Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Replies
-
hormone fluctuations alter the calories out part. Water bloating isn't part of weight gain or loss in my book, you wouldn't say you didn't lose anything if you went on your scale naked first and the next time fully clothed and with a gallon bottle of water in your hand, would you? Water retention is usually temporary, small fluctuations by a few pounds from one day to the other.Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I have no idea what TOM is.
I can assure you, if you were on a 8000 cal deficit you lost body weight. Maybe retained some water but not enough to make up for over 16 pounds. More likely: you didn't calculate your TDEE properly, or you didn't measure your food intake properly and heartrate monitors are often notoriously inaccurate to begin with.0 -
Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?
Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.
If you have any, I'd love to see them.
Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
ON LINE liabrary is not a scientific study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marc-Andre Cornier1,†, W. Troy Donahoo1,2, Rocio Pereira1, Inga Gurevich5, Rickard Westergren6, Sven Enerback6, Peter J. Eckel3, Marc L. Goalstone1,5, James O. Hill2,4, Robert H. Eckel1,3 andBoris Draznin1,5,*
would all likely take exception to your allegation.0 -
Relevant figure from the 1964 metabolic study conducted by Kinsell et al.
Alterations in macronutrient ratios made no difference on rate of weight loss over a 3 month period when subject was in a completely controlled environment. This study was done in a hospital under completely controlled conditions, subject only ate what was given to them by the study coordinators...it was not a "survey".
You asked for a study that supports CICO and I provided one. Are you going to respond to it at all or just ignore it?
A 1964 study, you can do better then this, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0 -
No, but the cited sources are.Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?
Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.
If you have any, I'd love to see them.
Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
ON LINE liabrary is not a scientific study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0 -
Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?
Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.
If you have any, I'd love to see them.
Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
ON LINE liabrary is not a scientific study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:facepalm: yeah, actually...that one is a study.0 -
Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?
Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.
If you have any, I'd love to see them.
Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
I was referring to studies on people with similar metabolic issues (sorry - should have been clearer). I agree - insulin sensitivity impacts fat loss - but that is the the CO portion of the CICO.
Not all calories are equal - but it is still CICO.
But that's the whole point and why CICO has limited practical application. It's great for those with no issues. But for those with issues, it has limitations. And over 40% of the US adult population has insulin resistance issues -- that's not just a few special snowflakes. Thyroid issues are estimated at something like 8% of the US population. So, once again, CICO is a great guideline, but it has limitations and it's not an absolute law as far as practical application is concerned for your average dieter (i.e. non-physicists).
For example, it's really helpful to know that if you are insulin sensitive, you'll lose more fat eating 60% carbs, 20% fat and 20% protein in an isocaloric deficit as opposed to 40/40/20. Or if you're insulin resistant, it will be the exact opposite. Sure, a deficit is still needed, but how you create that deficit can maximize your results. Some that just rely on CICO alone miss this.0 -
Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?
Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.
If you have any, I'd love to see them.
http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/
Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
ON LINE liabrary is not a scientific study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:facepalm: yeah, actually...that one is a study.0 -
http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/
Is still your rebuttal to an actual study?
It's a ****ing blog selling an ebook. Are you really that slow?0 -
-
I do NOT believe in "calories in, calories out". But I do know that when I was younger, [I am 45] that it was MUCH easier to lose weight. My body responded to any prompt at all to drop pounds. I notice that many of the people who go with 'cals in, cals out" are younger. If it works for you, GREAT!
But as I have aged, it has gotten increasingly more difficult to lose weight and I couldn't lose anything of my belly area at all! So I did my research, and went grain/corn free. I am doing great now, lower blood pressure, no bursitis pain, more energy, hormones evened out and the thinnest I've been in years. Before I started this WOE I worked out constantly, ate high fiber, low fat and as clean as possible. But nothing was happening and my health was deteriorating. I now eat more fat than I ever have along with plenty of fruits, veggies, dairy, beans, eggs and all meats (minus processed lunch meats) and I am steadily losing weight. So for me, it's is the type of calories I am consuming - clearly!
it all boils down to final calories you put in your body...eating "clean" might help one to feel full and satified at the same time so they don't go overboard....
Despite all weight loss stuff, I think eating food of quality is beneficial no matter what.0 -
http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/
Is still your rebuttal to an actual study?
