Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Replies
-
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.
I agree that they are both important, but I don't believe in CICO. Data shows otherwise and old model are outdated. Quality of food is very important.
What do you mean by 'quality of food'?0 -
Okay, then how do isocaloric diets (with the same caloric deficits) result in different weight loss? If it's all CICO, then the macros shouldn't matter and the results should be the same.
CICO doesn't purport that every human is equal.
It's the same equation, but the individual variables will differ.
I agree, and since we can't account for most of the individual variances with any sort of meaningful accuracy, the CICO calculation has its limitations. As I said, good guideline, but not absolute law in a practical application sense.0 -
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).
Are these people immune to gravity as well?
Not that I know of, but the laws of gravity are not affected by biochemical reactions in the body like weight loss is. There is a reason why biology is considered a separate field of study than both chemistry and physics, even though there are areas of overlap.
Notwithstanding that, if CICO doesn't apply, where are people getting the additional energy that they're storing?
There are lots of factors that can affect calories out, but that's essentially explainable in a CICO model.
I believe your answer lies in the starvation studies. Folks erroneously think when they lose weight they are only losing fat but that is not the case. In the even there is not enough fat for the body to use as energy, it will turn to protein (lean body mass) as well as deplete stores of micronutrients.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
dairys closed to people who arent friends because i dont ever ask for criticism on my foods, glad you checked me out though
can you open your profile so we can see your other posts?
I agree that they are both important, but I don't believe in CICO. Data shows otherwise and old model are outdated. Quality of food is very important.
i thoroughly enjoy reading the threads you take part in, they almost always end up in a sh!tstorm from what i've seen. the use of exclamation marks and referencing things that don't back up your points is quite chuckleworthy as well
When you open up your diary and show me at least as many articles as I have shown you then we will talk!
and i could post 100's of articles, provided they are similar to yours in that they have little to do with the subject at hand0 -
I keep waiting for this..but it is never delivered...I want magic to be true cause I wanna eat over my TDEE and stay the same weight
The 40%+ comes from numbers put out on diabetes and pre-diabetes. And, as you said, is not surprising given the obesity levels in the US -- but it's also why I think it's that much more important to be more conversant in such nuances.
After all, if you're one of the 4 in 10 that have insulin resistance, success in your weight loss plan is going to be greatly affected by the macros you choose. Those that see greater success are more likely to stick with a program that works for them. Others sometime just keep cutting and cutting calories to see more results, which as we all know is not a great longterm solution. But if they knew that they'd have greater success by limiting their carbs, feel more satiated, etc., then they may be able to more easily make such a lifestyle change.
So when people say it doesn't matter, that it's all about total calories, I beg to differ.
Though I've seen the number before and still have issue with the claim that nearly half the population has insulin issues...
Ok. Fine. Even if I don't agree I'll give it to you, macros can carry greater importance for people with special medical conditions.
But guess what? They still need to count their calories! Because if anyone is in a caloric surplus, they will gain weight. Someone suffering from special conditions might need to not only limit their calories, but they may have to limit them MORE than people without such restrictions.
So no. People having special conditions does not prove CICO doesn't work, if anything it points to an even greater need for calorie monitoring.
When someone shows me the person who lost weight eating a caloric surplus of "clean foods" I'll cede my point. But that will never happen. Because we're discussing science, not magic.0 -
And just to throw some more fuel on the fire...one of the arguments against many processed foods is that they result in appetite stimulation. One of the ideas behind why that is is the changes in wheat in the last 40 years -- and why you see it some commonly added to items that normally wouldn't have wheat or wheat derivatives in the food. As far as I know, it doesn't actually increase the CI or CO part of the equation, but it makes you hungrier for the same amount of calories -- and why people are more likely to overeat or fail on their diets.
Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but it's an interesting theory...and would help explain some of the reasons behind the obesity increase in the last 40 years. Surely, not the only factor, but perhaps a significant one.
So, that's another example of how the CI part of the equation can greatly affect your weight loss success that is not wholly accounted for it its caloric value.0 -
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, pretty much, unless a medical condition, or you are that one lone special snowflake out in the world.
2) You are probably not in a caloric deficit. Do you weigh/measure/track everything you eat? I have been in a caloric deficit for a while now, and I lift. And I have lost weight.
3) Caloric deficit mate. Energy has to come from somewhere, and over night when you sleep, after about 3 - 5 hours of your last meal, your insulin levels have dropped, so all that is left is fat stores to handle overnight body functions.0 -
Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"
Omg. This is hilarious. The thread keeps on delivering.0 -
dairys closed to people who arent friends because i dont ever ask for criticism on my foods, glad you checked me out though
can you open your profile so we can see your other posts?
I agree that they are both important, but I don't believe in CICO. Data shows otherwise and old model are outdated. Quality of food is very important.
i thoroughly enjoy reading the threads you take part in, they almost always end up in a sh!tstorm from what i've seen. the use of exclamation marks and referencing things that don't back up your points is quite chuckleworthy as well
When you open up your diary and show me at least as many articles as I have shown you then we will talk!
and i could post 100's of articles, provided they are similar to yours in that they have little to do with the subject at hand
You were the one that asked me to open my Diary! The answer is the same as yours!0 -
Okay, then how do isocaloric diets (with the same caloric deficits) result in different weight loss? If it's all CICO, then the macros shouldn't matter and the results should be the same.
Because the measured calorie expenditure, hence deficit, can only ever be an approximation. Lots of different factors are going to affect expenditure, which will lead to absorption of energy by the body to be less than forecast, far fewer lead to it being greater than forecast.
The key point in your statement is different weight loss, yet upthread we've got people claiming a significant deficit yet gaining weight. Not going to happen, unless they're storing solar energy and wind power.0 -
If so, is there ever a situation where a caloric deficit would NOT lead to weight loss?
No.0 -
(he said profile...you even quoted it...)
dairys closed to people who arent friends because i dont ever ask for criticism on my foods, glad you checked me out though
can you open your profile so we can see your other posts?
I agree that they are both important, but I don't believe in CICO. Data shows otherwise and old model are outdated. Quality of food is very important.
i thoroughly enjoy reading the threads you take part in, they almost always end up in a sh!tstorm from what i've seen. the use of exclamation marks and referencing things that don't back up your points is quite chuckleworthy as well
When you open up your diary and show me at least as many articles as I have shown you then we will talk!
and i could post 100's of articles, provided they are similar to yours in that they have little to do with the subject at hand
You were the one that asked me to open my Diary! The answer is the same as yours!0 -
The 40%+ comes from numbers put out on diabetes and pre-diabetes. And, as you said, is not surprising given the obesity levels in the US -- but it's also why I think it's that much more important to be more conversant in such nuances.
After all, if you're one of the 4 in 10 that have insulin resistance, success in your weight loss plan is going to be greatly affected by the macros you choose. Those that see greater success are more likely to stick with a program that works for them. Others sometime just keep cutting and cutting calories to see more results, which as we all know is not a great longterm solution. But if they knew that they'd have greater success by limiting their carbs, feel more satiated, etc., then they may be able to more easily make such a lifestyle change.
So when people say it doesn't matter, that it's all about total calories, I beg to differ.
Though I've seen the number before and still have issue with the claim that nearly half the population has insulin issues...
Ok. Fine. Even if I don't agree I'll give it to you, macros can carry greater importance for people with special medical conditions.
But guess what? They still need to count their calories! Because if anyone is in a caloric surplus, they will gain weight. Someone suffering from special conditions might need to not only limit their calories, but they may have to limit them MORE than people without such restrictions.
So no. People having special conditions does not prove CICO doesn't work, if anything it points to an even greater need for calorie monitoring.
When someone shows me the person who lost weight eating a caloric surplus of "clean foods" I'll cede my point. But that will never happen. Because we're discussing science, not magic.
That's not an argument I'm making (though others may have). I don't think it's an either or situation, but a both and situation. I do think CICO is important and has validity -- I just don't think it's the entire story.
I think calorie counting is important and helpful to many, but so are macros, for good reason. So because I believe that the quality of the calories is important doesn't meant that I also don't believe that the quantity of calories is important.0 -
This is so entertaining.
0 -
profile not diary. i just want to see your post history, you can still keep your diary closed.
dairys closed to people who arent friends because i dont ever ask for criticism on my foods, glad you checked me out though
can you open your profile so we can see your other posts?
I agree that they are both important, but I don't believe in CICO. Data shows otherwise and old model are outdated. Quality of food is very important.
i thoroughly enjoy reading the threads you take part in, they almost always end up in a sh!tstorm from what i've seen. the use of exclamation marks and referencing things that don't back up your points is quite chuckleworthy as well
When you open up your diary and show me at least as many articles as I have shown you then we will talk!
and i could post 100's of articles, provided they are similar to yours in that they have little to do with the subject at hand
You were the one that asked me to open my Diary! The answer is the same as yours!
like the same way my profile is set up is what im after0 -
I keep waiting for this..but it is never delivered...I want magic to be true cause I wanna eat over my TDEE and stay the same weight
The 40%+ comes from numbers put out on diabetes and pre-diabetes. And, as you said, is not surprising given the obesity levels in the US -- but it's also why I think it's that much more important to be more conversant in such nuances.
After all, if you're one of the 4 in 10 that have insulin resistance, success in your weight loss plan is going to be greatly affected by the macros you choose. Those that see greater success are more likely to stick with a program that works for them. Others sometime just keep cutting and cutting calories to see more results, which as we all know is not a great longterm solution. But if they knew that they'd have greater success by limiting their carbs, feel more satiated, etc., then they may be able to more easily make such a lifestyle change.
So when people say it doesn't matter, that it's all about total calories, I beg to differ.
Though I've seen the number before and still have issue with the claim that nearly half the population has insulin issues...
Ok. Fine. Even if I don't agree I'll give it to you, macros can carry greater importance for people with special medical conditions.
But guess what? They still need to count their calories! Because if anyone is in a caloric surplus, they will gain weight. Someone suffering from special conditions might need to not only limit their calories, but they may have to limit them MORE than people without such restrictions.
So no. People having special conditions does not prove CICO doesn't work, if anything it points to an even greater need for calorie monitoring.
When someone shows me the person who lost weight eating a caloric surplus of "clean foods" I'll cede my point. But that will never happen. Because we're discussing science, not magic.
I agree that we're discussing science. I just don't think you have an understanding of the entire scientific picture. You set up false logic to prove yourself right. That there is a fail in and of itself.0 -
3. If you're in a calorie deficit over a day and eat say 3 meals then you're blood sugar will drop at some point after the meal and the insulin with it - at which point you'll be releasing and using more fat.
A different way of looking at it is that fat oxidation occurs in the gap between carbohydrate oxidation and energy demand. If you want to lose body fat make that gap bigger.
Put this in more basic terms. Are you suggesting that eating fewer meals with more breaks in between would allow you to burn more fat? This seems completely counter to what most dieticians suggest.0 -
So, that's another example of how the CI part of the equation can greatly affect your weight loss success that is not wholly accounted for it its caloric value.
Avoiding the validity or otherwise of the specifics, some of what you eat may cause you to want to eat more. That's fine, but if you do eat more then you're ingesting more calories. Doesn't invalidate the energy balance point.0 -
Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"
Omg. This is hilarious. The thread keeps on delivering.
My favorite part of that is that the statement is in quotation marks as if someone had said that despite the fact that no one said that.
There really should be a punctuation mark for when you pull something out of your a**.0 -
When a person has surgery, the dieticians put patients on a higher protein diet to help them heal, not on a coke and doughnut diet.0
-
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).
Are these people immune to gravity as well?
Not that I know of, but the laws of gravity are not affected by biochemical reactions in the body like weight loss is. There is a reason why biology is considered a separate field of study than both chemistry and physics, even though there are areas of overlap.
Notwithstanding that, if CICO doesn't apply, where are people getting the additional energy that they're storing?
There are lots of factors that can affect calories out, but that's essentially explainable in a CICO model.
Okay, then how do isocaloric diets (with the same caloric deficits) result in different weight loss? If it's all CICO, then the macros shouldn't matter and the results should be the same.
CICO doesn't purport that every human is equal.
It's the same equation, but the individual variables will differ.
What we eat matters and it is not just cico!
Yes. Do you see someone saying differently?0 -
When a person has surgery, the dieticians put patients on a higher protein diet to help them heal, not on a coke and doughnut diet.
urrrr....ummm.....what on earth has that to do with CICO?0 -
WhatWhen a person has surgery, the dieticians put patients on a higher protein diet to help them heal, not on a coke and doughnut diet.
does
that
have
to do
with
CICO
?0 -
Okay, then how do isocaloric diets (with the same caloric deficits) result in different weight loss? If it's all CICO, then the macros shouldn't matter and the results should be the same.
Because the measured calorie expenditure, hence deficit, can only ever be an approximation. Lots of different factors are going to affect expenditure, which will lead to absorption of energy by the body to be less than forecast, far fewer lead to it being greater than forecast.
The key point in your statement is different weight loss, yet upthread we've got people claiming a significant deficit yet gaining weight. Not going to happen, unless they're storing solar energy and wind power.
Sure, but mathematically, you can imagine a scenario with the right numbers manipulation where someone could gain or stay the same whereas another lost -- you'd just have to shift the bar for the calculated deficit closer to maintenance.
But different weight loss is the whole point. If all calories were created equal and quantity was the ONLY thing that matter, then the results would be the same. Since they are different, there is another factor(s) at play that are not accounted for in sheer caloric value.0 -
When a person has surgery, the dieticians put patients on a higher protein diet to help them heal, not on a coke and doughnut diet.
What is your point and what does that have to do with weight loss. Your contention, the one people disagree with, is that you can somehow lose weight eating at a caloric surplus if only you eat the "right" foods. No one, and I mean no one, is claiming that what you eat somehow doesn't matter to your overall health.0 -
Okay, then how do isocaloric diets (with the same caloric deficits) result in different weight loss? If it's all CICO, then the macros shouldn't matter and the results should be the same.
Because the measured calorie expenditure, hence deficit, can only ever be an approximation. Lots of different factors are going to affect expenditure, which will lead to absorption of energy by the body to be less than forecast, far fewer lead to it being greater than forecast.
The key point in your statement is different weight loss, yet upthread we've got people claiming a significant deficit yet gaining weight. Not going to happen, unless they're storing solar energy and wind power.
Sure, but mathematically, you can imagine a scenario with the right numbers manipulation where someone could gain or stay the same whereas another lost -- you'd just have to shift the bar for the calculated deficit closer to maintenance.
But different weight loss is the whole point. If all calories were created equal and quantity was the ONLY thing that matter, then the results would be the same. Since they are different, there is another factor(s) at play that are not accounted for in sheer caloric value.
This is still just variables in the CO portion. It does not negate the fact that you need to be in a caloric deficit to lose fat.0 -
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, pretty much, unless a medical condition, or you are that one lone special snowflake out in the world.
2) You are probably not in a caloric deficit. Do you weigh/measure/track everything you eat? I have been in a caloric deficit for a while now, and I lift. And I have lost weight.
3) Caloric deficit mate. Energy has to come from somewhere, and over night when you sleep, after about 3 - 5 hours of your last meal, your insulin levels have dropped, so all that is left is fat stores to handle overnight body functions.
From my own experience - when I started weight training again and following a strict diet from my trainer, that is limited calories and weighing everything - I went up a lb or two and stayed there for an entire month. I am absolutely certain I was in a calorie deficit and my progress pics showed loss. The scale didn't. I suspect that water weight is the explanation in my case. Eventually the scale did change but it was a few weeks.0 -
Very good, yes that is the first study you cited. Now, why do you think it invalidates cico? Because it doesn't. It's still a calorie restriction for weight loss 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.
Interesting! When I was actively losing, the loss was sluggish at 50/30/20 the MFP default. I set it to 40/30/30 and the pound literally melted away! Carbs really affect me which is one reason I don't think it is simply a matter of CICO either. I've read a lot that weight loss is not simply CICO.
Did the weight loss continue at the same rate or did it slow down?
How much did you have to lose at the time if you do not mind me asking.
I continued to lose at the higher rate for a total of 24 lb.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions