Problems with CICO - article critiquing it, not dismissing it entirely.
Options
shaumom
Posts: 1,003 Member
EDIT: It honestly feels like I have to add this in, even though I thought it was pretty clear from what was actually said in the article, but...
This is not an article about how CICO is irrelevant, or that calories are irrelevant, or that no one will ever lose weight following CICO methods.
This is an article about some of the inaccuracies that CICO currently has, both in measuring calories in foods, and measuring how many calories we get from them, due to all sorts of different factors. And about how sometimes, these inaccuracies can result in a lack of weight loss. It's about how CICO is one factor in weight loss, but that there are others that also impact it, to the point that if certain factors are present, it can really cause problems for some folks trying to lose weight when only using CICO.
An article, "Death of the Calorie," came out a couple days ago and discusses problems with CICO, based on the most recent research of the body . Thought it contained a lot of information that would be worth checking out.
The basic message was this: CICO, how it is used now with our tracking foods' calories alongside our calorie usage based on our activity level, is only one part of what impacts weight loss. There are a lot of other factors, and they are also important and can have a significant impact (to the point that it explains a lot about how so many people can 'follow the CICO rules' and still fail to lose weight). Also mentioned was calories measurement, and how our food labeling has a lot of inaccuracy when it comes to calories.
And all of this is contributing to people struggling to lose weight.
Some of the highlights (but definitely not all):
- There are 6 different ways manufacturers can calculate out the calorie content of their products. It is almost never regulated. But when researchers do test, about 7% of the foods are within 10 calories off. About 20% are at least 100 calories off. Information on some processed frozen foods misstates calories by as much as 70%.
- “Calorie counts are based on how much heat a foodstuff gives off when it burns in an oven. But the human body is far more complex than an oven. When food is burned in a laboratory it surrenders its calories within seconds. By contrast, the real-life journey from dinner plate to toilet bowl takes on average about a day, but can range from eight to 80 hours depending on the person [and uses more calories every hour longer it takes]. A calorie of carbohydrate and a calorie of protein both have the same amount of stored energy, so they perform identically in an oven. But put those calories into real bodies and they behave quite differently. And we are still learning new insights: American researchers discovered last year that, for more than a century, we’ve been exaggerating by about 20% the number of calories we absorb from almonds.”
- "What we do know...suggests that counting calories is very crude and often misleading. Think of a burger... Take a bite and the saliva in your mouth starts to break it down, a process that continues when you swallow, transporting the morsel towards your stomach and beyond to be churned further. The digestive process transforms the protein, carbohydrates and fat in the burger into their basic compounds so that they are tiny enough to be absorbed into the bloodstream via the small intestine to fuel and repair the trillions of cells in the body. But the basic molecules from each macronutrient play very different roles within the body."
- "All carbohydrates break down into sugars, which are the body’s main fuel source. But the speed at which your body gets its fuel from food can be as important as the amount of fuel. Simple carbohydrates are swiftly absorbed into the bloodstream, providing a fast shot of energy: the body absorbs the sugar from a can of fizzy drink at a rate of 30 calories a minute, compared with two calories a minute from complex carbohydrates such as potatoes or rice. That matters, because a sudden hit of sugar prompts the rapid release of insulin, a hormone that carries the sugar out of the bloodstream and into the body’s cells. Problems arise when there is too much sugar in the blood. The liver can store some of the excess, but any that remains is stashed as fat. So consuming large quantities of sugar is the fastest way to create body fat. And, once the insulin has done its work, blood-sugar levels slump, which tends to leave you hungry, as well as plumper.”'
- "Protein, the dominant component of meat, fish and dairy products, acts as the main building block for bone, skin, hair and other body tissues. In the absence of sufficient quantities of carbohydrates it can also serve as fuel for the body. But since it is broken down more slowly than carbohydrates, protein is less likely to be converted to body fat."
- "Fat is a different matter again. It should leave you feeling fuller for longer, because your body splits it into tiny fatty acids more slowly than it processes carbohydrates or protein. We all need fat to make hormones and to protect our nerves (a bit like plastic coating protects an electric wire). "
- “The process of storing fat—the “weight” many people seek to lose—is influenced by dozens of other factors. Apart from calories, our genes, the trillions of bacteria that live in our gut, food preparation and sleep affect how we process food. Academic discussions of food and nutrition are littered with references to huge bodies of research that still need to be conducted. “No other field of science or medicine sees such a lack of rigorous studies,” says Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at Kings College in London. “We can create synthetic DNA and clone animals but we still know incredibly little about the stuff that keeps us alive.”
- "The amount of energy we absorb from food depends on how we prepare it. Chopping and grinding food essentially does part of the work of digestion, making more calories available to your body by ripping apart cell walls before you eat it. That effect is magnified when you add heat: cooking increases the proportion of food digested in the stomach and small intestine, from 50% to 95%. The digestible calories in beef rises by 15% on cooking, and in sweet potato some 40% (the exact change depends on whether it is boiled, roasted or microwaved)."
- "The calorie load of carbohydrate-heavy items such as rice, pasta, bread and potatoes can be slashed simply by cooking, chilling and reheating them. As starch molecules cool they form new structures that are harder to digest. You absorb fewer calories eating toast that has been left to go cold, or leftover spaghetti, than if they were freshly made. Scientists in Sri Lanka discovered in 2015 that they could more than halve the calories potentially absorbed from rice by adding coconut oil during cooking and then cooling the rice. This made the starch less digestible so the body may take on fewer calories (they have yet to test on human beings the precise effects of rice cooked in this way)."
- "Differences in gut microbiomes can alter how people process food. A study of 800 Israelis in 2015 found that the rise in their blood-sugar levels varied by a factor of four in response to identical food".
- "Some people’s intestines are 50% longer than others: those with shorter ones absorb fewer calories, which means that they excrete more of the energy in food, putting on less weight."
- "The scientific and health establishment knows that the current system is flawed. A senior adviser to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation warned in 2002 that the Atwater “factors” of 4-4-9 at the heart of the calorie-counting system were “a gross oversimplification” and so inaccurate that they could mislead consumers into choosing unhealthy products because they understate the calories in some carbohydrates. The organisation said it would give “further consideration” to overhauling the system but 17 years later there is little momentum for change."
- "Officials at the WHO also acknowledge the problems of the current system, but say it is so entrenched in consumer behaviour, public policy and industry standards that it would be too expensive and disruptive to make big changes."
To read the article - https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie
To listen to an interview about the article instead - https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/04/08/counting-calories-weight-losshttps://wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/04/08/counting-calories-weight-loss
This is not an article about how CICO is irrelevant, or that calories are irrelevant, or that no one will ever lose weight following CICO methods.
This is an article about some of the inaccuracies that CICO currently has, both in measuring calories in foods, and measuring how many calories we get from them, due to all sorts of different factors. And about how sometimes, these inaccuracies can result in a lack of weight loss. It's about how CICO is one factor in weight loss, but that there are others that also impact it, to the point that if certain factors are present, it can really cause problems for some folks trying to lose weight when only using CICO.
An article, "Death of the Calorie," came out a couple days ago and discusses problems with CICO, based on the most recent research of the body . Thought it contained a lot of information that would be worth checking out.
The basic message was this: CICO, how it is used now with our tracking foods' calories alongside our calorie usage based on our activity level, is only one part of what impacts weight loss. There are a lot of other factors, and they are also important and can have a significant impact (to the point that it explains a lot about how so many people can 'follow the CICO rules' and still fail to lose weight). Also mentioned was calories measurement, and how our food labeling has a lot of inaccuracy when it comes to calories.
And all of this is contributing to people struggling to lose weight.
Some of the highlights (but definitely not all):
- There are 6 different ways manufacturers can calculate out the calorie content of their products. It is almost never regulated. But when researchers do test, about 7% of the foods are within 10 calories off. About 20% are at least 100 calories off. Information on some processed frozen foods misstates calories by as much as 70%.
- “Calorie counts are based on how much heat a foodstuff gives off when it burns in an oven. But the human body is far more complex than an oven. When food is burned in a laboratory it surrenders its calories within seconds. By contrast, the real-life journey from dinner plate to toilet bowl takes on average about a day, but can range from eight to 80 hours depending on the person [and uses more calories every hour longer it takes]. A calorie of carbohydrate and a calorie of protein both have the same amount of stored energy, so they perform identically in an oven. But put those calories into real bodies and they behave quite differently. And we are still learning new insights: American researchers discovered last year that, for more than a century, we’ve been exaggerating by about 20% the number of calories we absorb from almonds.”
