Calories in vs. calories out?

jofjltncb6

The reason people cut with low carb is for keto. Not overall weight loss. It allows for max protein and targeted fat burn.

I don't necessarily believe that's the only reason.

Acg67

The reason people cut with low carb is for keto. Not overall weight loss. It allows for max protein and targeted fat burn.

Except keto limits protein since it can knock you out of ketosis and fat loss is not significantly different than higher carb diet holding protein and cals constant. And spot reduction? Lol

BobbertOates

Yes, of course it is calories in vs calories out. What confuses people (I think) is that various things can affect the 'calories out' part of the equation.

None of the following disprove calories in vs calories out:

hypothyroid people finding it hard to lose weight (slower metabolic rate: calories out lower)
having to eat less as you diet / stalls (slower metabolic rate due to less weight: calories out lower)
'healthy' foods being more filling (higher fiber / water / more bulky, hunger: irrelevant to calories in / out lower)
different people having different metabolisms (variations in metabolic rate: calories out lower).
rapid weight gain after dieting (hunger, slower metabolic rate: calories out lower)
slow metabolism after extreme dieting (slower metabolic rate: calories out lower)
poor hormonal environment, low testosterone etc (slower metabolic rate: calories out lower)
nutritional deficiencies (slower metabolic rate: calories out lower)
losing muscle due to not lifting heavy / low protein (slower metabolic rate: calories out lower).

Even if there is magically someone who is literally UNABLE to use any body fat for energy, calories in / out is still valid, just the calories out part of the equation would be insanely low.

I don't see why there is the need for any 'belief' at all with respect to calories in / out, as it fully allows for any variation (real or imagined) in metabolic rate (calories out).

Shropshire1959

The law of thermodynamics does NOT say Calories in .vs . calories out. It says ENERGY IN .vs. ENERGY OUT.

and People believe that the calories that the are recording is the exact same thing as ENERGY and it's not.

To start with the calorific values that people are recording are estimates of quantities of estimates of Calorific values (just look at the range of given values for the calorific values of the same food items - they are BIG % ranges).

Next look at the BIG ranges given for the same number of Calories burned for doing the same exercise (even with HRMs) by different exercise recording sites -

The note that y'all are NOT even recording ALL of the Energy OUT as you have zero idea how much energy you piss and crap away.

Some people look at this CICO like a religion - with blind faith and their eyes closed and will not tolerate any question that they're 100% right when they are not even taking the full parameters of the energy equation into account.

A true scientific mind would at least be open to the possibility that the system is not perfect and not be lead by dogma.

Are we on the right lines - sure I think so BUT we are working with and incomplete set of tools and estimated parameters

tennisdude2004

The law of thermodynamics does NOT say Calories in .vs . calories out. It says ENERGY IN .vs. ENERGY OUT.

and People believe that the calories that the are recording is the exact same thing as ENERGY and it's not.

To start with the calorific values that people are recording are estimates of quantities of estimates of Calorific values (just look at the range of given values for the calorific values of the same food items - they are BIG % ranges).

Next look at the BIG ranges given for the same number of Calories burned for doing the same exercise (even with HRMs) by different exercise recording sites -

The note that y'all are NOT even recording ALL of the Energy OUT as you have zero idea how much energy you piss and crap away.

Some people look at this CICO like a religion - with blind faith and their eyes closed and will not tolerate any question that they're 100% right when they are not even taking the full parameters of the energy equation into account.

A true scientific mind would at least be open to the possibility that the system is not perfect and not be lead by dogma.

Are we on the right lines - sure I think so BUT we are working with and incomplete set of tools and estimated parameters

Oh, this I like. Virtual High Five!!!

geebusuk

The law of thermodynamics does NOT say Calories in .vs . calories out. It says ENERGY IN .vs. ENERGY OUT.

And a calorie is a unit of?...

Generally I'd say the people that believe calories they are recording are a precise account of the calories in and calories out are the ones that DON'T "believe in" CICO.

Those that do generally accept that they don't know all the paraemters, while I often hear "but it CAN'T be true because I ate at a 500 calorie deficit and my weight stayed the same" - this is a perfect example of a balanced CICO, just that the person didn't understand the parameters

CICO is one better than religion - it's *SCIENCE* ....based on evidence and hundreds of years of scientific research and methodology, rather than a lack of evidence (as per religion/faith.)

I would certainly agree, however, that the measurements people use are rarely the full picture.

I generally advise that the most useful figure is averaged figures of the person's weight over time.

This gives the best idea of a deficit.

From that you can work out what you need to change on CI and CO, if anything.

It doesn't, then, really matter if your figures are out - if your CI is 2000, your CO is 3000 but you're only losing .5lb a week, it suggests in reality the difference between CI and CO is around 250, not 1000. It doesn't really matter if CI is incorrect, CO or both - the reality is that you need a big difference between the two.

An obvious example - if I was to use the IIMYM calculator it says my TDEE is around 2500.
On average I eat around 3250 calories a day (before cardio, eat back cardio calories) and for the moment my weight is staying constant. By those figures I should be gaining 1.5lb a week and to hit my target of .5lb a week I should be eating LESS.
I'm pretty sure that it's the CO side that is out (I doubt my CI is too low, as generally when tested food is more likely to be over), but it really doesn't matter - what does is that if this trend continues, I need to eat more food to achieve my goal.

tennisdude2004

The law of thermodynamics does NOT say Calories in .vs . calories out. It says ENERGY IN .vs. ENERGY OUT.

And a calorie is a unit of?...

Generally I'd say the people that believe calories they are recording are a precise account of the calories in and calories out are the ones that DON'T "believe in" CICO.

Those that do generally accept that they don't know all the paraemters, while I often hear "but it CAN'T be true because I ate at a 500 calorie deficit and my weight stayed the same" - this is a perfect example of a balanced CICO, just that the person didn't understand the parameters

CICO is one better than religion - it's *SCIENCE* ....based on evidence and hundreds of years of scientific research and methodology, rather than a lack of evidence (as per religion/faith.)

I would certainly agree, however, that the measurements people use are rarely the full picture.

I generally advise that the most useful figure is averaged figures of the person's weight over time.

This gives the best idea of a deficit.

From that you can work out what you need to change on CI and CO, if anything.

It doesn't, then, really matter if your figures are out - if your CI is 2000, your CO is 3000 but you're only losing .5lb a week, it suggests in reality the difference between CI and CO is around 250, not 1000. It doesn't really matter if CI is incorrect, CO or both - the reality is that you need a big difference between the two.

An obvious example - if I was to use the IIMYM calculator it says my TDEE is around 2500.
On average I eat around 3250 calories a day (before cardio, eat back cardio calories) and for the moment my weight is staying constant. By those figures I should be gaining 1.5lb a week and to hit my target of .5lb a week I should be eating LESS.
I'm pretty sure that it's the CO side that is out (I doubt my CI is too low, as generally when tested food is more likely to be over), but it really doesn't matter - what does is that if this trend continues, I need to eat more food to achieve my goal.

I agree with a lot of what you say, certainly hedging your bets by having a bigger deficit than the figures suggest, whilst still eating enough to cover your micro nutrients, as it is very unclear, even if you are logging your food and exercise (strictly) what your actual calorie in and calorie out is (or energy in and energy out)!

This is why I think just blindly excepting the Cal in / Cal out principle is a little bit flawed. It's a great idea to log your food and exercise, I do not have any negs on that, as it works great for a lot of people - but at the end of the day it's just a guide and not the definitive answer.

I think possibly that is what the post above us was pointing out.

jennifer_417

If it's not that simple, I guess it must be an imaginary 53 lbs that I lost eating whatever the hell I wanted...*shrug*

amwbox

The law of thermodynamics does NOT say Calories in .vs . calories out. It says ENERGY IN .vs. ENERGY OUT.

and People believe that the calories that the are recording is the exact same thing as ENERGY and it's not.

To start with the calorific values that people are recording are estimates of quantities of estimates of Calorific values (just look at the range of given values for the calorific values of the same food items - they are BIG % ranges).

Next look at the BIG ranges given for the same number of Calories burned for doing the same exercise (even with HRMs) by different exercise recording sites -

The note that y'all are NOT even recording ALL of the Energy OUT as you have zero idea how much energy you piss and crap away.

Some people look at this CICO like a religion - with blind faith and their eyes closed and will not tolerate any question that they're 100% right when they are not even taking the full parameters of the energy equation into account.

A true scientific mind would at least be open to the possibility that the system is not perfect and not be lead by dogma.

Are we on the right lines - sure I think so BUT we are working with and incomplete set of tools and estimated parameters

I don't think anyone claims it to be perfect. Or a religion. Or any of that nonsense.

It goes without saying that there are margins of error and movement within particular ranges based on particular variables. Similarly, not all thermometers are perfectly calibrated, not all clocks keep perfect time each other, and not all rulers are exactly the same length. Etc etc.

But, within that range of error, it absolutely is correct, and it absolutely does work.

And yes. Calories are literally a measure of energy. Its actually the definition of the WORD, even.

Just because something isn't quite PERFECT...doesn't mean it isn't absolutely good enough.

MireyGal76

Just curious, for those who believe that CI=/=CO...

how do you recommend people go about losing weight?

Deipneus

"Calories in minus calories out" is the key to weight loss. Fitness is a whole 'nother matter.

bcattoes

Just curious, for those who believe that CI=/=CO...

how do you recommend people go about losing weight?

CI=CO would be maintenance, correct? CI=/=CO could mean fat loss or gain.

I think the post earlier about all the unknowns when it comes to energy intake and expenditure in any given human is the real crux of the argument. Just track your calories eaten does not always give a true picture of CI, and getting a good estimate of CO is even harder.

These unknowns are magnified for those with medical conditions, especially conditions that affect digestion, nutrient absorption, or fat storage. I don't know that anyone really thinks one can lose fat without a calorie deficit or medical procedure. They are simply pointing out it is sometimes more complicated that simply tracking calories.

bcattoes

There is a couple great books on it but they will never be best sellers because people just cant let themselves believe it so simple.

http://evidencemag.com/flexible-dieting-book/

Or maybe they desparately want to believe that it doesn't have to be that hard.

SIMPLE =/= EASY

a concept may be simple, but it doesn't mean it isn't hard as hell to achieve.

Exactly my point. Perhaps it's not that they believe this simple concept won't work. It's that they desperately want to believe an easier to implement concept will.

SnuggleSmacks

(snip)
The note that y'all are NOT even recording ALL of the Energy OUT as you have zero idea how much energy you piss and crap away.
(snip)

If you get a Bodymedia band, you'll have at least a very educated guess as to how much energy you piss and crap away. It was tested as being the closest thing to accurate outside of medical equipment which involved masks and measuring expended gases. Mine really surprised me as to how much I actually burn.

slk_5555

I was getting so bogged down with BMI TDEE Etc a while back & frustrated that I could not achieve a relatively consistent weight loss. I decided to forget all the theories & equations & strip it back - to simplify it to Cals in V cals out & it worked for me.

I am now meticulous with weighing/ tracking to get the most accurate cals in possible. I was relatively good before, but realized even small errors could add up to an insufficient weekly deficit.

I then invested in a fitbit in an attempt to get a more accurate estimate of cals out. My main exercise right now is walking/hiking so the fitbit is great for this too. No more guessing on whether I was sedentary, lightly active etc. I have been doing this for about 8 weeks now and have lost consistently and pretty much in line with the cal deficit which I have calculated over this period. Prior to this consistent weight loss was a struggle & a complete mystery.

I'm not saying other methods don't work, but I do believe that the simpler the equation - the less room for error there is. I now feel like I am back in control after many years of yoyoing.

jmangini

So, I haven't read through the whole thread, but has the twinkie diet been mentioned already?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

thats pretty eye opening. Thanks for posting it

MireyGal76

Just curious, for those who believe that CI=/=CO...

how do you recommend people go about losing weight?

CI=CO would be maintenance, correct? CI=/=CO could mean fat loss or gain.

I think the post earlier about all the unknowns when it comes to energy intake and expenditure in any given human is the real crux of the argument. Just track your calories eaten does not always give a true picture of CI, and getting a good estimate of CO is even harder.

These unknowns are magnified for those with medical conditions, especially conditions that affect digestion, nutrient absorption, or fat storage. I don't know that anyone really thinks one can lose fat without a calorie deficit or medical procedure. They are simply pointing out it is sometimes more complicated that simply tracking calories.

I apologize for not wording my question better. I meant to say
"for those who believe that it's not a matter of calories in vs calories out, how do you recommend people go about losing weight?"

I don't think anyone here has said that calories in vs calories out was "simply tracking calories"... I could be wrong and should probably review all the posts to be sure. But if you could accurately judge both sides of the equation, it WOULD all come down to CI<CO.

I have no IDEA what my calories out REALLY is... so I base my day on "sedentary" even though I KNOW I am not. When I'm entering my cals, I often pick the higher number, or estimate up. I guestimate my burns based on my HRM (and often log lower).

I'm pretty sure my maintenance is not 2000 per day, but rather a fair bit higher. BUT...I like the psychological perks that I get from 'breaking the rules' from time to time. Makes me feel naughty.

Part of me wants a bodyfit type device to see what my actual burn is... but part of me doesn't... because I've found what seems to be working.

bcattoes

Just curious, for those who believe that CI=/=CO...

how do you recommend people go about losing weight?

CI=CO would be maintenance, correct? CI=/=CO could mean fat loss or gain.

I think the post earlier about all the unknowns when it comes to energy intake and expenditure in any given human is the real crux of the argument. Just track your calories eaten does not always give a true picture of CI, and getting a good estimate of CO is even harder.

These unknowns are magnified for those with medical conditions, especially conditions that affect digestion, nutrient absorption, or fat storage. I don't know that anyone really thinks one can lose fat without a calorie deficit or medical procedure. They are simply pointing out it is sometimes more complicated that simply tracking calories.

I apologize for not wording my question better. I meant to say
"for those who believe that it's not a matter of calories in vs calories out, how do you recommend people go about losing weight?"

I don't think anyone here has said that calories in vs calories out was "simply tracking calories"... I could be wrong and should probably review all the posts to be sure. But if you could accurately judge both sides of the equation, it WOULD all come down to CI<CO.

I think we are saying pretty much the same thing, though I disagree that there are no people on MFP saying it all comes down to logging. Maybe not on this thread, I too would have to go back and re-read. But if someone suggests that they are doing everything right and still not losing, inevitably there will be multiple responses that they are not tracking accurately. And that they are not a "special snowflake" and they are just doing something wrong.

And while that is no doubt sometimes true, it is not necessarily true. It's possible to do everything right on paper and still not have a deficit inside your body.

It's also possible to have a calorie deficit and not lose weight, since weight loss is not always equal to fat loss. Inflammation from medicines or reactions to certain foods can cause more than a few lbs of weight gain in some people. And some medical conditions can simply change the way your body stores fat.

The human body is a complicated thing. Weight loss is not a level playing field.

yopeeps025

There is the whole calories in calories out that kinda of works for weight loss. There are other factors to look at during this journey. Fitness is underrated in my opinion.

STrooper

In the end, it still comes down to calories in versus calories out over some sufficently long time period. Or more precisely, calories/unit time over some sufficiently baseline time period to be meaningful but not to to radically influenced by short-period transients.

For example, while we may be "measuring calories" for food, we are actually looking at calories/day (or perhaps it would actually be better to look at calories/day on a 7-10 day block average). When we are looking at calories expended we are estimating calories expended per day. Thermodynamically, energy per unit of time equals power.

For human activity, there is some suffiently large non-zero minimum calorie expenditure or "burn-rate" required for the electrochemical processes of "living" to be maintained.. Being at a stable weight or a plateau means nothing more than your energy input for utilization by your body is ultimately being balanced by your energy expended for all activities. At best we have approximations of both with varying degrees of precision and accuracy.