It's a ****ing blog selling an ebook. Are you really that slow?
LOLOLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/249849880 -
Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.0 -
When you all show me your scientific data that cico is fact I will show you more scientific data.
ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They have...your turn.
Just curious, do you use this site to count your calories?
IT'S CALLED MYFITNESSPAL, NOT A CALORIE COUNTING SITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sorry you don't like to be wrong, but you are LOLLLLLL!!!
"MyFitnessPal
www.myfitnesspal.com/
Over 50 million people have lost weight with MyFitnessPal's FREE calorie counter. Get free access to the world's largest food database. "0 -
Says nothing about CICO.0 -
What exact point are you trying to make?0 -
I would just like to say, I am very proud of keto lady for participating today, without childishly calling everyone "haters" over and over.
Although I still never agree with her opinions.0 -
Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.
Or we just don't have a mathematical model that can account for all the variables...yet.0 -
Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.
[/quot
Yes Hormones play a big role.0 -
http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/
I can only imagine how much stuff she buys from being too gullible.
This site was too flashy for me to take seriously.
Is there another source? There are none right now.
I believe in CICO. Another think I believe in is hitting your micro nutrient numbers. If you do not health problems in the future or now that you have no symptoms to0 -
Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"
lol - where exactly did anyone say it was good for you. Don't try and move the goal posts .
Keep posting. I like looking at your avatar.0 -
Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.
Or we just don't have a mathematical model that can account for all the variables...yet.
Our body is complicated, many factors play into our genetics and calorie is not just a calorie.0 -
Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.
[/quot
Yes Hormones play a big role.
You haven't answered my question yet. If not by consuming less than you burn, how are you planning on losing weight?0 -
But if you don't eat a particular calorie, it still can't make you fatter.Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.
Or we just don't have a mathematical model that can account for all the variables...yet.
Our body is complicated, many factors play into our genetics and calorie is not just a calorie.0 -
I would just like to say, I am very proud of keto lady for participating today, without childishly calling everyone "haters" over and over.
Although I still never agree with her opinions.
Thank You and yes I will not be intimidated!0 -
Relevant figure from the 1964 metabolic study conducted by Kinsell et al.
Alterations in macronutrient ratios made no difference on rate of weight loss over a 3 month period when subject was in a completely controlled environment. This study was done in a hospital under completely controlled conditions, subject only ate what was given to them by the study coordinators...it was not a "survey".
You asked for a study that supports CICO and I provided one. Are you going to respond to it at all or just ignore it?
A 1964 study, you can do better then this, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we dismissed everything created from 1964 or earlier does that mean we should dismiss you?
A studies age is irrelevant, many of the most heavily cited and trusted studies are from that era becaue these days it is basically impossible for ethical standards to do the kind of controlled studies with human subjects. The Minnesota starvation experiment being another example. Think we could do that to people now with current regulations?
If you have a more recent study performed for thos duration using human subjects under completely controlled conditions please provide it I would be interested.0 -
Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.
[/quot
Yes Hormones play a big role.
I am a failed case of "calorie in and out" method but I do believe with all other factors such as hormones, fluctuation, it still has everything to do with the caloric deficit. Hormones confuse us so we can't get the number correct right away but eventually once we figure that out, it's still the number...That's just how I look at it. Having said that, I agree it's not always easy for everybody to figure it out right away...0 -
But if you don't eat a particular calorie, it still can't make you fatter.Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.
Or we just don't have a mathematical model that can account for all the variables...yet.
Our body is complicated, many factors play into our genetics and calorie is not just a calorie.
True, but does that really matter? Isn't there room for both -- that total calories matter but so do the type of calories. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.0 -
Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.
Or we just don't have a mathematical model that can account for all the variables...yet.
Our body is complicated, many factors play into our genetics and calorie is not just a calorie.
Please explain why calorie is not a calorie SO I can explain the real meaning because you are saying it wrong?0 -
Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.
I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.
Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.
Thank you, I'm thankful for your response.0 -
I would just like to say, I am very proud of keto lady for participating today, without childishly calling everyone "haters" over and over.
Although I still never agree with her opinions.
Thank You and yes I will not be intimidated!
If you REALLY wanted to look even less elementary, You could cut down on your "LOLOLOLOL" responses too. Then I would really be impressed!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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