- "What we do know...suggests that counting calories is very crude and often misleading. Think of a burger... Take a bite and the saliva in your mouth starts to break it down, a process that continues when you swallow, transporting the morsel towards your stomach and beyond to be churned further. The digestive process transforms the protein, carbohydrates and fat in the burger into their basic compounds so that they are tiny enough to be absorbed into the bloodstream via the small intestine to fuel and repair the trillions of cells in the body. But the basic molecules from each macronutrient play very different roles within the body."
- "All carbohydrates break down into sugars, which are the body’s main fuel source. But the speed at which your body gets its fuel from food can be as important as the amount of fuel. Simple carbohydrates are swiftly absorbed into the bloodstream, providing a fast shot of energy: the body absorbs the sugar from a can of fizzy drink at a rate of 30 calories a minute, compared with two calories a minute from complex carbohydrates such as potatoes or rice. That matters, because a sudden hit of sugar prompts the rapid release of insulin, a hormone that carries the sugar out of the bloodstream and into the body’s cells. Problems arise when there is too much sugar in the blood. The liver can store some of the excess, but any that remains is stashed as fat. So consuming large quantities of sugar is the fastest way to create body fat. And, once the insulin has done its work, blood-sugar levels slump, which tends to leave you hungry, as well as plumper.”'
- "Protein, the dominant component of meat, fish and dairy products, acts as the main building block for bone, skin, hair and other body tissues. In the absence of sufficient quantities of carbohydrates it can also serve as fuel for the body. But since it is broken down more slowly than carbohydrates, protein is less likely to be converted to body fat."
- "Fat is a different matter again. It should leave you feeling fuller for longer, because your body splits it into tiny fatty acids more slowly than it processes carbohydrates or protein. We all need fat to make hormones and to protect our nerves (a bit like plastic coating protects an electric wire). "
- “The process of storing fat—the “weight” many people seek to lose—is influenced by dozens of other factors. Apart from calories, our genes, the trillions of bacteria that live in our gut, food preparation and sleep affect how we process food. Academic discussions of food and nutrition are littered with references to huge bodies of research that still need to be conducted. “No other field of science or medicine sees such a lack of rigorous studies,” says Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at Kings College in London. “We can create synthetic DNA and clone animals but we still know incredibly little about the stuff that keeps us alive.”
- "The amount of energy we absorb from food depends on how we prepare it. Chopping and grinding food essentially does part of the work of digestion, making more calories available to your body by ripping apart cell walls before you eat it. That effect is magnified when you add heat: cooking increases the proportion of food digested in the stomach and small intestine, from 50% to 95%. The digestible calories in beef rises by 15% on cooking, and in sweet potato some 40% (the exact change depends on whether it is boiled, roasted or microwaved)."
- "The calorie load of carbohydrate-heavy items such as rice, pasta, bread and potatoes can be slashed simply by cooking, chilling and reheating them. As starch molecules cool they form new structures that are harder to digest. You absorb fewer calories eating toast that has been left to go cold, or leftover spaghetti, than if they were freshly made. Scientists in Sri Lanka discovered in 2015 that they could more than halve the calories potentially absorbed from rice by adding coconut oil during cooking and then cooling the rice. This made the starch less digestible so the body may take on fewer calories (they have yet to test on human beings the precise effects of rice cooked in this way)."
- "Differences in gut microbiomes can alter how people process food. A study of 800 Israelis in 2015 found that the rise in their blood-sugar levels varied by a factor of four in response to identical food".
- "Some people’s intestines are 50% longer than others: those with shorter ones absorb fewer calories, which means that they excrete more of the energy in food, putting on less weight."
- "The scientific and health establishment knows that the current system is flawed. A senior adviser to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation warned in 2002 that the Atwater “factors” of 4-4-9 at the heart of the calorie-counting system were “a gross oversimplification” and so inaccurate that they could mislead consumers into choosing unhealthy products because they understate the calories in some carbohydrates. The organisation said it would give “further consideration” to overhauling the system but 17 years later there is little momentum for change."
- "Officials at the WHO also acknowledge the problems of the current system, but say it is so entrenched in consumer behaviour, public policy and industry standards that it would be too expensive and disruptive to make big changes."
To read the article - https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie
To listen to an interview about the article instead - https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/04/08/counting-calories-weight-losshttps://wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/04/08/counting-calories-weight-loss
23
Replies
-
Well, since you posted this in Food instead of Debate, I'll just say..."Pretty clickety baity." I'm not about to tackle all the poor conclusions/wrong conclusions when it comes to simply using CICO as the math equation that it is.
Is the data IN the calculation perfect? No. Close enough is good enough for me to have lost 70 pounds and kept it off for 12 years by logging food and exercise and weighing my body. It may not be perfect, but it's easy.22 -
Many, many people here in the forums would say that CICO works as expected if food is logged correctly in MFP.11
-
20 -
"What we do know...suggests that counting calories is very crude and often misleading. Think of a burger... Take a bite and the saliva in your mouth starts to break it down, a process that continues when you swallow, transporting the morsel towards your stomach and beyond to be churned further. The digestive process transforms the protein, carbohydrates and fat in the burger into their basic compounds so that they are tiny enough to be absorbed into the bloodstream via the small intestine to fuel and repair the trillions of cells in the body. But the basic molecules from each macronutrient play very different roles within the body."
Why does that suggest that counting calories is misleading?
Food is more than calories. That doesn't mean that "calorie" is a meaningless data point when it comes to food. I struggle to trust any food writing by people who are incapable of grasping that relatively simple concept.8 -
I clicked woo.
Is this woo?
I don't even know when I'm allowed to woo anymore.
25 -
An article, "Death of the Calorie," came out a couple days ago and discusses problems with CICO, based on the most recent research of the body . Thought it contained a lot of information that would be worth checking out.
The basic message was this: CICO, how it is used now with our tracking foods' calories alongside our calorie usage based on our activity level, is only one part of what impacts weight loss. There are a lot of other factors, and they are also important and can have a significant impact (to the point that it explains a lot about how so many people can 'follow the CICO rules' and still fail to lose weight). Also mentioned was calories measurement, and how our food labeling has a lot of inaccuracy when it comes to calories.
And all of this is contributing to people struggling to lose weight.
Some of the highlights (but definitely not all):
- There are 6 different ways manufacturers can calculate out the calorie content of their products. It is almost never regulated. But when researchers do test, about 7% of the foods are within 10 calories off. About 20% are at least 100 calories off. Information on some processed frozen foods misstates calories by as much as 70%.
- “Calorie counts are based on how much heat a foodstuff gives off when it burns in an oven. But the human body is far more complex than an oven. When food is burned in a laboratory it surrenders its calories within seconds. By contrast, the real-life journey from dinner plate to toilet bowl takes on average about a day, but can range from eight to 80 hours depending on the person [and uses more calories every hour longer it takes]. A calorie of carbohydrate and a calorie of protein both have the same amount of stored energy, so they perform identically in an oven. But put those calories into real bodies and they behave quite differently. And we are still learning new insights: American researchers discovered last year that, for more than a century, we’ve been exaggerating by about 20% the number of calories we absorb from almonds.”
- "What we do know...suggests that counting calories is very crude and often misleading. Think of a burger... Take a bite and the saliva in your mouth starts to break it down, a process that continues when you swallow, transporting the morsel towards your stomach and beyond to be churned further. The digestive process transforms the protein, carbohydrates and fat in the burger into their basic compounds so that they are tiny enough to be absorbed into the bloodstream via the small intestine to fuel and repair the trillions of cells in the body. But the basic molecules from each macronutrient play very different roles within the body."
- "All carbohydrates break down into sugars, which are the body’s main fuel source. But the speed at which your body gets its fuel from food can be as important as the amount of fuel. Simple carbohydrates are swiftly absorbed into the bloodstream, providing a fast shot of energy: the body absorbs the sugar from a can of fizzy drink at a rate of 30 calories a minute, compared with two calories a minute from complex carbohydrates such as potatoes or rice. That matters, because a sudden hit of sugar prompts the rapid release of insulin, a hormone that carries the sugar out of the bloodstream and into the body’s cells. Problems arise when there is too much sugar in the blood. The liver can store some of the excess, but any that remains is stashed as fat. So consuming large quantities of sugar is the fastest way to create body fat. And, once the insulin has done its work, blood-sugar levels slump, which tends to leave you hungry, as well as plumper.”'
- "Protein, the dominant component of meat, fish and dairy products, acts as the main building block for bone, skin, hair and other body tissues. In the absence of sufficient quantities of carbohydrates it can also serve as fuel for the body. But since it is broken down more slowly than carbohydrates, protein is less likely to be converted to body fat."
- "Fat is a different matter again. It should leave you feeling fuller for longer, because your body splits it into tiny fatty acids more slowly than it processes carbohydrates or protein. We all need fat to make hormones and to protect our nerves (a bit like plastic coating protects an electric wire). "
- “The process of storing fat—the “weight” many people seek to lose—is influenced by dozens of other factors. Apart from calories, our genes, the trillions of bacteria that live in our gut, food preparation and sleep affect how we process food. Academic discussions of food and nutrition are littered with references to huge bodies of research that still need to be conducted. “No other field of science or medicine sees such a lack of rigorous studies,” says Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at Kings College in London. “We can create synthetic DNA and clone animals but we still know incredibly little about the stuff that keeps us alive.”
- "The amount of energy we absorb from food depends on how we prepare it. Chopping and grinding food essentially does part of the work of digestion, making more calories available to your body by ripping apart cell walls before you eat it. That effect is magnified when you add heat: cooking increases the proportion of food digested in the stomach and small intestine, from 50% to 95%. The digestible calories in beef rises by 15% on cooking, and in sweet potato some 40% (the exact change depends on whether it is boiled, roasted or microwaved)."
- "The calorie load of carbohydrate-heavy items such as rice, pasta, bread and potatoes can be slashed simply by cooking, chilling and reheating them. As starch molecules cool they form new structures that are harder to digest. You absorb fewer calories eating toast that has been left to go cold, or leftover spaghetti, than if they were freshly made. Scientists in Sri Lanka discovered in 2015 that they could more than halve the calories potentially absorbed from rice by adding coconut oil during cooking and then cooling the rice. This made the starch less digestible so the body may take on fewer calories (they have yet to test on human beings the precise effects of rice cooked in this way)."
- "Differences in gut microbiomes can alter how people process food. A study of 800 Israelis in 2015 found that the rise in their blood-sugar levels varied by a factor of four in response to identical food".
- "Some people’s intestines are 50% longer than others: those with shorter ones absorb fewer calories, which means that they excrete more of the energy in food, putting on less weight."
- "The scientific and health establishment knows that the current system is flawed. A senior adviser to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation warned in 2002 that the Atwater “factors” of 4-4-9 at the heart of the calorie-counting system were “a gross oversimplification” and so inaccurate that they could mislead consumers into choosing unhealthy products because they understate the calories in some carbohydrates. The organisation said it would give “further consideration” to overhauling the system but 17 years later there is little momentum for change."
- "Officials at the WHO also acknowledge the problems of the current system, but say it is so entrenched in consumer behaviour, public policy and industry standards that it would be too expensive and disruptive to make big changes."
To read the article - https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie
To listen to an interview about the article instead - https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/04/08/counting-calories-weight-losshttps://wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/04/08/counting-calories-weight-loss
IMHO the real problem is people don’t “follow the CICO rules” consistently enough for long enough time periods. I was a not-very-accurate logger, overestimating, underestimating, non-foodscale user, inconsistent exerciser, junk food eater, middle aged woman, hypothyroid and mild PCOS sufferer with a not-trying-to-be-perfect weight loss attitude and despite all my errors I still lost the weight by following CICO. I was just realistic that it would take a long time, think hundreds of days, not just a few weeks so I stuck with it and went from obese to healthy weight. I’ve maintained for 5 years now. CICO may not be exactly exact nor perfectly perfect but it works. People aren’t perfect either but need to have more realistic expectations, old habits die hard and people are naturally resistant to change. The problem isn’t CICO, it’s the human element, we need to take responsibility for ourselves and stop trying to find scapegoats. (rant over)
23 -
I mean, the problems aren't with CICO here though, it's with poor regulation on processed food. If there wasn't labeling inaccuracies, it would absolutely work perfectly. Even so, it works well enough, as there has been a degree of success for everyone here that can stick it out.
Even the other criticisms are most certainly outweighed by the benefits of weight loss. "Oh you won't get perfect nutrition" is not a good arguement against "if you do this well enough, you will lose weight, as it truly is the basis of every diet."3 -
monkeefan1974 wrote: »The problem isn’t CICO, it’s the human element, we need to take responsibility for ourselves and stop trying to find scapegoats.
THIS!!!
6 -
cmriverside wrote: »Well, since you posted this in Food instead of Debate, I'll just say..."Pretty clickety baity." I'm not about to tackle all the poor conclusions/wrong conclusions when it comes to simply using CICO as the math equation that it is.
Is the data IN the calculation perfect? No. Close enough is good enough for me to have lost 70 pounds and kept it off for 12 years by logging food and exercise and weighing my body. It may not be perfect, but it's easy.
Actually, it's really not supposed to be click baity. Not from a source that tends that way. It's an article that is discussing current knowledge of the body, and current research, and how that impacts the effectiveness of CICO for people to use when losing weight.
Because for some folks, what they eat and how they eat and how their bodies are set up may work in a way that CICO is relatively useful as-is. For them, like yourself, I imagine it's great. It's working for you; why would you stop?
But for others, the differences in their bodies and food choices may make CICO unworkable, as it is utilized now, at least if what is presented in the article is true. Their gut biome, the length of time to digest food, their food choices, etc... may have enough impact that CICO is really problematic.
I didn't put it in debate because honestly, I don't really want to debate it. I don't know enough about this stuff TO debate it. No idea how much truth there is to this, although nothing in the article struck me as that unreasonable, out there woo-woo, or off, logically speaking.
But I thought the information presented is new (some research is within the last 2 years), is not mentioned a lot, and so now it's here for folks to explore if they want. They can hunt down what research was mentioned in the article and see if it holds up or not. And then see if it is useful to them or not.
14 -
cmriverside wrote: »Well, since you posted this in Food instead of Debate, I'll just say..."Pretty clickety baity." I'm not about to tackle all the poor conclusions/wrong conclusions when it comes to simply using CICO as the math equation that it is.
Is the data IN the calculation perfect? No. Close enough is good enough for me to have lost 70 pounds and kept it off for 12 years by logging food and exercise and weighing my body. It may not be perfect, but it's easy.
Actually, it's really not supposed to be click baity. Not from a source that tends that way. It's an article that is discussing current knowledge of the body, and current research, and how that impacts the effectiveness of CICO for people to use when losing weight.
Because for some folks, what they eat and how they eat and how their bodies are set up may work in a way that CICO is relatively useful as-is. For them, like yourself, I imagine it's great. It's working for you; why would you stop?
But for others, the differences in their bodies and food choices may make CICO unworkable, as it is utilized now, at least if what is presented in the article is true. Their gut biome, the length of time to digest food, their food choices, etc... may have enough impact that CICO is really problematic.
I didn't put it in debate because honestly, I don't really want to debate it. I don't know enough about this stuff TO debate it. No idea how much truth there is to this, although nothing in the article struck me as that unreasonable, out there woo-woo, or off, logically speaking.
But I thought the information presented is new (some research is within the last 2 years), is not mentioned a lot, and so now it's here for folks to explore if they want. They can hunt down what research was mentioned in the article and see if it holds up or not. And then see if it is useful to them or not.
Even if true, most of these claims wouldn't make CICO unworkable.
Let's say I'm one of those people with a very long intestine and I'm therefore absorbing more calories from my food than the average person. I begin counting calories with the estimate that 1,600 is a deficit for me. After a few weeks of accurately measuring my food and tracking my weight, I realize that I haven't lost any weight. I have no idea the issue is my intestine, but I've now established that 1,600 isn't a deficit for me. I move my goal to 1,450, which is a deficit. I begin losing weight.
I've taken my data and adjusted.
I don't have to know that the problem is my intestine or my gut biome. All I had to know was that the data established that 1,600 wasn't a deficit for me.34 -
There's a lot of fancy psuedo-sciencey things in there with limited or no backing meant to scare people, but the truth is this: Calorie counting is not perfect. We may not know exactly how many calories we take in, or how many calories we put out. But overall we can get pretty close. When people have been put into calorie controlled studies, either creating a deficit or overfeeding their maintenance, they lose or gain weight mostly within expectations.
Most people who follow calorie counting accurately for a significant period of time can expect to see results. There are tons of people here who are a testament to that.
Some articles like to equate calorie counting not being perfect with calorie counting being bad. But none of them suggest a more accurate way of measuring. Usually the suggestion is something less accurate, in the hopes that it will match what your body needs. To me that is not a positive replacement.14 -
I read this whole thing a few days ago. Interesting but the conclusion I came to was that while there may be warts, no one has anything more reliable. Stick to it, do the best you can with imperfect data, track your own numbers and adjust as necessary.14
-
janejellyroll wrote: »"What we do know...suggests that counting calories is very crude and often misleading. Think of a burger... Take a bite and the saliva in your mouth starts to break it down, a process that continues when you swallow, transporting the morsel towards your stomach and beyond to be churned further. The digestive process transforms the protein, carbohydrates and fat in the burger into their basic compounds so that they are tiny enough to be absorbed into the bloodstream via the small intestine to fuel and repair the trillions of cells in the body. But the basic molecules from each macronutrient play very different roles within the body."
Why does that suggest that counting calories is misleading?
Food is more than calories. That doesn't mean that "calorie" is a meaningless data point when it comes to food. I struggle to trust any food writing by people who are incapable of grasping that relatively simple concept.
I'm guessing it suggests calorie counting is misleading because of how CICO is used now. Right now, the way we apply CICO, if I eat 200 calories of beef, and do 200 calories of exercise, it is treated the same as eating 200 calories of soda, and doing 200 calories of exercise. It is treated as though 200 calories is what I'll get from both of these items, exactly, but recent research is not finding to be as accurate as we have thought.
Because as you've said, food is more than calories, and that's the point they are trying to make. They do not, anywhere in the article, say that the calculated calories from a food are a meaningless data point. From what I gather, they are saying, instead, that it is one datapoint only, and that it is not enough of a data point to accurately calculate out weight loss if other data points differ enough, and that these other data points can differ quite a bit.14 -
Right. We've had thousands of pages of this argument and yet...
That stuff (most of which isn't even true) that is listed in the bullet points has nothing to do with the math Equation of CICO.
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »"What we do know...suggests that counting calories is very crude and often misleading. Think of a burger... Take a bite and the saliva in your mouth starts to break it down, a process that continues when you swallow, transporting the morsel towards your stomach and beyond to be churned further. The digestive process transforms the protein, carbohydrates and fat in the burger into their basic compounds so that they are tiny enough to be absorbed into the bloodstream via the small intestine to fuel and repair the trillions of cells in the body. But the basic molecules from each macronutrient play very different roles within the body."
Why does that suggest that counting calories is misleading?
Food is more than calories. That doesn't mean that "calorie" is a meaningless data point when it comes to food. I struggle to trust any food writing by people who are incapable of grasping that relatively simple concept.
I'm guessing it suggests calorie counting is misleading because of how CICO is used now. Right now, the way we apply CICO, if I eat 200 calories of beef, and do 200 calories of exercise, it is treated the same as eating 200 calories of soda, and doing 200 calories of exercise. It is treated as though 200 calories is what I'll get from both of these items, exactly, but recent research is not finding to be as accurate as we have thought.
Because as you've said, food is more than calories, and that's the point they are trying to make. They do not, anywhere in the article, say that the calculated calories from a food are a meaningless data point. From what I gather, they are saying, instead, that it is one datapoint only, and that it is not enough of a data point to accurately calculate out weight loss if other data points differ enough, and that these other data points can differ quite a bit.
The average person is eating a variety of foods. The differences might become very relevant in the context of monodiets, but are they relevant in the context of the person who is eating beef, soda, broccoli, bread, yogurt, cucumbers, egg salad, apples, and almonds?
In other words, if a person is eating a reasonable variety of foods, does it really matter if the calorie retention of average food "types" is somewhat variable? I've seen people speculating that the difference is meaningful, but never anything beyond speculation.7 -
These types of posts can be frustrating. Some people just refuse to accept a concept that's worked for countless people. Instead of giving <insert any type of ci<co plan> a chance, the concept is researched and researched until a "flaw" in the armor is found. And then it's another excuse, "I just can't do that" rather than giving whatever ci<co plan a legitimate chance.12
-
Spadesheart wrote: »I mean, the problems aren't with CICO here though, it's with poor regulation on processed food. If there wasn't labeling inaccuracies, it would absolutely work perfectly. Even so, it works well enough, as there has been a degree of success for everyone here that can stick it out.
Even the other criticisms are most certainly outweighed by the benefits of weight loss. "Oh you won't get perfect nutrition" is not a good arguement against "if you do this well enough, you will lose weight, as it truly is the basis of every diet."
Absolutely agree that regulations are a problem.
The article didn't talk about nutrition, however. it has not said that we need perfect weight loss. It just talked about the fact that CICO, the way we utilize it, ignores part of how our bodies work, and also what impacts how many calories things even have, and in some cases that can be enough that it causes problems with weight loss. And that potentially paying attention to more of these other factors, while still considering CICO, would help lose weight, and in some cases, make it possible for people who aren't able to utilizing the more simplistic CICO alone.
It's talking about problems with CICO how it's used now, not saying that calorie intake and usage don't matter.4 -
Thanks for the article. I enjoyed the read!3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »"What we do know...suggests that counting calories is very crude and often misleading. Think of a burger... Take a bite and the saliva in your mouth starts to break it down, a process that continues when you swallow, transporting the morsel towards your stomach and beyond to be churned further. The digestive process transforms the protein, carbohydrates and fat in the burger into their basic compounds so that they are tiny enough to be absorbed into the bloodstream via the small intestine to fuel and repair the trillions of cells in the body. But the basic molecules from each macronutrient play very different roles within the body."
Why does that suggest that counting calories is misleading?
Food is more than calories. That doesn't mean that "calorie" is a meaningless data point when it comes to food. I struggle to trust any food writing by people who are incapable of grasping that relatively simple concept.
I'm guessing it suggests calorie counting is misleading because of how CICO is used now. Right now, the way we apply CICO, if I eat 200 calories of beef, and do 200 calories of exercise, it is treated the same as eating 200 calories of soda, and doing 200 calories of exercise. It is treated as though 200 calories is what I'll get from both of these items, exactly, but recent research is not finding to be as accurate as we have thought.
Because as you've said, food is more than calories, and that's the point they are trying to make. They do not, anywhere in the article, say that the calculated calories from a food are a meaningless data point. From what I gather, they are saying, instead, that it is one datapoint only, and that it is not enough of a data point to accurately calculate out weight loss if other data points differ enough, and that these other data points can differ quite a bit.
The average person is eating a variety of foods. The differences might become very relevant in the context of monodiets, but are they relevant in the context of the person who is eating beef, soda, broccoli, bread, yogurt, cucumbers, egg salad, apples, and almonds?
In other words, if a person is eating a reasonable variety of foods, does it really matter if the calorie retention of average food "types" is somewhat variable? I've seen people speculating that the difference is meaningful, but never anything beyond speculation.
Agreed. There seems to be an assumption in the article that for most people, the fluctuations will be great in one direction. But in reality, I think most people will have a lot of different variations in both directions that will largely cancel each other out from a practical standpoint. There will certainly be outliers in either direction, but in the majority range for people, they will have a number of different things that both increase and decrease their CICO relative to what they thought and it will come out to be largely a wash.6 -
I can't tell, is the article actually about CICO or is it about calorie counting as it's often practiced? Because the CICO equation takes all of these things into account already. I don't see how anyone can say it's a problem with CICO when they actually mean calorie counting. The two are separate, but related, things and I think it would help more people if we could keep them separate instead of conflating them every single time an article about calorie counting pops up.
Calorie counting can be imprecise and messy and takes some trial and error at times. But that does not change the calorie equation in your body. CICO has no inaccuracies. Calorie counting does. The two are not the same. And these discussions go round and round because they get all tangled up together.20
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
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions