Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

Options
1…89111314…35

Replies

  • jmv7117
    jmv7117 Posts: 891 Member
    Options
    A couple questions. I used the search function but some of the info may be outdated - not sure.

    #1) Do YOU believe in strictly calories in - calories out? As in, you could eat all of your calories in pure table sugar, and although its incredibly unhealthy, you would lose weight if you're in a caloric defecit? If so, is there ever a situation where a caloric deficit would NOT lead to weight loss?

    #2) Ever since I introduced weight lifting (bench press, squat, dead lift, shoulders) 3 weeks ago, my weight loss has screeched to a snails pace (1 pound or less per week while being in a 2.5 pound caloric deficit). It is common knowledge that you don't build muscle while in a caloric defect. Am I holding onto water in the muscles for nearly 3 weeks now? As soon as I get my hands on a tape measure large enough I'll start measuring.

    #3) If Insulin stores fat, how do we lose weight while eating carbs and sugars (even in a caloric deficit) while insulin levels are elevated?

    Thanks.

    1) NO!
    2) Yes
    3) it's complicated
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    More data:


    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/calorie-calorie-harvard-study-compares-popular-weight-loss/story?id=16654506



    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all


    Click here to learn more about the study or go to abcnews.go.com/Health/calorie-calorie-harvard-study-compares-popular-weight-loss/story?id=16654506 .

    My dear, THOSE ARE ARTICLES. NOT DATA.

    *whew* Sorry everyone, it's crazytown in this thread.
  • Hendrix7
    Hendrix7 Posts: 1,903 Member
    Options

    Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleMethods

    Thanks. Has anyone actually read this or is it a case of just passing around a study link. I'd be willing to read it if others have read it but if I end up being the only one who has actually read it can't help but feel like I will be just wasting my time.

    This is what I posted [twice] earlier which she refuses to respond to

    I have only skim read this study so forgive me......... however, no mention appears to be made of the participants actually tracking daily calorie intake? They filled out a questionnaire every 2 years to report on lifestyle changes..the study seems to report that weight gain is associated with the consumption of certain types of foods which in itself is reasonable.

    It does NOT appear to state that regardless of overall calorie intake, certain types of food lead directly weight gain.

    Based on my (admittedly very brief) look at this, it doesn't seem to support what you are saying.

    someone with more time on their hands could probably due a better job with the full text

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleMethods
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Options

    Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleMethods

    Thanks. Has anyone actually read this or is it a case of just passing around a study link. I'd be willing to read it if others have read it but if I end up being the only one who has actually read it can't help but feel like I will be just wasting my time.

    I haven't read it all but this is a salient point:

    "Participants were followed with the use of biennial validated questionnaires concerning medical history, lifestyle, and health practices."

    I'm not very moved by studies that are based on self reporting.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    Yes, because our body does not utilize every calorie the same. :)
    You seriously have got to be the worst poster I have seen on MFP in a long time. You always just throw out opinions with no substance. Ever. EVER.

    No you need to study my friend.

    http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html

    It's not my opinion. I have done many years of research on the subject, and do not have the time or inclination to post every research document that I have read over the 35+ years. CICO is wrong. Quality of foods matter, because we metabolize them differently.

    You do not need to agree with me, but you need to stick to the subject matter without attacking me personally.

    Why are we supposed to stick to your 'facts' when you don't wish back them up? I suppose that all of your knowledge comes from peer reviewed scientific research articles? Or does it come from opinion blogs? These are important distinctions. The fact that you don't even know that CICO does NOT mean food quality doesn't matter is very telling to me.


    If you read my other posts on MFP you will see that I have posted many research data, so I do back up what I'm saying. CICO is wrong.
    There aren't any studies that prove it wrong, if so please present it..........we'll wait

    Why Calories Count
    The Science Behind Why Calories Matter - And Why Dismissing Them Is Naive
    http://ca.askmen.com/sports/bodybuilding/why-calories-count.html

    "Aragon told me that no such study exists that shows people being overfed and losing weight. What’s more, there is no study in existence that shows people being underfed and not losing weight. "


    Here is one: http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
    I think you need to do some research on the difference between a scientific study and an opinion. It may help you


    Wrong Harvard is not an opinion source.

    http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html

    Yeah actually, that is an opinion source written by someone named Charlotte on a commercial website called thegreatfitness experiment. It is not a study. It mentions a "study" but when you click the link rather than take you to an actual study it takes you to another internet opinion piece by someone named Jane Brody in which a "Harvard study" is mentioned but not cited.

    Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?






    How is this my friend:

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

    Okay I did some digging on pubmed with those authors mentioned in the opinion article and came up with this study published in JAMA in 2012.

    Is this the study you are referring to?

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

    Have you read it?
  • wheird
    wheird Posts: 7,963 Member
    Options
    A couple questions. I used the search function but some of the info may be outdated - not sure.

    #1) Do YOU believe in strictly calories in - calories out? As in, you could eat all of your calories in pure table sugar, and although its incredibly unhealthy, you would lose weight if you're in a caloric defecit? If so, is there ever a situation where a caloric deficit would NOT lead to weight loss?

    #2) Ever since I introduced weight lifting (bench press, squat, dead lift, shoulders) 3 weeks ago, my weight loss has screeched to a snails pace (1 pound or less per week while being in a 2.5 pound caloric deficit). It is common knowledge that you don't build muscle while in a caloric defect. Am I holding onto water in the muscles for nearly 3 weeks now? As soon as I get my hands on a tape measure large enough I'll start measuring.

    #3) If Insulin stores fat, how do we lose weight while eating carbs and sugars (even in a caloric deficit) while insulin levels are elevated?

    Thanks.

    1. Yes. Science does not require your belief to function as intended. Your extreme example of pure sugar is asinine and would never/almost never happen in the real world. A calorie deficit will ALWAYS cause weight loss. Your body cannot make energy appear out of thin air.

    2. Water and glycogen storage mainly. Your weight loss will normalize in a few weeks.

    3. Insulin does more than store fat. And sugar isnt turned directly into fat like you are thinking. Read up on the glycogen cycle for more info on that. But your body will not accumulate fat while in a deficit. While it may create NEW fat, it will be metabolizing a greater portion of stored fat to meet your bodies energy demands.
  • 59gi
    59gi Posts: 307 Member
    Options
    When you all show me your scientific data that cico is fact I will show you more scientific data.





    ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options

    Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleMethods

    Thanks. Has anyone actually read this or is it a case of just passing around a study link. I'd be willing to read it if others have read it but if I end up being the only one who has actually read it can't help but feel like I will be just wasting my time.

    This is what I posted [twice] earlier which she refuses to respond to

    I have only skim read this study so forgive me......... however, no mention appears to be made of the participants actually tracking daily calorie intake? They filled out a questionnaire every 2 years to report on lifestyle changes..the study seems to report that weight gain is associated with the consumption of certain types of foods which in itself is reasonable.

    It does NOT appear to state that regardless of overall calorie intake, certain types of food lead directly weight gain.

    Based on my (admittedly very brief) look at this, it doesn't seem to support what you are saying.

    someone with more time on their hands could probably due a better job with the full text

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleMethods

    Well if I am going to read a study I want it to be the relevant study. The opinion pieces she referenced refered to a study published in JAMA not NEJM.

    I found this study that was published by the mentioned authors in JAMA in 2012

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

    which is around the time of the opinion pieces she linked to (also 2012). So I am thinking this is it? I don't know she won't freaking link to it for whatever reason (I'm guessing because she hasn't read it and doesn't know how to find it).

    I hate having to do a bunch of detective work for someone elses stated position.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Options
    #1 -- CICO is a good guideline, but there are a LOT of underlying assumptions in its actual calculation and application. When those assumptions go awry, it changes the balance of the equation. Insulin resistance or a thyroid problem are good examples of things going awry. The CO part of the equation is virtually impossible to calculate accurately. So keeping those two caveats in mind, it can be a very useful guideline. If you're deviating greatly from those guidelines, then it's probably a good idea to go to the doctor to figure out what is up with your individual system.

    CICO becomes dangerous when people treat such complicated biochemical reactions in the body like a simple physics experiment. We are unable to directly gauge the vast majority of them, so we can only view them indirectly -- and that's usually through weightloss, so it's a very circular system. Or when people discuss issues such as starvation -- yes if you don't eat, you will eventually lose weight. But, such oversimplifications aren't that helpful either because they don't address whether you're losing weight in the most effective way possible or even in a healthy manner for any particular individual.

    Lastly, CICO fails to take into account the difference between macros or the necessity of micros -- and how they can shift the equation as well due to failure in the underlying assumptions. Some folks will lose more fat/weight on higher carb percentage and other will lose more fat/weight on lower carb percentage based on their insulin sensitivity. CICO is blind to such things, so it's only somewhat helpful in helping individuals figure out what works best for them and their biochemistry.

    It's a good guideline, but it has its limitations.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    More data:


    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/calorie-calorie-harvard-study-compares-popular-weight-loss/story?id=16654506



    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all


    http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120626/all-calories-not-created-equal-study-suggests

    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
    Those are ARTICLES not scientific studies.

    This is not difficult.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    bump
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Options
    When you all show me your scientific data that cico is fact I will show you more scientific data.





    ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    But you haven't showed us ANY yet.

    opinion =/= scientific data
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Yes, because our body does not utilize every calorie the same. :)
    You seriously have got to be the worst poster I have seen on MFP in a long time. You always just throw out opinions with no substance. Ever. EVER.

    No you need to study my friend.

    http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html

    It's not my opinion. I have done many years of research on the subject, and do not have the time or inclination to post every research document that I have read over the 35+ years. CICO is wrong. Quality of foods matter, because we metabolize them differently.

    You do not need to agree with me, but you need to stick to the subject matter without attacking me personally.

    Why are we supposed to stick to your 'facts' when you don't wish back them up? I suppose that all of your knowledge comes from peer reviewed scientific research articles? Or does it come from opinion blogs? These are important distinctions. The fact that you don't even know that CICO does NOT mean food quality doesn't matter is very telling to me.


    If you read my other posts on MFP you will see that I have posted many research data, so I do back up what I'm saying. CICO is wrong.
    There aren't any studies that prove it wrong, if so please present it..........we'll wait

    Why Calories Count
    The Science Behind Why Calories Matter - And Why Dismissing Them Is Naive
    http://ca.askmen.com/sports/bodybuilding/why-calories-count.html

    "Aragon told me that no such study exists that shows people being overfed and losing weight. What’s more, there is no study in existence that shows people being underfed and not losing weight. "


    Here is one: http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
    I think you need to do some research on the difference between a scientific study and an opinion. It may help you


    Wrong Harvard is not an opinion source.

    http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html

    Yeah actually, that is an opinion source written by someone named Charlotte on a commercial website called thegreatfitness experiment. It is not a study. It mentions a "study" but when you click the link rather than take you to an actual study it takes you to another internet opinion piece by someone named Jane Brody in which a "Harvard study" is mentioned but not cited.

    Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?

    How is this my friend:

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

    Okay I did some digging on pubmed with those authors mentioned in the opinion article and came up with this study published in JAMA in 2012.

    Is this the study you are referring to?

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

    Have you read it?

    This may be the study metioned in the Harvard gazette article, but it's not the study mentioned in thegreatfitnessexperiment article. There were not 120,000+ participants in this study. The Nurse's Health Study is likely what is refered to originally.

    I read a lot of publications from Harvard, and they do often state that not all calories are created equal. But, they usually mean from a health perspective or, for weight loss, from a satiety and sustainability perspective. It is not their stance that fat loss does not require a calorie deficit.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    When you all show me your scientific data that cico is fact I will show you more scientific data.





    ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/0026-0495(64)90098-8/abstract?cc=y?cc=y

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026049564900988

    Book was closed on this in 1964 with a comprehensive study under controlled conditions in which all test subjects were kept in hospital and their intake strictly controlled for long periods of time.

    As a scientist I have journal access and am happy to email the study to anyone who is interested.
  • 59gi
    59gi Posts: 307 Member
    Options
    http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/




    http://www.gnolls.org/3374/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-calorie-to-your-body/


    http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/calories.htm


    http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    #2 is a myth, I lost close to 50 lbs, lost around 4 lbs of water and packed around 12 lbs of muscle. Thats in six months, I am not done yet and have no problem losing fat and building muscle.

    So you've lost 62 pounds of fat and gained 12 pounds of muscle simultaneously? Are you on roids?

    Body recomp good job man. The nutrition man you mastered it.
  • Veil5577
    Veil5577 Posts: 868 Member
    Options
    http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/

    Another article, not a study. Geesh.
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Options
    http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/

    It say BLOG right in the link... You're not even trying. Are you just trolling?
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/
    It say BLOG right in the link... You're not even trying. Are you just trolling?
    I certainly hope so...

    In anticipation of her next article, I've taken the liberty of creating this link: http://bit.ly/1lOjSgT

    (psst... the first thing it turns up is that last blog post, lol)
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    I bulked in 2012 eating the cleanest foods that ever did clean. I was Super Paleo Man™. The "secret" was in eating at a calorie surplus. I also cut in the next year eating SAD (but keeping certain protein and fat minimums). The "secret" this time was in eating at a calorie deficit.

    So yeah, I guess I believe in strictly CI-CO...because it's worked for me for years (and actually for my entire life, except that I didn't track to see it through the first 40 years or so). I have no reason to believe it wouldn't work similarly for others.

Categories