Feeling Let Down By My Fitnesspal: All Calories are NOT equal
shel80kg
Posts: 162 Member
I have been on this platform for many years. And I have been encouraged to accept the simplicity of the "Calorie Deficit" way of thinking. One application of this is the assumption that all calories are the same from the vantage point of loosing or gaining weight. Another assumption which troubles me even more is the claim that we can add calories to our BMR on an almost 1:1 correlation in relation to our excerise. The proponents of the Calories Deficit argument and the allied assumptions maybe terribly wrong. I think this needs to be corrected. Here is a summary of my rational:
Not all calories are equal – a dietitian explains the different ways the kinds of foods you eat matter to your body
Published: December 27, 2021 11.58pm AEDT
Author
Terezie Tolar-Peterson
Associate Professor of Food Science, Nutrition & Health Promotion, Mississippi State University
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, at least from a thermodynamic standpoint. It’s defined as the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Celsius (2.2 pounds by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).
But when it comes to health and your body’s energy balance, not all calories are equal.
The claim fails to consider the role of hormones such as Insulin, Glucagon, Somatostatin,
Serotonin, Cholecystokinin, Gastric inhibitory peptide, Intestinal glucagon, Motilin, Neurostensin, Pancreatic polypeptide, Secretin etc.....
For example, some studies have reported that diets that are high-protein, low-carbohydrate or a combination of the two do yield greater weight loss than diets with other levels of fat, protein and carbs.
If every calorie in food were the same, you wouldn’t expect to see weight-loss differences among people who eat the same number of calories that are doled out in different types of food.
In the late 1800s, chemist W.O. Atwater and his colleagues devised a system to figure out how much energy – that is, how many calories – various foods contain. Basically, he burned up food samples and recorded how much energy they released in the form of heat.
Not every bit of energy in food that can combust in the lab is actually available to your body, though. What scientists call metabolizable energy is the difference between the total energy of the food consumed and the energy that passes out of your body, undigested, in feces and urine. For each of the three macronutrients – proteins, carbohydrates and fats – Atwater devised a percentage of the calories they contained that would actually be metabolizable.
According to the Atwater system, one gram of each macronutrient is estimated to provide a certain number of calories. The U.S. Department of Agriculture still uses these calculations today to come up with an official calorie number for every food.
How much energy you use
What you eat can affect what scientists call your body’s energy expenditure. That’s how much energy it takes to keep you alive – energy you use breathing, digesting, keeping your blood flowing and so on – along with what you exert moving your body. You might have heard this referred to as metabolism.
Diet quality can alter the body’s energy expenditure, which is also called the thermic effect of food. For example, in one study, people eating the same number of calories per day but on either a low-carbohydrate diet or a low-fat diet had differences in total energy expenditure of about 300 calories per day. Those eating very low-carb diets used the most energy, while those eating low-fat diets used the least.
In another study, high-fat diets led to lower total energy expenditure than high-carb diets did. Other researchers reported that although substituting carbs for fat did not alter energy expenditure, people who increased their protein intake to 30%-35% of their diet used more energy.
In general, diets high in carbohydrates, fat or both produce a 4%-8% increase in energy expenditure, while meals high in protein cause an 11%-14% increase above the resting metabolic rate. Protein has a higher thermic effect because it’s harder for the body to break down. Although these variations aren’t huge, they could contribute to the obesity epidemic by encouraging a subtle average weight gain.
Quality of the calories you eat
Dietitians pay attention to a food’s glycemic index and glycemic load – that is, how quickly and how much it will increase your blood glucose levels. A rise in blood glucose triggers the release of insulin, which in turn influences energy metabolism and storage of excess energy as fat.
Foods like white rice, cakes, cookies and chips are all high on the glycemic index/load. Green vegetables, raw peppers, mushrooms and legumes are all low on the glycemic index/load. There is some evidence to suggest that foods lower on the glycemic index/load may be better for keeping blood sugar levels regulated – regardless of the calories they contain.
Reward centers in the brain light up when people eat high glycemic index/load foods, highlighting the pleasurable and addictive effect of foods like candy or white breads.
The fiber content of food is another thing to consider. Your body can’t digest fiber – found in plant foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains and beans – for energy. So foods high in fiber tend to have less metabolizable energy and can help you feel full on fewer calories.
Empty calories – those from foods with minimal or no nutritional value – are another factor to consider. Things like white sugar, soft drinks and many ultra-processed snacks don’t provide much, if any, benefit in the form of protein, vitamins or minerals along with their calories. The opposite would be nutrient-dense foods that are high in nutrients or fiber, while still being relatively low in calories. Examples are spinach, apples and beans.
And don’t think of empty calories as neutral. Nutritionists consider them harmful calories because they can have a negative effect on health. Foods that are the biggest contributors to weight gain are potato chips, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages and meats, both processed and unprocessed. On the other hand, foods that are inversely associated with weight gain are vegetables, whole grains, fruits, nuts and yogurt.
It is indisputable that for weight loss, the difference between the number of calories consumed and the number of calories exerted through exercise is the most important factor. But don’t fool yourself. While weight plays a role in health and longevity, weight loss alone doesn’t equate to health.
Yes, some high-protein diets seem to promote weight loss at least in the short term. But epidemiologists know that in areas where people live the longest – close to 100 years on average – they eat a primarily plant-based diet, with very low or no animal-based protein and low or moderate fat in the form of mono- and polyunsaturated fats.
like vegetables and fruit will have the opposite effect.
A plant-based diet high in plant-based protein and carbohydrates mostly from vegetables, fruit, nuts and legumes is the healthiest diet researchers know of for longevity and prevention of chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, hypertension and many other conditions.
The modern Western diet suffers from an increase in quantity of calories consumed with a concurrent decrease in the quality of calories consumed. And researchers now know that calories from different foods have different effects on fullness, insulin response, the process of turning carbs to body fat, and metabolic energy expenditure.
Where your health is concerned, count more on the quality of the calories you consume than the calorie count.
Not all calories are equal – a dietitian explains the different ways the kinds of foods you eat matter to your body
Published: December 27, 2021 11.58pm AEDT
Author
Terezie Tolar-Peterson
Associate Professor of Food Science, Nutrition & Health Promotion, Mississippi State University
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, at least from a thermodynamic standpoint. It’s defined as the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Celsius (2.2 pounds by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).
But when it comes to health and your body’s energy balance, not all calories are equal.
The claim fails to consider the role of hormones such as Insulin, Glucagon, Somatostatin,
Serotonin, Cholecystokinin, Gastric inhibitory peptide, Intestinal glucagon, Motilin, Neurostensin, Pancreatic polypeptide, Secretin etc.....
For example, some studies have reported that diets that are high-protein, low-carbohydrate or a combination of the two do yield greater weight loss than diets with other levels of fat, protein and carbs.
If every calorie in food were the same, you wouldn’t expect to see weight-loss differences among people who eat the same number of calories that are doled out in different types of food.
In the late 1800s, chemist W.O. Atwater and his colleagues devised a system to figure out how much energy – that is, how many calories – various foods contain. Basically, he burned up food samples and recorded how much energy they released in the form of heat.
Not every bit of energy in food that can combust in the lab is actually available to your body, though. What scientists call metabolizable energy is the difference between the total energy of the food consumed and the energy that passes out of your body, undigested, in feces and urine. For each of the three macronutrients – proteins, carbohydrates and fats – Atwater devised a percentage of the calories they contained that would actually be metabolizable.
According to the Atwater system, one gram of each macronutrient is estimated to provide a certain number of calories. The U.S. Department of Agriculture still uses these calculations today to come up with an official calorie number for every food.
How much energy you use
What you eat can affect what scientists call your body’s energy expenditure. That’s how much energy it takes to keep you alive – energy you use breathing, digesting, keeping your blood flowing and so on – along with what you exert moving your body. You might have heard this referred to as metabolism.
Diet quality can alter the body’s energy expenditure, which is also called the thermic effect of food. For example, in one study, people eating the same number of calories per day but on either a low-carbohydrate diet or a low-fat diet had differences in total energy expenditure of about 300 calories per day. Those eating very low-carb diets used the most energy, while those eating low-fat diets used the least.
In another study, high-fat diets led to lower total energy expenditure than high-carb diets did. Other researchers reported that although substituting carbs for fat did not alter energy expenditure, people who increased their protein intake to 30%-35% of their diet used more energy.
In general, diets high in carbohydrates, fat or both produce a 4%-8% increase in energy expenditure, while meals high in protein cause an 11%-14% increase above the resting metabolic rate. Protein has a higher thermic effect because it’s harder for the body to break down. Although these variations aren’t huge, they could contribute to the obesity epidemic by encouraging a subtle average weight gain.
Quality of the calories you eat
Dietitians pay attention to a food’s glycemic index and glycemic load – that is, how quickly and how much it will increase your blood glucose levels. A rise in blood glucose triggers the release of insulin, which in turn influences energy metabolism and storage of excess energy as fat.
Foods like white rice, cakes, cookies and chips are all high on the glycemic index/load. Green vegetables, raw peppers, mushrooms and legumes are all low on the glycemic index/load. There is some evidence to suggest that foods lower on the glycemic index/load may be better for keeping blood sugar levels regulated – regardless of the calories they contain.
Reward centers in the brain light up when people eat high glycemic index/load foods, highlighting the pleasurable and addictive effect of foods like candy or white breads.
The fiber content of food is another thing to consider. Your body can’t digest fiber – found in plant foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains and beans – for energy. So foods high in fiber tend to have less metabolizable energy and can help you feel full on fewer calories.
Empty calories – those from foods with minimal or no nutritional value – are another factor to consider. Things like white sugar, soft drinks and many ultra-processed snacks don’t provide much, if any, benefit in the form of protein, vitamins or minerals along with their calories. The opposite would be nutrient-dense foods that are high in nutrients or fiber, while still being relatively low in calories. Examples are spinach, apples and beans.
And don’t think of empty calories as neutral. Nutritionists consider them harmful calories because they can have a negative effect on health. Foods that are the biggest contributors to weight gain are potato chips, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages and meats, both processed and unprocessed. On the other hand, foods that are inversely associated with weight gain are vegetables, whole grains, fruits, nuts and yogurt.
It is indisputable that for weight loss, the difference between the number of calories consumed and the number of calories exerted through exercise is the most important factor. But don’t fool yourself. While weight plays a role in health and longevity, weight loss alone doesn’t equate to health.
Yes, some high-protein diets seem to promote weight loss at least in the short term. But epidemiologists know that in areas where people live the longest – close to 100 years on average – they eat a primarily plant-based diet, with very low or no animal-based protein and low or moderate fat in the form of mono- and polyunsaturated fats.
like vegetables and fruit will have the opposite effect.
A plant-based diet high in plant-based protein and carbohydrates mostly from vegetables, fruit, nuts and legumes is the healthiest diet researchers know of for longevity and prevention of chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, hypertension and many other conditions.
The modern Western diet suffers from an increase in quantity of calories consumed with a concurrent decrease in the quality of calories consumed. And researchers now know that calories from different foods have different effects on fullness, insulin response, the process of turning carbs to body fat, and metabolic energy expenditure.
Where your health is concerned, count more on the quality of the calories you consume than the calorie count.
3
Best Answer
-
My goodness!
I’m grateful to all of the responders and could never do justice to the degree of thought and analysis contained in each submission.
I would like to clarify that it was not my intention to “blame” MFP for any specific challenge I have faced in my pursuit for the “yellow brick road” to stellar health and mindful nutrition. MFP and the volunteers who dedicate their time and expertise to questions and struggles have been nothing less than a source of encouragement and vital information for me over the years. Thank you !
I do think the weight loss process is, by and large, a factual, science based, biochemical and biophysical based reality that needs to be understood and articulated with clarity and accuracy and the responses offered in relation to my (rather emotive) claim more than exceeded my expectations. Thank you.
There are great minds on thus forum and it is a real gift to receive such expertise and insight.
I just wanted to express my gratitude.
Thank you again
Shel
3
Answers
-
You start with:I have been encouraged to accept the simplicity of the "Calorie Deficit" way of thinking. One application of this is the assumption that all calories are the same from the vantage point of loosing or gaining weight. Another assumption which troubles me even more is the claim that we can add calories to our BMR on an almost 1:1 correlation in relation to our excerise. The proponents of the Calories Deficit argument and the allied assumptions maybe terribly wrong.
And then you quote:It is indisputable that for weight loss, the difference between the number of calories consumed and the number of calories exerted through exercise is the most important factor.7 -
Yes, there are absolutely factors that complicate the "calorie in, calorie out" equation, particularly the calorie out part. I have never eaten back exercise calories, because it overcomplicates it and really is not necessary unless you're running a marathon. I agree that, yes, what you eat does matter. Mostly for reasons outside of weight loss. I have gained and lost weight eating everything imaginable. Heck, there was a point in time that at least half of my daily calories came from milk, not food. Was it "good" for me? No. Did I become overweight? No. Because I was still within a certain amount of calories. Most of them were just liquid. My mom is the thinnest person in her family (not including her children) and lived almost exclusively off candy bars, cookies, and chips for most of her life. Was that good for her? Absolutely not. So yes, what we eat does matter.3
-
I think you’re getting confused / reading waaaay too much into calories in and calories out. A kilocalorie is merely a measurement of energy. It is what it is - it doesn’t vary any more than one cm varies.
But do different foodstuffs with an equivalent calorie value have different nutrients, macros and different effects on people? Yes of course. There have been lots of studies showing that you can lose weight eating 1600 cals of burgers or crap each day just as you would lose weight eating 1600 cals of whole foods. But one will no doubt make you feel better, have a better nutritional balance and fill you up more. The effect of food on blood sugar is quite individual, and the effect of different macros on people is also individual.
But a calorie is just a calorie.12 -
Calories for weight, macros/what you eat for health and satiation, I've read it here plenty of times. That still seems valid 🤷♂️5
-
A calorie is a calorie. You don't change it's energy value based on what it's consisted of. 10 calories of oil is equal to 10 calories of sugar. Yes the body utilizes then DIFFERENTLY based on how the energy is used, with fat being more of a storage intake versus carbs being your first energy usage.
You get overweight eating more than you body burns. And vice versa. HOW YOU CHOOSE to be in a calorie deficit is up to you. ANY DIET PLAN WORKS if one is trying to loose weight and is in a calorie deficit. The issue is some just don't do well on diet plans long term and regain.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
All Calories are NOT equal
You’re confusing calories with nutrition. They are not the same thing. And you’re blaming MFP for this?
Try to compartmentalize the information. It seems to me you over analyze in an attempt to understand but it’s getting convoluted. Can we start with your questions one by one so we can clear up any misinformation or misunderstanding?
As you know, CICO isn’t a diet. Even though many people think CICO means calorie counting, it doesn’t. Let’s break down the definitions for clarity.
CICO= Thermodynamics- Thermodynamics is the study of the relations between heat, work, temperature, and energy. The laws of thermodynamics describe how the energy in a system changes and whether the system can perform useful work on its surroundings.
Calorie Counting- method to keep track of the number of calories in the food one eats so that one won't eat too much or too little.
Calorie- a unit of energy equivalent to the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 °C (now often defined as equal to 4.1868 joules).
Nutrition- The process of providing or obtaining the food necessary for health and growth. This is not to be confused with diet.
Diet- Eating in a surplus, maintenance, or calorie defect. This can be achieved by calories alone and is not dependent on nutrition.
TDEE- Total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) estimates how many calories your body burns daily by accounting for three major contributing factors: your basal metabolic rate (BMR), your activity level and the thermic effect of food metabolism.
Is CICO a fact? Yes. This process is law for all of us.
Can we perfectly measure, with the tools we currently have, how many calories are coming in (CI) and out (CO)? No. Humans are flawed, but it does not mean that thermodynamics isn’t happening. However, we can get incredibly close with accurate logging and weighing. Maybe someday we’ll invent an easier way than Calorie Counting to measure the CICO that’s happening, but for now our personal data can be as close as an oz.
Does nutrition matter? Yes, for health and satiation, but not for weight loss.
Does each person burn the same amount of calories? No. We all have a TDEE that measures our sex, size, weight, age, and activity level. These variables impact how many calories, or how much energy, we use per day.
What I’m seeing is that you think, because humans are pretty terrible at Calorie Counting, that thermodynamics isn’t a law. This is a waste of your time and headspace. And it seems you think, because we don’t have the equipment to measure every single persons TDEE with the food they’re eating, that CICO (thermodynamics) is flawed. That’s like saying gravity is flawed. You can think it, but it won’t change anything.
What most people are trying to help you realize is that the human is the error factor here. But, as I mentioned before, if we weigh our food, track accurately, and follow our own data, we can figure out what those calories will do pretty accurately. And, by using proper nutrition and assessing how it makes us feel, we will be able to supplement our diet with good choices to improve our lives.
Can you lose weight with bad nutrition? Yes
Can you gain weight with excellent nutrition? Yes
Why? Because of the laws of CICO. I urge you not to blame physics for humans inability to track and measure correctly.3 -
That was a prime example on how to complicate a relatively simple situation. These articles are entertaining at best.
5 -
Why? Because of the laws of CICO. I urge you not to blame physics for humans inability to track and measure correctly.
Makes some people wonder how some cultures and certain demographics that have never been overweight and never counted calories are able to maintain their weight and health and not give any thought whatsoever to what a calorie is or care.
2 -
neanderthin wrote: »Why? Because of the laws of CICO. I urge you not to blame physics for humans inability to track and measure correctly.
Makes some people wonder how some cultures and certain demographics that have never been overweight and never counted calories are able to maintain their weight and health and not give any thought whatsoever to what a calorie is or care.
Because CICO is not Calorie Counting. It happens whether we track it or not. Calorie counting is just one method to track our CICO. Do you disagree?3 -
How about answering my question first before you strawman the question.4
-
You didn’t ask a question. But I will respond to your comment, they weren’t overweight because their CI=CO.5
-
That's ok, I wasn't really expecting an answer from my query anyway.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »That's ok, I wasn't really expecting an answer from my query anyway.
What? Genuinely confused but okay.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »That's ok, I wasn't really expecting an answer from my query anyway.
What? Genuinely confused but okay.
You emphasized more than once in your longer post that humans aren't very good at measuring and tracking calories, hence the reason for unwanted weight gain.2 -
And what other methods of tracking might there be🤔neanderthin wrote: »Why? Because of the laws of CICO. I urge you not to blame physics for humans inability to track and measure correctly.
Makes some people wonder how some cultures and certain demographics that have never been overweight and never counted calories are able to maintain their weight and health and not give any thought whatsoever to what a calorie is or care.
Because CICO is not Calorie Counting. It happens whether we track it or not. Calorie counting is just one method to track our CICO. Do you disagree?
3 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »That's ok, I wasn't really expecting an answer from my query anyway.
What? Genuinely confused but okay.
You emphasized more than once in your long post that humans aren't very good at measuring and tracking calories, hence the reason for unwanted weight gain.
I’m responding to the OP’s disappointment with MFP, a calorie tracking site, and the confusion they have regarding the difference between calories and nutrition. I’m explaining that it’s not MFP’s fault, or that CICO is wrong, but the user’s error in tracking (in MFP). This was the topic I thought, not whether we have to track or not.
OP- You’re not alone in being completely overwhelmed and confused by this. There’s a reason the weight loss industry makes the $$$$$$ that they do. The noise can be extreme at times.
4 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
And what other methods of tracking might there be🤔neanderthin wrote: »Why? Because of the laws of CICO. I urge you not to blame physics for humans inability to track and measure correctly.
Makes some people wonder how some cultures and certain demographics that have never been overweight and never counted calories are able to maintain their weight and health and not give any thought whatsoever to what a calorie is or care.
Because CICO is not Calorie Counting. It happens whether we track it or not. Calorie counting is just one method to track our CICO. Do you disagree?
Neanderthin interpreted your comment to say that bad calorie counting is the cause of people being overweight? I've re-read the long post, I can't see where it says that.
Calorie counting works for me (CI via MFP and CO via my Garmin) because the alternative of tracking 'intuitively' (my intuition about my intake being proportionate to my TDEE) yields horrible results. AND I'm in a privileged position where available food is plentiful and readily available without having to expend many calories for survival.
Am I making errors in my tracking? Undoubtedly. But the margin of error is consistent enough that my weight trend is quite predictable.
4 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »That's ok, I wasn't really expecting an answer from my query anyway.
What? Genuinely confused but okay.
You emphasized more than once in your long post that humans aren't very good at measuring and tracking calories, hence the reason for unwanted weight gain.
I’m responding to the OP’s disappointment with MFP, a calorie tracking site, and the confusion they have regarding the difference between calories and nutrition. I’m explaining that it’s not MFP’s fault, or that CICO is wrong, but the user’s error in tracking (in MFP). This was the topic I thought, not whether we have to track or not.
OP- You’re not alone in being completely overwhelmed and confused by this. There’s a reason the weight loss industry makes the $$$$$$ that they do. The noise can be extreme at times.
Ok, that makes more sense now, thanks for explaining your position more clearly . 0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »That's ok, I wasn't really expecting an answer from my query anyway.
What? Genuinely confused but okay.
You emphasized more than once in your long post that humans aren't very good at measuring and tracking calories, hence the reason for unwanted weight gain.
I’m responding to the OP’s disappointment with MFP, a calorie tracking site, and the confusion they have regarding the difference between calories and nutrition. I’m explaining that it’s not MFP’s fault, or that CICO is wrong, but the user’s error in tracking (in MFP). This was the topic I thought, not whether we have to track or not.
OP- You’re not alone in being completely overwhelmed and confused by this. There’s a reason the weight loss industry makes the $$$$$$ that they do. The noise can be extreme at times.
Ok, that makes more sense now, thanks for explaining your position more clearly .
My pleasure. My brain doesn’t compute the same as others so I have to try especially hard to be clear. I’m glad that was better.2 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
And what other methods of tracking might there be🤔neanderthin wrote: »Why? Because of the laws of CICO. I urge you not to blame physics for humans inability to track and measure correctly.
Makes some people wonder how some cultures and certain demographics that have never been overweight and never counted calories are able to maintain their weight and health and not give any thought whatsoever to what a calorie is or care.
Because CICO is not Calorie Counting. It happens whether we track it or not. Calorie counting is just one method to track our CICO. Do you disagree?
Neanderthin interpreted your comment to say that bad calorie counting is the cause of people being overweight? I've re-read the long post, I can't see where it says that.
Calorie counting works for me (CI via MFP and CO via my Garmin) because the alternative of tracking 'intuitively' (my intuition about my intake being proportionate to my TDEE) yields horrible results. AND I'm in a privileged position where available food is plentiful and readily available without having to expend many calories for survival.
Am I making errors in my tracking? Undoubtedly. But the margin of error is consistent enough that my weight trend is quite predictable.
I got that feeling too. I should do better explaining my position. And thanks for covering some of the methods.2 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
And what other methods of tracking might there be🤔neanderthin wrote: »Why? Because of the laws of CICO. I urge you not to blame physics for humans inability to track and measure correctly.
Makes some people wonder how some cultures and certain demographics that have never been overweight and never counted calories are able to maintain their weight and health and not give any thought whatsoever to what a calorie is or care.
Because CICO is not Calorie Counting. It happens whether we track it or not. Calorie counting is just one method to track our CICO. Do you disagree?
I think I misunderstood your point the first time I read this. As I was making a mental list of methods like WW, MyPlate, the palm of your hand, deck of cards, etc., I realized these are all approximating calories, just not as directly and accurately as MFP.3 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
And what other methods of tracking might there be🤔neanderthin wrote: »Why? Because of the laws of CICO. I urge you not to blame physics for humans inability to track and measure correctly.
Makes some people wonder how some cultures and certain demographics that have never been overweight and never counted calories are able to maintain their weight and health and not give any thought whatsoever to what a calorie is or care.
Because CICO is not Calorie Counting. It happens whether we track it or not. Calorie counting is just one method to track our CICO. Do you disagree?
Neanderthin interpreted your comment to say that bad calorie counting is the cause of people being overweight? I've re-read the long post, I can't see where it says that.
Calorie counting works for me (CI via MFP and CO via my Garmin) because the alternative of tracking 'intuitively' (my intuition about my intake being proportionate to my TDEE) yields horrible results. AND I'm in a privileged position where available food is plentiful and readily available without having to expend many calories for survival.
Am I making errors in my tracking? Undoubtedly. But the margin of error is consistent enough that my weight trend is quite predictable.
I got that feeling too. I should do better explaining my position. And thanks for covering some of the methods.
You did fine
2 -
Calories for weight, macros/what you eat for health and satiation, I've read it here plenty of times. That still seems valid 🤷♂️
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've talked about any aspect of satiety...
However, when I was first here I did get the flavor that CICO was all that mattered, even though that was certainly not what everybody was saying.
I think IIFYM was hot then and lots of people were talking about ice cream fitting their macros. All I was registering was ice cream, not the fit your macros part.
That said, IIFYM isn't a great model for me as high carb foods like rice and beans are way more satiating to me than high carb foods like apple juice or ice cream. I realize these have different amounts of fat and fiber. Fiber is very important for me to feel full. I love fat but it isn't very satiating for me. So I try to meet or exceed my fiber and protein goals, not go to far over fat, and let the carbs fall where they may. (Meeting my fiber goal through food necessitates fiber-containing carbs.)5 -
KISS is valuable. Giving people the tools to track calories is empowering. Yeah there's probably more to it wrt thermic effect, influence on hunger levels, etc. but I don't think the average person needs to worry too much about such things. CICO is simple, and it works.I have been on this platform for many years. And I have been encouraged to accept the simplicity of the "Calorie Deficit" way of thinking.
I'm not saying you're doing this, but I do raise an eyebrow at talk like that in the OP, because it is potentially giving the signal, "CICO doesn't work, nothing works, throw your hands in the air, you can't do anything to change." But everyone can do something. Barring some health issues, eating fewer calories and moving more WILL result in weight loss. As you said in the OP, it's thermodynamics.
Vehemently disagree. Both are important, but at the end of the day/week, if someone is consuming hundreds or thousands of calories over maintenance, it doesn't matter what quality of calories they're eating, they won't be losing weight. Also, what does quality even mean? Depending on someone's goals, that could mean high protein, or high fiber, or complex carbs, or vegetables, or gluten free, or low sugar, or low fat, etc. etc.Where your health is concerned, count more on the quality of the calories you consume than the calorie count.
I agree 100% with this. You didn't expand on it, so I will. The more intense the exercise, the more likely it is that your NEAT is reduced, and it also may affect hunger levels. So depending on the exercise, if it's zone 2 e.g. then maybe adding back 100% of calories to consume is valid, but if it's e.g. HIIT or zone 4/5 cardio, then typically I think 50% is a safer estimate to eat back. That's also the ratio a former pro bodybuilder on YT goes by, and I trust that he knows what he's talking about.Another assumption which troubles me even more is the claim that we can add calories to our BMR on an almost 1:1 correlation in relation to our exercise.
This "add your exercise calories" system is also endlessly confusing for new users. They should ditch it and just go to simple TDEE imo.3 -
The article you quote says this: "A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, at least from a thermodynamic standpoint." and "But when it comes to health and your body’s energy balance, not all calories are equal."
This is from a professor of Food Science, Nutrition & Health Promotion, credentials I respect.
But this is not a professor of English, literature, rhetoric. This is part of why she goes a bit off the rails here.
To say something like "there are different types of calories" is to utilize a figure of speech, typically either metonymy or synecdoche. The common piece between those is that someone uses a part or an attribute of a thing to refer to the thing itself.
Calories are an attribute of foods, just as colors, textures, nutrient content values, etc. are attributes of food.
If I say something like "paved miles are easier to bike than gravel miles", everyone understands that I'm really talking about road surfaces, not about miles themselves. For some reason, people don't realize the same thing is going on when someone says "some calories are better than others". Fuzzy thinking and fuzzy communications ensue.
Yes, I'm being pedantic. But that confusion is happening here.
Yes, the calorie balance equation (relationship between CI and CO) is the foundation of weight management. But it's far from the only thing that matters for weight management as a practical matter. Further, the processing of calories (in and out) is more nuanced than as if we put calorie estimates on a balance scale, the theoretical "Ins" on one side, the theoretical "Outs" on the other side.I have been on this platform for many years. And I have been encouraged to accept the simplicity of the "Calorie Deficit" way of thinking. One application of this is the assumption that all calories are the same from the vantage point of loosing or gaining weight. Another assumption which troubles me even more is the claim that we can add calories to our BMR on an almost 1:1 correlation in relation to our excerise. The proponents of the Calories Deficit argument and the allied assumptions maybe terribly wrong. I think this needs to be corrected. Here is a summary of my rational:
Not all calories are equal – a dietitian explains the different ways the kinds of foods you eat matter to your body
Published: December 27, 2021 11.58pm AEDT
Author
Terezie Tolar-Peterson
Associate Professor of Food Science, Nutrition & Health Promotion, Mississippi State University
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, at least from a thermodynamic standpoint. It’s defined as the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Celsius (2.2 pounds by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).
But when it comes to health and your body’s energy balance, not all calories are equal.
The claim fails to consider the role of hormones such as Insulin, Glucagon, Somatostatin,
Serotonin, Cholecystokinin, Gastric inhibitory peptide, Intestinal glucagon, Motilin, Neurostensin, Pancreatic polypeptide, Secretin etc.....
For example, some studies have reported that diets that are high-protein, low-carbohydrate or a combination of the two do yield greater weight loss than diets with other levels of fat, protein and carbs.
If every calorie in food were the same, you wouldn’t expect to see weight-loss differences among people who eat the same number of calories that are doled out in different types of food.
I'm sure she's more educated than I am, but the studies I've seen suggest that protein-equalized isocaloric diets have very close to the same effect on body weight whether high fat or high carbohydrate. The "protein equalized" part is important, for reasons she goes on to discuss.
Among other things, thermic effect of food (TEF) matters. It's still CICO, but the type of food (In) is affecting how many calories the body burns (to digest it, i.e., the Out side of the equation.)
In the late 1800s, chemist W.O. Atwater and his colleagues devised a system to figure out how much energy – that is, how many calories – various foods contain. Basically, he burned up food samples and recorded how much energy they released in the form of heat.
Not every bit of energy in food that can combust in the lab is actually available to your body, though. What scientists call metabolizable energy is the difference between the total energy of the food consumed and the energy that passes out of your body, undigested, in feces and urine. For each of the three macronutrients – proteins, carbohydrates and fats – Atwater devised a percentage of the calories they contained that would actually be metabolizable.
If we don't absorb a calorie (in the Atwater sense), and it passes out of the body, you can count it as a calorie that either isn't part of the In side of the equation (the human body is typologically sort of a complicated donut shape, after all
), or you can count it as a calorie Out (because it went In, but then all the way to the exit).
CICO is not being violated. Sure, it complicates calorie counting as a method. (Good thing that counting doesn't have to be exact in order to be useful.)According to the Atwater system, one gram of each macronutrient is estimated to provide a certain number of calories. The U.S. Department of Agriculture still uses these calculations today to come up with an official calorie number for every food.
How much energy you use
What you eat can affect what scientists call your body’s energy expenditure. That’s how much energy it takes to keep you alive – energy you use breathing, digesting, keeping your blood flowing and so on – along with what you exert moving your body. You might have heard this referred to as metabolism.
Diet quality can alter the body’s energy expenditure, which is also called the thermic effect of food. For example, in one study, people eating the same number of calories per day but on either a low-carbohydrate diet or a low-fat diet had differences in total energy expenditure of about 300 calories per day. Those eating very low-carb diets used the most energy, while those eating low-fat diets used the least.
Yes, human bodies are dynamic, and IMU in more ways than just TEF. Calories in affect calories out, both short and long term. People tend to expend more energy when they take in more energy, expend less energy if underfueled. Bodies are smart that way. Natural selection trained us to survive through famine. Those who didn't, died.
Maybe more relevant here, but still an example of dynamism, better nutrition (a different attribute of foods from calories) can affect energy level, therefore activity (or qualities of the body's basic metabolic processes) so more or fewer calories are burned depending on the nutritional values of foods consumed.
Long term, poor nutrition (or severe under-fueling) can affect body composition, fitness, and other characteristics that influence an individual's calorie expenditure via BMR, NEAT or exercise.
CICO is still not violated. Eat in the right way nutritionally, maybe burn more calories than when eating poorly, at any given level of calorie intake.
The Atwater kind of number is still useful, anyway: It's the theoretical upper limit on the calories-in side. We're not absorbing/metabolizing more calories from a food than physics says are in that food. We might absorb fewer, and certain food choices might mean we burn more/fewer calories metabolizing that food.In another study, high-fat diets led to lower total energy expenditure than high-carb diets did. Other researchers reported that although substituting carbs for fat did not alter energy expenditure, people who increased their protein intake to 30%-35% of their diet used more energy.
In general, diets high in carbohydrates, fat or both produce a 4%-8% increase in energy expenditure, while meals high in protein cause an 11%-14% increase above the resting metabolic rate. Protein has a higher thermic effect because it’s harder for the body to break down. Although these variations aren’t huge, they could contribute to the obesity epidemic by encouraging a subtle average weight gain.
Quality of the calories you eat
Dietitians pay attention to a food’s glycemic index and glycemic load – that is, how quickly and how much it will increase your blood glucose levels. A rise in blood glucose triggers the release of insulin, which in turn influences energy metabolism and storage of excess energy as fat.
Foods like white rice, cakes, cookies and chips are all high on the glycemic index/load. Green vegetables, raw peppers, mushrooms and legumes are all low on the glycemic index/load. There is some evidence to suggest that foods lower on the glycemic index/load may be better for keeping blood sugar levels regulated – regardless of the calories they contain.
Reward centers in the brain light up when people eat high glycemic index/load foods, highlighting the pleasurable and addictive effect of foods like candy or white breads.
The fiber content of food is another thing to consider. Your body can’t digest fiber – found in plant foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains and beans – for energy. So foods high in fiber tend to have less metabolizable energy and can help you feel full on fewer calories.
Empty calories – those from foods with minimal or no nutritional value – are another factor to consider. Things like white sugar, soft drinks and many ultra-processed snacks don’t provide much, if any, benefit in the form of protein, vitamins or minerals along with their calories. The opposite would be nutrient-dense foods that are high in nutrients or fiber, while still being relatively low in calories. Examples are spinach, apples and beans.
Yes, people's food choices affect appetite and digestive transit time, so add even more nuance to the theory of calorie counting. It's still not that "some calories are better than others", any more than some miles are longer/shorter than others.
There's also starting to be evidence that food choices affect microbiotic activity in the gut in ways relevant to satiation, mood, energy, and other things that can affect weight management . . . maybe even affect epigenetics.And don’t think of empty calories as neutral. Nutritionists consider them harmful calories because they can have a negative effect on health. Foods that are the biggest contributors to weight gain are potato chips, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages and meats, both processed and unprocessed. On the other hand, foods that are inversely associated with weight gain are vegetables, whole grains, fruits, nuts and yogurt.
It is indisputable that for weight loss, the difference between the number of calories consumed and the number of calories exerted through exercise is the most important factor. But don’t fool yourself. While weight plays a role in health and longevity, weight loss alone doesn’t equate to health.
Yes, some high-protein diets seem to promote weight loss at least in the short term. But epidemiologists know that in areas where people live the longest – close to 100 years on average – they eat a primarily plant-based diet, with very low or no animal-based protein and low or moderate fat in the form of mono- and polyunsaturated fats.
like vegetables and fruit will have the opposite effect.
A plant-based diet high in plant-based protein and carbohydrates mostly from vegetables, fruit, nuts and legumes is the healthiest diet researchers know of for longevity and prevention of chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, hypertension and many other conditions.
The modern Western diet suffers from an increase in quantity of calories consumed with a concurrent decrease in the quality of calories consumed. And researchers now know that calories from different foods have different effects on fullness, insulin response, the process of turning carbs to body fat, and metabolic energy expenditure.
Where your health is concerned, count more on the quality of the calories you consume than the calorie count.
Metonymy: a figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is associated (such as "crown" in "lands belonging to the crown")
Synechdoche: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (such as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (such as society for high society), the species for the genus (such as cutthroat for assassin), the genus for the species (such as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for the thing made (such as boards for stage)
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/
Misusing/misunderstanding figures of speech causes confusion in communication between people, and can even cause fuzzy thinking within just one.
CICO isn't calorie counting. Calorie counting isn't as simplistic as some of its critics (and adherents!) would like to claim.
Good thing it only has to be workably close to reasonable, not perfect, in order to be a useful tool. Useful thing to understand some of the complicating factors, though.
FWIW, I think she left out one of the common critiques of calorie counting: That the calorie calculators and fitness trackers may not be exactly accurate for everyone.kshama2001 wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »
And what other methods of tracking might there be🤔neanderthin wrote: »Why? Because of the laws of CICO. I urge you not to blame physics for humans inability to track and measure correctly.
Makes some people wonder how some cultures and certain demographics that have never been overweight and never counted calories are able to maintain their weight and health and not give any thought whatsoever to what a calorie is or care.
Because CICO is not Calorie Counting. It happens whether we track it or not. Calorie counting is just one method to track our CICO. Do you disagree?
I think I misunderstood your point the first time I read this. As I was making a mental list of methods like WW, MyPlate, the palm of your hand, deck of cards, etc., I realized these are all approximating calories, just not as directly and accurately as MFP.
Yeah. I've seen posts here that literally assumed people didn't know how to lose weight before calorie counting was practical, one that even said people before the "obesity crisis" didn't know about calories (WT actual F??), and that sort of thing. (Your post didn't say any of those things, not saying it did.)
Some folks need to think about those kinds of presumptions harder: Centuries back, people knew that if they wanted to fatten a pig, they needed to feed it more, and maybe even restrict its scope of movement. They knew the same was true for humans. The practical knowledge was common, even without explicit knowledge of calories, CICO, etc.
As someone adult before calorie counting was practical, I've personally known people who lost large amounts of weight, without counting calories at all. My dad was one.
What WW (founded 1963) brought to the table (heh) in that era was a simpler way to approximate/manage food intake (via points) without actually counting calories. After calorie counting became practical, they kinda started floundering, trying to find a business model that kept them relevant.
5 -
CICO can be a simple way of explaining the First Law of Thermodynamics, however debatable that may be in some circles.0
-
Sigh. Confusion abounds and i'm sure will continue to abound.
A calorie is or isn't.
Maybe time for the pyramid graph?
Effective calories in that get effectively inserted into your body's thermodynamic equation
(there in one sentence: I got rid of the extra undigested nut calories or high fiber foods you pooed or the extra TEF for protein and accounted for both your sugar cube on white bread binges and your carnivore "help no more I can't knaw on another bone")
Vs
Effective calories out that you truly spend sitting, pooing, running, lifting, falling, puttering, Netflix binging, or imagining you're marathon running, or even marathon running. That would be actually spent calories whether you take an ice bath or sit in a hot tub. Effective actual
Not what your own tallying or ledger or app or lax or accurate logging says the total should be
The actual as it affects your body.
Yes. That determines your long term body weight.
Achieving actual measurements and accounting for all that is a **kitten**, yes.
For some the approximate measurement we can achieve is enough to provide us with a useful tool to achieve management.
For some additional rules or types of eating or resolution of other issues is necessary in order to wrestle the balance to where we want it.
Heck even knowing where the balance should be to best achieve desired results is a problem.
It's great that neanderthin believes that a ketogenic diet will work for him long term. And I have zero doubt that it will work for many.
I've seen it many times. Plus the aftermath of stopping it.
Same as counting calories while eating ice cream. And the aftermath of stopping it.
Needing a specific special diet full of rules was a great reason as to why it was impossible for me to lose weight till ten years ago.
Understanding that there was nothing special in terms of losing weight in the magical consumption of brown rice, sweet potatoes, olive oil, or a meat only diet was an eye opener.
One that allowed me to count calories approximately correctly by making an extremely diligent effort to count them accurately.
And to set reasonable for my state of being goals. And to prioritize continuity of effort over faster results. And to understand a bit more about fluctuations and measurement. And to find some level of success as long as I can avoid too much external mental perturbation.
That is all lost in the debate about optimal paths.
Adherence is more important than optimal
The base of the pyramid is actual calories in be actual calories out ***however*** achieved.
If that makes you believe that doritos and potato chips, and bags of veggies, and frozen lasagna, and frozen shrimp, and grilled salmon steaks, or canned sardines, or Big Mac's, or 7-11 Mojo's, or bags of cashews and spicy peanuts, or tv dinners or veggie burgers or blocks of cheddar and white bread or dark rye bread or more bags of frozen vegetables, 0% Greek yogurt, or cups of fruit in juice, or fresh apples, or sour patch kids, or jars of spaghetti sauce, or matchstick carrots, butternut or beet spirals, or konjac sticky rice, or soft serve ice cream or candy bars or pho at a restaurant, or fish and chips, or french toast or jars of milk and no sugar instant pudding or high fiber all bran and frosted flakes or peanut butter, jam, donuts, brownies and steaks or grilled chicken... can all be eaten in either a caloric surplus or a caloric deficit--- you would be correct.
Is that the easiest "diet" to adhere to? Obviously not. It's not a named diet. And it doesn't have to work universally. It has to work individually.
Works fine for me absent external mental stressors.
Blood results (which means nothing really since health concerns are not universally the same) have been steady middle of the (normal range) road ever since initial weight loss. They weren't before.
But reality suggests that for most of us on MFP there is no real mindless diet that we would adhere to with good results long term.... else we would not be on MFP!
Lose the concept of diet foods and try to find the concept of managing to consume calories within reasonably defined limits that will get you to results over time and allow you resilience when it comes to coping with adversity.
And assume you will have to continue to manage yourself forever
Hanging all your hope to 100% compliance has never worked for me so I can't advocate it.
I start from the position that I will fail to achieve it and should find ways to make it easy enough to manage and continue.
Is rule based better for you than counting based ... that's your call to make. Just be aware that it is not the magic of the rule but the caloric balance the rule helps you to achieve.
Change the rule to what will work when and if it stops working.
And as long as I'm in the game and not externally overwhelmed zero rules works fine for me too.
Anyway. Hope this makes sense cause I don't have time to edit and I've rambled on as usual! 🤷♂️3 -
A calorie is a calorie because it’s a measurement of heat however foods with the same calories can have different NET calories due to the TEF. TEF can be anywhere for almost nothing to around 25% however since we don’t live on one food with 1 TEF factor it’s basically irrelevant for the most part and not worth trying to figure in a CICO equation.1
-
Wow. What a discussion!
So much great information!
OP has some concerns, sure. But it isn’t MFP that is the issue. MFP is merely a tool for helping an individual begin to understand their own personal relationship with food and exercise.
It’s not possible or practical for an app to be able to predict the myriad of factors affecting each and every individual.
CICO? Sure.
But as I type this I’m also feeding my elderly diabetic cat. He was extremely overweight at one point. A function of the undiagnosed diabetes that made him store calories and not feel like moving around much at all.
We got him on insulin, adjusted his diet, and eventually his weight stabilized in the normal range and we were able to take him off the insulin (managing his diabetes with diet alone)
Currently he has a relatively new diagnosis of an extremely overactive thyroid, which causes a ravenous appetite and concerning weight loss.
CICO? Yep.
But, as this discussion highlights, it’s not just CICO, because every individual needs to evaluate their own particular circumstances.
The app is great. It does what it does very well.
But it is only a part of the game.
Each individual needs to have a good hard look at what their own specific situation is. What’s motivating you? What’s holding you back? In detail. And the answer to these questions is going to be different for each individual, and often the answer will change over time.
That’s where participating here in the forums really helps. Asking questions from others. Learning about little things you might not have considered before. (in my case as a disabled person, I need to account for the fact that my daily steps routinely fall well below sedentary’s assumption of 3000 steps)
Stick with it, OP. Please.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions