek wrote: »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.
^I don't know who woo'd this, but I'd like to know if I have something wrong.4 -
Does it matter how fast the food converts to energy? If you eat 500 calories and don't expend 500 calories of energy, then you will still be at a net excess in calories. I have been doing this calorie watching thing now for a little over a year. (before this I never counted a calorie). I have been successful in losing weight (not just a couple of pounds - at 50 lost now). I have had weeks when I ate really healthy foods, lost weight and weeks when I ate really horrible unhealthy (if there really is such a thing), lost the same amount of weight. The key is I stay within my calorie limit for the week. So, damn it, I am going to have a bean & cheese taco for breakfast every so often. I will give up something else or just not eat when the bell dings and calorie limit has been reached.
22 -
When I went looking I was surprised to find that Whey Protein gets metabolised fast. Like really fast. Like faster than sugar. Does that make Whey Protein bad or just different?
I think I mentioned that upthread. That's supposed to be a benefit of whey vs. other forms of protein, based on the (outdated) idea that it's important to feed your muscles protein really soon after a workout because the window where it allows for max muscle growth is closing fast. (Again, this is not actually true, it's bro science, but was believed to be a big deal and still is by some.)1 -
ElizabethBorden wrote: »Does it matter how fast the food converts to energy? If you eat 500 calories and don't expend 500 calories of energy, then you will still be at a net excess in calories. I have been doing this calorie watching thing now for a little over a year. (before this I never counted a calorie). I have been successful in losing weight (not just a couple of pounds - at 50 lost now). I have had weeks when I ate really healthy foods, lost weight and weeks when I ate really horrible unhealthy (if there really is such a thing), lost the same amount of weight. The key is I stay within my calorie limit for the week. So, damn it, I am going to have a bean & cheese taco for breakfast every so often. I will give up something else or just not eat when the bell dings and calorie limit has been reached.
:drinker:2 -
ElizabethBorden wrote: »Does it matter how fast the food converts to energy? If you eat 500 calories and don't expend 500 calories of energy, then you will still be at a net excess in calories. I have been doing this calorie watching thing now for a little over a year. (before this I never counted a calorie). I have been successful in losing weight (not just a couple of pounds - at 50 lost now). I have had weeks when I ate really healthy foods, lost weight and weeks when I ate really horrible unhealthy (if there really is such a thing), lost the same amount of weight. The key is I stay within my calorie limit for the week. So, damn it, I am going to have a bean & cheese taco for breakfast every so often. I will give up something else or just not eat when the bell dings and calorie limit has been reached.
I'm not sure if you were asking the question, or just setting up your post... but to be clear for others who may still be reading...
No, no it doesn't. Faster cals may leave you hungry sooner, but that's about it. The calories are the calories, the energy is the energy.2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
^I don't know who woo'd this, but I'd like to know if I have something wrong.
Diane--there's a woo thread running right now, and it's incredible how many people think it means they're "cheering you on". I'd take it in that spirit--you know your stuff.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions