Is calories in, calories out truly accurate?
Replies
-
It's a good thing you didn't post this earlier in the day because a lot of people in this thread would have been utterly destroyed by the regulars.
And yes, for weight loss it is as simple as CICO. See the twinkie diet, McD's diet etc.
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/digesting-whole-vs-processed-foods
This article addresses the twinkie diet.
It was never said that you couldn't lose weight that way, just that it was not the most effecient way.
The concept of the Thermal Effect of Food is addressed, which is how much energy you expend just digesting the food. It turns out it's a significant amount, and differs greatly between different types of foods.
And I don't care if you are "regular" or a "newbie" to this site. I only care if you are correct.
TEF is pretty negligible but whatever.0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.
Precisely my point. Our bodily processes are not ruled simply by mathematical equations. There are so many different factors in our physiology to take into account. Even just the fact that it takes much more energy to digest 100 calories of protein than it does 100 calories of sugar is a HUGE factor that we should learn to use to our advantage. I mean, why make things harder than they have to be? I feel losing weight is hard enough as it is!
Are you trying to use links to what we understand about caloric intake to demonstrate that we don't understand caloric intake? Thermogenic digestion is something we know about, you can't point to that and say calories in and calories out is wrong because of this effect we know about because we know about it and can take it into account. Are you instead saying that calories in calories out doesn't work because there are things that we don't know about? Well that is a cop out, you could say that about everything. Do we know everything about anything? Doesn't mean we can't establish some basic principles that are tried and true and work time and time and time again when put into practice.
Let me ask you this...when you record your food in MFP, which I am assuming you do, do you take TEF into account?
Do you say ok, I entered 300 calories of protein, which took me 90 calories to digest, so let me subtract that from the 300? No, you don't, and neither does anyone else. That's why it matters.
I'm not saying that decreasing caloric intake doesn't cause you to lose weight, I'm saying that eating the right foods can cause you to lose more weight more quickly..
When did this become a strictly exclusionary argument?
Yup I do, but I use the values from exrx.com on the thermogenic effect of digestion.based on the Achsen study in 1983 http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/EnergyBalance.html. My diet is about 40/40/20 protein/carb/fat so I just drop about 100 cals due to thermogenic effect. I usually hit my macros so I just drop that standard amount rather than micro managing it.
It really doesn't make a big diff though and it is not the reason I have a high protein diet, its effect is pretty negligible although track-able.
Why would you assume I wouldn't do that? I'm pretty much a huge dork when it comes to these sorts of things and it seems to be working pretty well for me. Have managed to keep my weight loss right on target and perfectly linear.0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.
Precisely my point. Our bodily processes are not ruled simply by mathematical equations. There are so many different factors in our physiology to take into account. Even just the fact that it takes much more energy to digest 100 calories of protein than it does 100 calories of sugar is a HUGE factor that we should learn to use to our advantage. I mean, why make things harder than they have to be? I feel losing weight is hard enough as it is!
Are you trying to use links to what we understand about caloric intake to demonstrate that we don't understand caloric intake? Thermogenic digestion is something we know about, you can't point to that and say calories in and calories out is wrong because of this effect we know about because we know about it and can take it into account. Are you instead saying that calories in calories out doesn't work because there are things that we don't know about? Well that is a cop out, you could say that about everything. Do we know everything about anything? Doesn't mean we can't establish some basic principles that are tried and true and work time and time and time again when put into practice.
Let me ask you this...when you record your food in MFP, which I am assuming you do, do you take TEF into account?
Do you say ok, I entered 300 calories of protein, which took me 90 calories to digest, so let me subtract that from the 300? No, you don't, and neither does anyone else. That's why it matters.
I'm not saying that decreasing caloric intake doesn't cause you to lose weight, I'm saying that eating the right foods can cause you to lose more weight more quickly..
When did this become a strictly exclusionary argument?
Yup I do, but I use the values from exrx.com on the thermogenic effect of digestion.based on the Achsen study in 1983 http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/EnergyBalance.html. My diet is about 40/40/20 protein/carb/fat so I just drop about 100 cals due to thermogenic effect. I usually hit my macros so I just drop that standard amount rather than micro managing it.
It really doesn't make a big diff though and it is not the reason I have a high protein diet, its effect is pretty negligible although track-able.
Why would you assume I wouldn't do that? I'm pretty much a huge dork when it comes to these sorts of things and it seems to be working pretty well for me. Have managed to keep my weight loss right on target and perfectly linear.
Well, I am surprised. Would you assume everyone else does that, too? I highly doubt that the OP does...0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.
Precisely my point. Our bodily processes are not ruled simply by mathematical equations. There are so many different factors in our physiology to take into account. Even just the fact that it takes much more energy to digest 100 calories of protein than it does 100 calories of sugar is a HUGE factor that we should learn to use to our advantage. I mean, why make things harder than they have to be? I feel losing weight is hard enough as it is!
Are you trying to use links to what we understand about caloric intake to demonstrate that we don't understand caloric intake? Thermogenic digestion is something we know about, you can't point to that and say calories in and calories out is wrong because of this effect we know about because we know about it and can take it into account. Are you instead saying that calories in calories out doesn't work because there are things that we don't know about? Well that is a cop out, you could say that about everything. Do we know everything about anything? Doesn't mean we can't establish some basic principles that are tried and true and work time and time and time again when put into practice.
Let me ask you this...when you record your food in MFP, which I am assuming you do, do you take TEF into account?
Do you say ok, I entered 300 calories of protein, which took me 90 calories to digest, so let me subtract that from the 300? No, you don't, and neither does anyone else. That's why it matters.
I'm not saying that decreasing caloric intake doesn't cause you to lose weight, I'm saying that eating the right foods can cause you to lose more weight more quickly..
When did this become a strictly exclusionary argument?
Yup I do, but I use the values from exrx.com on the thermogenic effect of digestion.based on the Achsen study in 1983 http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/EnergyBalance.html. My diet is about 40/40/20 protein/carb/fat so I just drop about 100 cals due to thermogenic effect. I usually hit my macros so I just drop that standard amount rather than micro managing it.
It really doesn't make a big diff though and it is not the reason I have a high protein diet, its effect is pretty negligible although track-able.
Why would you assume I wouldn't do that? I'm pretty much a huge dork when it comes to these sorts of things and it seems to be working pretty well for me. Have managed to keep my weight loss right on target and perfectly linear.
Well, I am surprised. Would you assume everyone else does that, too? I highly doubt that the OP does...
Nope I don't assume that. But how is that the fault of calories in and calories out? People are responsible for their own education on this matter.
People not fully understanding or comprehending a principle is not an invalidation of that principle. I don't think I understand everything about caloric input versus output but what I do understand seems to hold water and seems to be useful so I utilize that. I don't see a more valid alternative, do you?0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
Exactly this. This is why we are friends.0 -
Speaking from personal experience, I can say that I have lost weight previously on a high protein, lower carb diet, even though my net calories were higher than I am eating now. I can give some reasons for that, but I can't fully explain it. I prefer to eat the way I am now, and want something that is more sustainable long term. Incidentally, after eating low carb to lose the majority of my weight, I then transitioned to a moderate carb, calorie controlled diet to hit my final goal, and I maintained it within 5-10 lbs for several years without consciously "dieting:". It was actually a break up, depression, and anti-depression medications (I tried several) that triggered at first undereating and over-exercising (due to depression), and then over-eating once the meds started working. I am not making excuses, just explaining how it all unfolded. I'm now off all medications and trying to get back to that happy "conscious eating" medium that I had before. I know it will probably take me at least a year to reach my goal, which is fine..0
-
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.
I skimmed the jama link on a different thread. When asked if the higher TEE and REE of the alternate diet participants actually translated to greater weight loss, since the study was long enough to have shown this, the person who posted the link said all she was talking about was TEE and REE. (Total/Resting energy expenditure). Be that as it may, does anyone really care about those numbers if it doesn't translate to a lower/higher number on the scale?0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.
Precisely my point. Our bodily processes are not ruled simply by mathematical equations. There are so many different factors in our physiology to take into account. Even just the fact that it takes much more energy to digest 100 calories of protein than it does 100 calories of sugar is a HUGE factor that we should learn to use to our advantage. I mean, why make things harder than they have to be? I feel losing weight is hard enough as it is!
Are you trying to use links to what we understand about caloric intake to demonstrate that we don't understand caloric intake? Thermogenic digestion is something we know about, you can't point to that and say calories in and calories out is wrong because of this effect we know about because we know about it and can take it into account. Are you instead saying that calories in calories out doesn't work because there are things that we don't know about? Well that is a cop out, you could say that about everything. Do we know everything about anything? Doesn't mean we can't establish some basic principles that are tried and true and work time and time and time again when put into practice.
Let me ask you this...when you record your food in MFP, which I am assuming you do, do you take TEF into account?
Do you say ok, I entered 300 calories of protein, which took me 90 calories to digest, so let me subtract that from the 300? No, you don't, and neither does anyone else. That's why it matters.
I'm not saying that decreasing caloric intake doesn't cause you to lose weight, I'm saying that eating the right foods can cause you to lose more weight more quickly..
When did this become a strictly exclusionary argument?
Yup I do, but I use the values from exrx.com on the thermogenic effect of digestion.based on the Achsen study in 1983 http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/EnergyBalance.html. My diet is about 40/40/20 protein/carb/fat so I just drop about 100 cals due to thermogenic effect. I usually hit my macros so I just drop that standard amount rather than micro managing it.
It really doesn't make a big diff though and it is not the reason I have a high protein diet, its effect is pretty negligible although track-able.
Why would you assume I wouldn't do that? I'm pretty much a huge dork when it comes to these sorts of things and it seems to be working pretty well for me. Have managed to keep my weight loss right on target and perfectly linear.
Well, I am surprised. Would you assume everyone else does that, too? I highly doubt that the OP does...
Nope I don't assume that. But how is that the fault of calories in and calories out? People are responsible for their own education on this matter.
People not fully understanding or comprehending a principle is not an invalidation of that principle. I don't think I understand everything about caloric input versus output but what I do understand seems to hold water and seems to be useful so I utilize that. I don't see a more valid alternative, do you?
Yes, taking macros into account. Treating carbs, fat, and protein differently, which it seems you do. So I'm not sure what your argument with me is?0 -
Speaking from personal experience, I can say that I have lost weight previously on a high protein, lower carb diet, even though my net calories were higher than I am eating now. I can give some reasons for that, but I can't fully explain it
O_o
Magic.0 -
Yes, calories in calories out is accurate. This is verifiable because a calorie is merely a specific measurement of energy.
Where it gets rough is when you factor all the variables in. Accuracy in measurement. Accuracy in reporting. Individual caloric usage and maintenance levels. Etc etc etc.
Calories is the most accurate, scientific method for measuring this stuff.
The body doesn't care if the food is "whole" "natural" "real" or whatever else. As far as those little boichemical glucose reactors in your cells that are producing all your energy are concerned...its all just calories. They don't much care where it came from.
The body does care if food is whole, natural or fake and processed. The same calories in white bread are processed so quickly and spikes insulin compared to the same calories in cabbage will work the crap (ha ha) out of your body to process it. Sugar and non-nutritional foods require the body's resources to digest the food and actually become negative nutrition.
Think of it like lifting weights. A weight weighs 100 pounds. A body builder can lift it but a weakling cannot. The weight hasn't changed at all (a calorie is a calorie) but what is necessary to lift it is different (body process foods easy or hard).
No.
In terms of WEIGHT LOSS calories in/out is absolutely, and mathematically verifiably, correct. Anything else would be a violation of the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Nutrition on the other hand is a different discussion.
It is not mathematically verifiable in the body. Look at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 which shows a 300 calorie/day difference between low carb vs low fat diets. Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855277 which shows exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 where as 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 430 calories.
Which is a matter of computational inaccuracy...not an upending of the laws of physics. A calorie is a given amount of energy. Obviously different bodies and different processes use different amounts of energy to do different things. I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing against the wishful thinking that calories are somehow a subjective matter of personal interpretation, as opposed to an objective reality of thermodynamics.
Just out of curiousity, but this is killing me...are you trying to lose 238 lbs or is that your goal weight?0 -
Speaking from personal experience, I can say that I have lost weight previously on a high protein, lower carb diet, even though my net calories were higher than I am eating now. I can give some reasons for that, but I can't fully explain it
O_o
Magic.
Well, with your "calories in calories out" argument, how would you explain it?0 -
Yes, taking macros into account. Treating carbs, fat, and protein differently, which it seems you do. So I'm not sure what your argument with me is?
Well I suppose my "argument" might be based on a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say but it seemed to me like you were saying that in your experience that eating high protein low carb you could lose weight eating more calories (as labeled on food) than if you ate higher carb low protein) and therefore calories in calories out was somehow invalid.
My argument would be just because one is true does not make calories in calories out invalid it just means that there are many factors involved in being able to estimate your input versus your output which I think everyone already knows is true.
So I guess I'd turn it around and ask you what your argument with CICO is?0 -
Yes, taking macros into account. Treating carbs, fat, and protein differently, which it seems you do. So I'm not sure what your argument with me is?
Well I suppose my "argument" might be based on a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say but it seemed to me like you were saying that in your experience that eating high protein low carb you could lose weight eating more calories (as labeled on food) than if you ate higher carb low protein) and therefore calories in calories out was somehow invalid.
My argument would be just because one is true does not make calories in calories out invalid it just means that there are many factors involved in being able to estimate your input versus your output which I think everyone already knows is true.
So I guess I'd turn it around and ask you what your argument with CICO is?
My debate is with how you define "calories in" and "calories out." And that you are over simplifying when you say "My body reacts the same to 2000 calories worth of chocolate cake as it does to 2000 calories worth of raw carrots, or 2000 calories worth of chicken breast." Because it doesn't. Anyway, I believe we are at an impasse.0 -
Yes, taking macros into account. Treating carbs, fat, and protein differently, which it seems you do. So I'm not sure what your argument with me is?
Well I suppose my "argument" might be based on a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say but it seemed to me like you were saying that in your experience that eating high protein low carb you could lose weight eating more calories (as labeled on food) than if you ate higher carb low protein) and therefore calories in calories out was somehow invalid.
My argument would be just because one is true does not make calories in calories out invalid it just means that there are many factors involved in being able to estimate your input versus your output which I think everyone already knows is true.
So I guess I'd turn it around and ask you what your argument with CICO is?
My debate is with how you define "calories in" and "calories out." And that you are over simplifying when you say "My body reacts the same to 2000 calories worth of chocolate cake as it does to 2000 calories worth of raw carrots, or 2000 calories worth of chicken breast." Because it doesn't. Anyway, I believe we are at an impasse.
When did I say that? I think perhaps you are confusing me with another poster.0 -
1. In very general terms, calories in and out are all that is required to lose weight.
2. Being smarter about where those calories come from can make weight loss easier, and will be better for your overall health and composition.
3. An unusual diet found on someone's blog can safely be excluded from the evidence under review.0 -
1. In very general terms, calories in and out are all that is required to lose weight.
2. Being smarter about where those calories come from can make weight loss easier, and will be better for your overall health and composition.
3. An unusual diet found on someone's blog can safely be excluded from the evidence under review.
This.
I assume this is something we can all agree on.0 -
1. In very general terms, calories in and out are all that is required to lose weight.
2. Being smarter about where those calories come from can make weight loss easier, and will be better for your overall health and composition.
3. An unusual diet found on someone's blog can safely be excluded from the evidence under review.
I would certainly agree.0 -
Yes, taking macros into account. Treating carbs, fat, and protein differently, which it seems you do. So I'm not sure what your argument with me is?
Well I suppose my "argument" might be based on a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say but it seemed to me like you were saying that in your experience that eating high protein low carb you could lose weight eating more calories (as labeled on food) than if you ate higher carb low protein) and therefore calories in calories out was somehow invalid.
My argument would be just because one is true does not make calories in calories out invalid it just means that there are many factors involved in being able to estimate your input versus your output which I think everyone already knows is true.
So I guess I'd turn it around and ask you what your argument with CICO is?
My debate is with how you define "calories in" and "calories out." And that you are over simplifying when you say "My body reacts the same to 2000 calories worth of chocolate cake as it does to 2000 calories worth of raw carrots, or 2000 calories worth of chicken breast." Because it doesn't. Anyway, I believe we are at an impasse.
When did I say that? I think perhaps you are confusing me with another poster.
I may have been confusing you with the other poster who said he could eat chocolate cake or eggs, and as long as the calories were the same, he would have the same results.0 -
Yes, taking macros into account. Treating carbs, fat, and protein differently, which it seems you do. So I'm not sure what your argument with me is?
Well I suppose my "argument" might be based on a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say but it seemed to me like you were saying that in your experience that eating high protein low carb you could lose weight eating more calories (as labeled on food) than if you ate higher carb low protein) and therefore calories in calories out was somehow invalid.
My argument would be just because one is true does not make calories in calories out invalid it just means that there are many factors involved in being able to estimate your input versus your output which I think everyone already knows is true.
So I guess I'd turn it around and ask you what your argument with CICO is?
My debate is with how you define "calories in" and "calories out." And that you are over simplifying when you say "My body reacts the same to 2000 calories worth of chocolate cake as it does to 2000 calories worth of raw carrots, or 2000 calories worth of chicken breast." Because it doesn't. Anyway, I believe we are at an impasse.
When did I say that? I think perhaps you are confusing me with another poster.
I may have been confusing you with the other poster who said he could eat chocolate cake or eggs, and as long as the calories were the same, he would have the same results.
No worries. Cheers, I'm calling it a night. Have a good one.0 -
Yes, taking macros into account. Treating carbs, fat, and protein differently, which it seems you do. So I'm not sure what your argument with me is?
Well I suppose my "argument" might be based on a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say but it seemed to me like you were saying that in your experience that eating high protein low carb you could lose weight eating more calories (as labeled on food) than if you ate higher carb low protein) and therefore calories in calories out was somehow invalid.
My argument would be just because one is true does not make calories in calories out invalid it just means that there are many factors involved in being able to estimate your input versus your output which I think everyone already knows is true.
So I guess I'd turn it around and ask you what your argument with CICO is?
My debate is with how you define "calories in" and "calories out." And that you are over simplifying when you say "My body reacts the same to 2000 calories worth of chocolate cake as it does to 2000 calories worth of raw carrots, or 2000 calories worth of chicken breast." Because it doesn't. Anyway, I believe we are at an impasse.
When did I say that? I think perhaps you are confusing me with another poster.
I may have been confusing you with the other poster who said he could eat chocolate cake or eggs, and as long as the calories were the same, he would have the same results.
No worries. Cheers, I'm calling it a night. Have a good one.
Good night.0 -
Nope.
There's a biig difference between fat calories, carb calories, and protein calories.
A BIG difference.
No there isn't.
Each substance contains a specific caloric value per gram.
There difference comes in terms of nutrition, metabolic pathways, efficiency, etc. In weight loss terms, I can lose weight by eating whatever. And I have been, all month. I've alternated between fried eggs and chocolate cake...the weight comes off all the same if the calories are the same.
Actually there is, here's why:
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
Like almost every article that takes this position, this one uses a strawman argument as its basis. It claims that proponents of CICO attribute all weight gain to overeating, which only proves they have a shallow understanding of the argument.0 -
Speaking from personal experience, I can say that I have lost weight previously on a high protein, lower carb diet, even though my net calories were higher than I am eating now. I can give some reasons for that, but I can't fully explain it
O_o
Magic.
Well, with your "calories in calories out" argument, how would you explain it?
When you take in more calories than you expend, you gain weight.
When you expend more calories than you take in, you lose weight.
This is (as the article you posted mentioned) is an unbreakable law of physics that is not even up for debate. You don't eat more and lose more weight as you claimed. That's impossible. The problem is on YOUR end with your tracking accuracy.I may have been confusing you with the other poster who said he could eat chocolate cake or eggs, and as long as the calories were the same, he would have the same results
in terms of pure weight loss (which he emphasized several times throughout his posts), YES his results would be the same. I'm not sure what you are even arguing here? Not a few posts above, you already agreed that1. In very general terms, calories in and out are all that is required to lose weight.0 -
Speaking from personal experience, I can say that I have lost weight previously on a high protein, lower carb diet, even though my net calories were higher than I am eating now. I can give some reasons for that, but I can't fully explain it
O_o
Magic.
Well, with your "calories in calories out" argument, how would you explain it?
When you take in more calories than you expend, you gain weight.
When you expend more calories than you take in, you lose weight.
This is (as the article you posted mentioned) is an unbreakable law of physics that is not even up for debate. You don't eat more and lose more weight as you claimed. That's impossible. The problem is on YOUR end with your tracking accuracy.I may have been confusing you with the other poster who said he could eat chocolate cake or eggs, and as long as the calories were the same, he would have the same results
in terms of pure weight loss (which he emphasized several times throughout his posts), YES his results would be the same. I'm not sure what you are even arguing here? Not a few posts above, you already agreed that1. In very general terms, calories in and out are all that is required to lose weight.
I said you WILL certainly lose weight if you consume less calories than you burn, but you will lose MORE if you also take into account what you are eating. What aren't you understanding? So someone loses weight eating twinkies all day, so what? If they had eaten chicken and veggies instead (same amount of calories according to the packaged calorie counts) they would have lost more quickly (not to mention probably be less hungry and a whole lot healthier, and lost more fat than muscle, which is the point, isn't it?)0 -
0
-
<
It got me this body, so yes. It is accurate.0 -
Bump0
-
It is way more complicated than calories in, calories out.
But we really don't have any method to accurately figure all the things involved. Calories plus macros works as a helpful guideline for most of us as we are working at getting better bodies. But 100% accurate? lol...no way. not on any day. Thank goodness we don't need it to be accurate.0 -
Why don't you try and let us know?
0 -
If CICO is so complicated then someone explain to me how I've lost 79 lbs in a year and only 5 lbs of lean body mass? I eat carbs, I eat fat, I eat protein, I eat fast food, I eat ice cream, I eat donuts, I don't eat Twinkies though but I do occasionally eat McD's. I try to meet my macros but I'm off more often then not.
What is so complicated because I am not a special snowflake and my body does not defy the law of physics?0 -
Jesus ChristSo someone loses weight eating twinkies all day, so what? If they had eaten chicken and veggies instead (same amount of calories according to the packaged calorie counts) they would have lost more quickly (not to mention probably be less hungry and a whole lot healthier, and lost more fat than muscle, which is the point, isn't it?)
The twinkie diet is used as an extreme example to demonstrate that CICO is all that matters. No one is advocating you eat twinkies all day. Was that not implicit? There is a bigger problem here so let's move on to the heart of the matter:I said you WILL certainly lose weight if you consume less calories than you burn, but you will lose MORE if you also take into account what you are eating. What aren't you understanding?
You are greatly overestimating the power of TEF. Aaron and I have already pointed out to you that its effect in the standard diet are negligible. But since you're not convinced or being willfully ignorant consider these:Comparing the "standard American diet" (65/15/20) to a low carb diet (10/30/60.) Using a 2000 calorie diet, the SAD would yield a TEF of about 198 calories. The low carb diet (which has double the protein) actually has a lower TEF, 164 calories approximately So a person drastically cutting carbs and doubling their protein intake would actually burn less calories overall, not more. But again, that's a difference of about 30 calories, which is completely insignificant considering the lack of precision in calculating caloric intake and burn.
The take away from this is that unless you're eating nothing but protein, which is impractical, the other macros will even out or cancel the protein's TEF.
From leading health and nutrition authority Lyle McDonald:However, for the most part, such extreme [protein] intakes aren’t practical or used outside of the bodybuilding subculture. In all but the most extreme diets, protein stays fairly static and carbs and fats are shuffled around; the effect is typically minimal in terms of TEF.
BTW: Im still awaiting your answer on how you managed to break the laws of thermodynamics by losing more weight by eating more.
.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions