It’s not just about calories

paperpudding

yes I think there is some confusion between calories in calories out "not working" and factors influencing calories in calories out.

Yes of course there are medical conditions that make it harder to lose or to put on weight - and of course CICO really means calories absorbed by the body - so some people could eat more but not gain - if they have an absorption diseases for example.( eg Crohns disease) or type 1 diabetics

The calories don't magically disappear into thin air though - obviously the person excretes them without absorbing or they stay in the blood without being converted to cells - ie their blood sugar is very high because lack of insulin to convert.

Some medications increase your hunger or increase your tiredness, hence your activity level - eg anti depressants.

None of these are 'flying in the face of CICO' - they are factors affecting CICO.

Unless you have a very poorly managed medical condition though - there is no reason you cannot lose using calorie counting or any other method that creates a calorie deficit for you.

AnnPT77

shaumom wrote: »

The concept that for all people, with all conditions, CICO is the end-all, be-all of how the human body loses and gains weight seems to fly in the face of one important fact: the human body is not that simplistic.

The fact that someone gets a results others don't expect does not warrant an automatic 'you must be doing it wrong.' If they forgot certain procedures that impact the outcome, sure, but this is just a case study, not a full blown study, and seems fairly well done for what it is. And the results are not actually THAT uncommon. And they don't even fly in the face of what is known about the human body.

As an example, one reason that people can't lose weight even when their calories are within the right target range, until they ALSO stop eating as much 'junk food,' might be if they have insulin resistance. And this condition seems to be VERY common. 1 in 3 people in the USA are assumed to have this: https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/insulin-resistance-causes-symptoms#:~:text=One%20in%20three%20Americans%E2%80%94including,attacks%2C%20strokes2%20and%20cancer. )

Because if you have excess insulin levels (which happens with insulin resistance), from what I understand, this actually increases how much fat your body stores from what you eat. There is debate on the topic of what STARTS insulin resistance (whether gaining weight starts it, or it starts weight gain), but once insulin resistance HAS started, a person's body will have fat storage that is impacted by blood sugar levels AS WELL AS calories consumed.

And again: 1 in 3 people in the USA have this (higher than some countries, I'm sure).

Which may be why there are a LOT of people who try to lose weight with CICO and can't seem to do it until they change the food choices they make, as well.

This is a nice summary of 4 different bits of research into the origins and function of insulin resistance, for those interested.
https://www.secondnature.io/guides/diabetes/insulin-resistance-weight-gain

It's not that CICO (the calorie balance equation - which is just basic physics) doesn't work. I agree that such people may struggle with calorie counting as a weight loss method, and find it ineffective.

Part of the problem is that many people don't understand that the calorie goal is an estimate, and can be very wrong, if they're not statistically typical. Someone with a problem like IR may well either absorb calories differently (unusual effective CI), realize different energy levels from calories (unusual CO), or have unusual water weight fluctuations (masking what is happening, if the scale is their guide).

That IR has unusual effects for body weight is not "CICO doesn't work", strictly speaking.

I absolutely agree that IR presents serious practical problems, for calorie counting. Depending on the individual, calorie counting may still work (with a different base calorie goal, and IR-aware eating strategies) or it may not. The choice of a method - whether it will work as a practical matter for a particular individual - is very individual, and varies with both physical and psychological factors.

To say that X method doesn't work, as a practical matter, for an individual, is not necessarily a statement about the method. For example, the Weight Watchers sub-options with the most "free foods" would not work well for me, as a vegetarian who eats ridiculous numbers of calories of things that would be "free foods". That's not an indictment of the method, which can work great for others.

magnusthenerd

lukejoycePT wrote: »

magnusthenerd wrote: »

lukejoycePT wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).

Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?

I 1000% agree with this. With my clients I would always start we reducing calories as little as possible. Pull them into a slight deficit as normally this will produce some decent results right off the bat. Then decrease calories depending on how they respond. Once a lower body fat is reached 12-16% I would then introduce a few extra tools to help kick the extra lbs such as keeping the “fun” foods to weekends and only drinking certain alcohol such as red wine and spirits

I would think red wine would be one of the worst choices for that. Generally, when drinking while trying to be lean, you're looking for the most alcohol to the least calories and least congeners. Congeners are byproducts of alcohol fermentation that are generally associated with the negative effects, like hangover, that happen. Red wine is one of the worst alcoholic drinks in terms of congeners along with brandy and rum. Generally clear spirits like vodka are good, as well as beer.

I also don't understand that idea earlier in the thread of calling alcohol a carb by virtue of them being created through sugar fermentation. When you get down to it, plenty of fat in animals comes from turning sugars into pyruvate and then short fatty acids, and usually esterifying them with glcyerol (derived also from sugar) to make triglcyerides. Yet I wouldn't call fats just a different form of carbs. By a similar metric, testosterone is a cholesterol derived hormone - so it comes from a lipid / fat - yet I've never heard of a bodybuilder referring to it as getting fatter because their testosterone levels went up.

Wow you really want to go deep with this.

Let me clarify. People tend to gravitate toward wine, beer or spirits. Beer in my opinion isn’t the best drink in this situation for several fairly obvious reasons.

So if someone was to chose wine I’d go for red over white. Red has far more health benefits going for it, if you believe in anti oxidants, it’s better for you.

Spirits wise, not many people enjoy vodka at home. If I was out I’d drink vodka, soda water and fresh lime. It’s refreshing, tastes good, gets you drunk and has the least calories. However most people prefer gin and tonic so I’d recommend that too.

You can pick whatever alcohol you want - pick your poison, so to speak. My point is though, you've already stated you believe alcohol impacts your loss. Given that, I'm saying I would go for alcohol that is likely to have the least side effects, given that a priori condition. Something with less congeners seems something likely to generate the least impact per amount of alcohol consumed. Having more antioxidants doesn't really seem relevant - if that really impacted how alcohol is affecting you, it seems you should run the experiment of drinking whatever for equal calories, and take a megadose antioxidant vitamin. I'm already aware of the whole "oh red wine is healthy" hype based around thinks like reseveritol that at one point tabloid fitness swore was going to make us immortal.
Can you actually comment on why congener levels wouldn't seem relevant?

lukejoycePT wrote: »

The reason why I simplify alcohol as an “empty carb” is because people want it simple. They don’t need to know that alcohol is basically a poison in your body that’s causes mass inflammation. That’s not going to get them motivated. People enjoy a drink and why shouldn’t they? So I’d rather just say it’s got nothing good in it. It’s an empty carb so don’t over consume it. It may not be scientifically correct but a client isn’t after a science lesson they just want to be able to enjoy themselves and still look and feel better.

This post wasn’t really about what alcohol t consume tho and if calories are king to then as long as they beverage is tracked correctly then it would change the rate of fat loss. My point is, that for me. It does make a difference.

Well, no. That's one reason you do classify them as empty carbs. You also stated that they're derived some sugar, and therefore it makes sense to classify them as carbohydrates. Do you need me to quote you to you? My comment was on that aspect of qualifying it that way.
If you're conceding that part was pointless and are just going to fall back on simplification, ok... I don't know your target audience with the comment, but I'm never particularly a fan of believing people can't learn, so I usually error on the side of accuracy over simplification. In particular, on MFP, you have several people smart enough to follow what alcohol is that I think using simplification as a justification could be taken as insulting.

As for if calories are king, you've already had the point addressed. Having the exact same calories in without regard to macros or type of food isn't going to cause the same calories out. Like take your interpretation of calorie counting to an absurdism - do you think it would be fair to say someone with a peanut allergy should lose weight just as fast if they eat peanuts and end up in the hospital? I should think it becomes obvious that it is ridiculous to say that's not impacting calories out at some level. I'm not much of a drinker, but I have definitely noted myself being less active when I consume alcohol, and definitely have a more difficult time doing something at a given intensity the next day from heavier drinking.

Like what you're observing? Not at all controversial. You're noting that what you eat ends up impacting how hard or easy it is to lose. I don't find it even controversial to say it seems to happen at the same calorie intake. Pretending it is some kind of counterfactual to all the meticulous metabolic ward studies? That's where you're finding your claims contested. People are doubting the mechanisms you're implying.

magnusthenerd

shaumom wrote: »

The concept that for all people, with all conditions, CICO is the end-all, be-all of how the human body loses and gains weight seems to fly in the face of one important fact: the human body is not that simplistic.

The fact that someone gets a results others don't expect does not warrant an automatic 'you must be doing it wrong.' If they forgot certain procedures that impact the outcome, sure, but this is just a case study, not a full blown study, and seems fairly well done for what it is. And the results are not actually THAT uncommon. And they don't even fly in the face of what is known about the human body.

As an example, one reason that people can't lose weight even when their calories are within the right target range, until they ALSO stop eating as much 'junk food,' might be if they have insulin resistance. And this condition seems to be VERY common. 1 in 3 people in the USA are assumed to have this: https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/insulin-resistance-causes-symptoms#:~:text=One%20in%20three%20Americans%E2%80%94including,attacks%2C%20strokes2%20and%20cancer. )

Because if you have excess insulin levels (which happens with insulin resistance), from what I understand, this actually increases how much fat your body stores from what you eat. There is debate on the topic of what STARTS insulin resistance (whether gaining weight starts it, or it starts weight gain), but once insulin resistance HAS started, a person's body will have fat storage that is impacted by blood sugar levels AS WELL AS calories consumed.

And again: 1 in 3 people in the USA have this (higher than some countries, I'm sure).

Which may be why there are a LOT of people who try to lose weight with CICO and can't seem to do it until they change the food choices they make, as well.

This is a nice summary of 4 different bits of research into the origins and function of insulin resistance, for those interested.
https://www.secondnature.io/guides/diabetes/insulin-resistance-weight-gain

Your fact actually flies in the face of one of the most reliably observed laws that impacts everything in this universe - the laws of thermodynamics. Every molecule of matter and joule of energy follows energy (calories) in and energy out have to be equal - there's never a creation or destruction of energy, only transference.

Calculating some particular person's calories out is not ever necessarily simple.

Both those said, I don't think insulin resistance does what you think it does. If insulin resistance made it easier for fat to store, then insulin sensitivity would make fat storage harder. It's pretty readily observed that insulin resistance goes up with fat accumulation and down with fat loss - going from fat (relative) to thin almost always goes with going from (relative) insulin resistant to insulin sensitive when looking at an individual. If insulin sensitivity made storing fat ever hard, it would be easier and easier for someone losing weight to lose more and more as weight loss increased insulin sensitivity, and insulin sensitivity increased weight loss. We don't tend to observe this.

On top of that, I'm going to say, Luke's insulin resistance is likely incredibly low, or conversely, his insulin sensitivity is probably very high.

VegjoyP

Carbohydrate- 4 calories/ gram,
Protein- 4 calories / gram
Alcohol- 7 calories /gram
Fat- 9 calories a gram