Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Replies
-
Not all energy is created equal
kinetic energy is extremely difficult to metabolise...
Then why when you trip and slam into the ground are you considered to have "ate it"?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.
Once again, not trying to invalidate the energy balance point. Just make practical suggestions based on known information. Getting into a physics purist argument is not my point. Getting into what helps people lose weight most effectively is, and that's why what you eat is going to be more important than just its sheer caloric value -- not only to your health, but also to the success of your nutrition plan and your actual results.
I know that this is continuing the 'off point' sub conversation, but it can work both ways, as in higher carbs can actually help fat loss indirectly. Someone who is not insulin resistant often does well on higher carbs (and this assumes appropriate protein and facts for health and LBM retention). Carbs provide energy, energy fuels workouts, workouts encourage LBM retention/gain and better nutrient partitioning.
Totally agree. And that's a really important point for insulin sensitive people to know and why they should probably avoid low carb diets. And why people have such dramatically different reactions and results from high carb and low carb diets.
ON a low carb diet you eat protein, vegetables, fat, some fruit, nuts, cheese. This is a great diet in my opinion, and not a diet to avoid.0 -
Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.
I think this says it all... end of argument.
Not all energy is created equally.
Also requires a closed system. The human body is not a closed system.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.
I know, right? I almost said something and then thought.... Nah. Glad someone did though.0 -
Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.
I think this says it all... end of argument.
Not all energy is created equally.
How does one go about "creating" energy anyways. Physics would be interested in that.0 -
The same for what? Is anyone actually arguing that they are the same for all purposes and not just for the energy they contain for CICO purposes?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?
Because this is the way the "clean eating crowd" tries to prove they're right and IIFYM is wrong. They completely ignore everything about CICO or IIFYM and pretend that all people practicing moderation just eat junk 100% of the time.
Clearly that wouldn't work. No one is saying that would work. It wouldn't fit any macros, thereby negating the entire principle behind IF IT FITS YOUR MACROS.
What they create is a strawman argument that is easy for them to tear down. Unfortunately for them (and luckily for us) they're only winning an argument of their own creation.
Yes but don't you realize that by its very name -- If It Fits My Macros -- acknowledges that not all calories are the same. Otherwise, it would be IIFMC -- If It Fits My CALORIES.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.
Once again, not trying to invalidate the energy balance point. Just make practical suggestions based on known information. Getting into a physics purist argument is not my point. Getting into what helps people lose weight most effectively is, and that's why what you eat is going to be more important than just its sheer caloric value -- not only to your health, but also to the success of your nutrition plan and your actual results.
I know that this is continuing the 'off point' sub conversation, but it can work both ways, as in higher carbs can actually help fat loss indirectly. Someone who is not insulin resistant often does well on higher carbs (and this assumes appropriate protein and facts for health and LBM retention). Carbs provide energy, energy fuels workouts, workouts encourage LBM retention/gain and better nutrient partitioning.
Totally agree. And that's a really important point for insulin sensitive people to know and why they should probably avoid low carb diets. And why people have such dramatically different reactions and results from high carb and low carb diets.
ON a low carb diet you eat protein, vegetables, fat, some fruit, nuts, cheese. This is a great diet in my opinion, and not a diet to avoid.
Yes, but some people will not feel very good on it. They optimize weight loss with more carbs. For those people, a low carb diet would not be optimal. Whereas for others, it would be.0 -
But humans can only gain energy from eating. So as long as you use more energy than you're eating, mass will decrease. If we could absorb energy from wind or sunlight, then we'd have a problem with CICO being invalid.
Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.
I think this says it all... end of argument.
Not all energy is created equally.
Also requires a closed system. The human body is not a closed system.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.
Once again, not my point. I'm not saying that you don't need to be in a caloric deficit, but how you manipulate that deficit will make a difference in your weight loss. So, it's not all about sheer caloric value -- otherwise, results wouldn't differ, and they do.
Am I not saying this clearly?
I think I have pretty much understood what you are saying (and generally do not disagree) - however, in a thread where some people try to indicate that you can gain weight on a deficit, I think it important to make the point that it is not what you are saying.
Also, I wanted to make it clear that results differ mainly when you look at people with metabolic issues. When you look at populations when they do not have them (and even in conflicting studies where they do to be honest), then results do not differ significantly.
I agree that people who think CICO is totally invalid are way off, so I totally agree with you wanting to dispel that notion. But, on the flipside, there are a LOT more people that I've seen that say CICO is the ONLY thing. And I'd like to dispel that notion as well.
As I said before, I think they're both important parts of the weight loss puzzle for people.
Both important, but all calories are not equal how they effect blood sugar and uptake.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.
My take on this is a high protein diet is used after surgery not only for healing but also to help lessen lean body mass loss during recovery when the patient will not be as mobile.0 -
The same for what? Is anyone actually arguing that they are the same for all purposes and not just for the energy they contain for CICO purposes?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?
Because this is the way the "clean eating crowd" tries to prove they're right and IIFYM is wrong. They completely ignore everything about CICO or IIFYM and pretend that all people practicing moderation just eat junk 100% of the time.
Clearly that wouldn't work. No one is saying that would work. It wouldn't fit any macros, thereby negating the entire principle behind IF IT FITS YOUR MACROS.
What they create is a strawman argument that is easy for them to tear down. Unfortunately for them (and luckily for us) they're only winning an argument of their own creation.
Yes but don't you realize that by its very name -- If It Fits My Macros -- acknowledges that not all calories are the same. Otherwise, it would be IIFMC -- If It Fits My CALORIES.
Yes, some people have argued that, either directly or indirectly.0 -
Whoa, 16 pages, That has to be a record! These kinds of threads always spark the best debates! My answer to question #1 is no! I don't lose weight if I eat crap, I lose more when I keep it cleaner, but I do have a friend on here that eats whatever and she loses too, so I think it's whatever works for you!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.
Once again, not trying to invalidate the energy balance point. Just make practical suggestions based on known information. Getting into a physics purist argument is not my point. Getting into what helps people lose weight most effectively is, and that's why what you eat is going to be more important than just its sheer caloric value -- not only to your health, but also to the success of your nutrition plan and your actual results.
I know that this is continuing the 'off point' sub conversation, but it can work both ways, as in higher carbs can actually help fat loss indirectly. Someone who is not insulin resistant often does well on higher carbs (and this assumes appropriate protein and facts for health and LBM retention). Carbs provide energy, energy fuels workouts, workouts encourage LBM retention/gain and better nutrient partitioning.
Totally agree. And that's a really important point for insulin sensitive people to know and why they should probably avoid low carb diets. And why people have such dramatically different reactions and results from high carb and low carb diets.
ON a low carb diet you eat protein, vegetables, fat, some fruit, nuts, cheese. This is a great diet in my opinion, and not a diet to avoid.
That's a horrible one for me.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.
Once again, not my point. I'm not saying that you don't need to be in a caloric deficit, but how you manipulate that deficit will make a difference in your weight loss. So, it's not all about sheer caloric value -- otherwise, results wouldn't differ, and they do.
Am I not saying this clearly?
I think I have pretty much understood what you are saying (and generally do not disagree) - however, in a thread where some people try to indicate that you can gain weight on a deficit, I think it important to make the point that it is not what you are saying.
Also, I wanted to make it clear that results differ mainly when you look at people with metabolic issues. When you look at populations when they do not have them (and even in conflicting studies where they do to be honest), then results do not differ significantly.
I agree that people who think CICO is totally invalid are way off, so I totally agree with you wanting to dispel that notion. But, on the flipside, there are a LOT more people that I've seen that say CICO is the ONLY thing. And I'd like to dispel that notion as well.
As I said before, I think they're both important parts of the weight loss puzzle for people.
Both important, but all calories are not equal how they effect blood sugar and uptake.
Are you kidding me right now?! Did you just say that you agree that CICO is important for weight loss, while macro counts are important for optimal health?
Because that is what EVERYONE in this thread has been saying.0 -
My only scientific study is totally unscientific...just me and my decades of experience.
1) For me, that is true. I've lost weight on jelly beans and low fat yogurt. Bacon, eggs and french fries. Steak and walnuts. However, I've NEVER been able to keep it off. This time round, I'm tracking my calories on MFP, focusing on 50% of my foods coming from low starch veggies, 20% from low sugar fruits and the rest from plant protein sources. I'm losing weight and I can see do these for life.
2) My experience is that there is a temporary water retention when I intensify my routine...be it cardio or weights. Two reasons, I think: I drink way more water and I find myself eating more "quick" carbs. It seems to me when I eat more "quick carbs" (breads/rice/high sugar fruits), my body holds onto water more so.
Ultimately, IMHO, I think it is helpful to be a little detached from your own process and look at the data: calories in/calories burned, and if a certain formula isn't working for you for 14 to 30 days to course correct.0 -
The same for what? Is anyone actually arguing that they are the same for all purposes and not just for the energy they contain for CICO purposes?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?
Because this is the way the "clean eating crowd" tries to prove they're right and IIFYM is wrong. They completely ignore everything about CICO or IIFYM and pretend that all people practicing moderation just eat junk 100% of the time.
Clearly that wouldn't work. No one is saying that would work. It wouldn't fit any macros, thereby negating the entire principle behind IF IT FITS YOUR MACROS.
What they create is a strawman argument that is easy for them to tear down. Unfortunately for them (and luckily for us) they're only winning an argument of their own creation.
Yes but don't you realize that by its very name -- If It Fits My Macros -- acknowledges that not all calories are the same. Otherwise, it would be IIFMC -- If It Fits My CALORIES.
I haven't seen that claim yet, and can't imagine someone making it, but no doubt the other side of this argument will say that they have...
...and likely frequently too.0 -
But humans can only gain energy from eating. So as long as you use more energy than you're eating, mass will decrease. If we could absorb energy from wind or sunlight, then we'd have a problem with CICO being invalid.
Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.
I think this says it all... end of argument.
Not all energy is created equally.
Also requires a closed system. The human body is not a closed system.
Yes, but both sides of the equation are affected by (1) how much food is actually absorbed -- that throws off your CI part and (2) other energy expended that's not fully captured, like heat, on the CO part. We try to measure those as much as we can through the caloric value of food and things like RMR testing, but it's not fully accurate.
That's why most people estimate their CO by looking at their weight loss results and working backwards. But there is a lot of error there since 1 lb of fat creates about 3500 calories of energy and 1 lb of muscle creates somewhere between 600 and 1700 calories. So, even when you lost 1 lb, there is not a great way to reverse engineer that calculation. Then you have issues about how your macros result in different weight and fat losses, which makes the calculations even more of educated guesses.0 -
Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.
I think this says it all... end of argument.
Not all energy is created equally.
Also requires a closed system. The human body is not a closed system.
false. Conservation of energy applies to all systems. You cannot create or destroy energy in an open, isolated or closed system. You are thinking of the second law.0 -
Not that I've seen on this thread. It has consistently been "you'll lose weight on a deficit eating donuts but that's a bad idea for your health."
The same for what? Is anyone actually arguing that they are the same for all purposes and not just for the energy they contain for CICO purposes?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?
Because this is the way the "clean eating crowd" tries to prove they're right and IIFYM is wrong. They completely ignore everything about CICO or IIFYM and pretend that all people practicing moderation just eat junk 100% of the time.
Clearly that wouldn't work. No one is saying that would work. It wouldn't fit any macros, thereby negating the entire principle behind IF IT FITS YOUR MACROS.
What they create is a strawman argument that is easy for them to tear down. Unfortunately for them (and luckily for us) they're only winning an argument of their own creation.
Yes but don't you realize that by its very name -- If It Fits My Macros -- acknowledges that not all calories are the same. Otherwise, it would be IIFMC -- If It Fits My CALORIES.
Yes, some people have argued that, either directly or indirectly.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.
Once again, not my point. I'm not saying that you don't need to be in a caloric deficit, but how you manipulate that deficit will make a difference in your weight loss. So, it's not all about sheer caloric value -- otherwise, results wouldn't differ, and they do.
Am I not saying this clearly?
I think I have pretty much understood what you are saying (and generally do not disagree) - however, in a thread where some people try to indicate that you can gain weight on a deficit, I think it important to make the point that it is not what you are saying.
Also, I wanted to make it clear that results differ mainly when you look at people with metabolic issues. When you look at populations when they do not have them (and even in conflicting studies where they do to be honest), then results do not differ significantly.
I agree that people who think CICO is totally invalid are way off, so I totally agree with you wanting to dispel that notion. But, on the flipside, there are a LOT more people that I've seen that say CICO is the ONLY thing. And I'd like to dispel that notion as well.
As I said before, I think they're both important parts of the weight loss puzzle for people.
Both important, but all calories are not equal how they effect blood sugar and uptake.
...but what does that have to do with CICO?0 -
But humans can only gain energy from eating. So as long as you use more energy than you're eating, mass will decrease. If we could absorb energy from wind or sunlight, then we'd have a problem with CICO being invalid.
Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.
I think this says it all... end of argument.
I never said that we do not need calories(energy) what I'm disputing in CICO.
Not all energy is created equally.
Also requires a closed system. The human body is not a closed system.0 -
Yes, CI can be affected by obtuse factors like excretion and poor metabolism, but it will never become a larger amount of energy than it contains.
That's really poorly worded but my head hurts so screw it :P
And that's really the point - factors can and do affect both CI and CO, but at the end of the day if CI is less* than CO weightloss WILL occur.
*scientifically, not just assumed to be
None of the rest of this discussion invalidates that.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.
Once again, not my point. I'm not saying that you don't need to be in a caloric deficit, but how you manipulate that deficit will make a difference in your weight loss. So, it's not all about sheer caloric value -- otherwise, results wouldn't differ, and they do.
Am I not saying this clearly?
I think I have pretty much understood what you are saying (and generally do not disagree) - however, in a thread where some people try to indicate that you can gain weight on a deficit, I think it important to make the point that it is not what you are saying.
Also, I wanted to make it clear that results differ mainly when you look at people with metabolic issues. When you look at populations when they do not have them (and even in conflicting studies where they do to be honest), then results do not differ significantly.
I agree that people who think CICO is totally invalid are way off, so I totally agree with you wanting to dispel that notion. But, on the flipside, there are a LOT more people that I've seen that say CICO is the ONLY thing. And I'd like to dispel that notion as well.
As I said before, I think they're both important parts of the weight loss puzzle for people.
Both important, but all calories are not equal how they effect blood sugar and uptake.
Are you kidding me right now?! Did you just say that you agree that CICO is important for weight loss, while macro counts are important for optimal health?
Because that is what EVERYONE in this thread has been saying.
I think it might just come down to her reading comprehension being way off and she thinks we are saying something we aren't.
Going to make this very clear. CICO is all that matters for weight loss specifically. For health and for nutrition and for wellbeing yes of course what you eat matters. What you eat matters for weight loss in the sense that to sustain weight loss you have to sustain your health so to have a sustainable diet for weight loss then yes what you eat matters...but not because CICO is incorrect.0 -
Are there any long term studies on the following:
. Incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancers eating different ways?
. Success with maintaining weight loss eating different ways?0 -
Yes, CI can be affected by obtuse factors like excretion and poor metabolism, but it will never become a larger amount of energy than it contains.
That's really poorly worded but my head hurts so screw it :P
And that's really the point - factors can and do affect both CI and CO, but at the end of the day if CI is less* than CO weightloss WILL occur.
*scientifically, not just assumed to be
None of the rest of this discussion invalidates that.
Exactly. What is on the food box is the maximum amount of energy that can be obtained by the food in a 100% efficient system. Our bodies will never actually reach that efficiency and some people might get less calorically than others from the same foods. That said you would NEVER get more calories than what is stated on the box.
Having some major digestive issues or a tapeworm does not somehow invalidate CICO though, just means your CI is much lower than you might expect from what is written on the box.0 -
Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.
I think this says it all... end of argument.
Not all energy is created equally.
Also requires a closed system. The human body is not a closed system.
false. Conservation of energy applies to all systems. You cannot create or destroy energy in an open, isolated or closed system. You are thinking of the second law.
You're right. But CICO is based on BOTH laws, correct?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.
Once again, not my point. I'm not saying that you don't need to be in a caloric deficit, but how you manipulate that deficit will make a difference in your weight loss. So, it's not all about sheer caloric value -- otherwise, results wouldn't differ, and they do.
Am I not saying this clearly?
I think I have pretty much understood what you are saying (and generally do not disagree) - however, in a thread where some people try to indicate that you can gain weight on a deficit, I think it important to make the point that it is not what you are saying.
Also, I wanted to make it clear that results differ mainly when you look at people with metabolic issues. When you look at populations when they do not have them (and even in conflicting studies where they do to be honest), then results do not differ significantly.
I agree that people who think CICO is totally invalid are way off, so I totally agree with you wanting to dispel that notion. But, on the flipside, there are a LOT more people that I've seen that say CICO is the ONLY thing. And I'd like to dispel that notion as well.
As I said before, I think they're both important parts of the weight loss puzzle for people.
Both important, but all calories are not equal how they effect blood sugar and uptake.
...but what does that have to do with CICO?
The point being it's not CICO, but many factors.
For example if you have Hypothyroidism, will cause you to gain weight with the same calories you were eating previously.
Another example is when you get pregnant.0 -
Without reading all 17 pages of this topic, but to answer the question I believe in it 100%. The only caveat is "calories out" which is a huge variable that's unique to each person and takes a hit when we are in a negative caloric balance through diet & exercise.0
-
How much food is absorbed can only go down from the amount of calories you eat, which is good if you're trying to lose.
But humans can only gain energy from eating. So as long as you use more energy than you're eating, mass will decrease. If we could absorb energy from wind or sunlight, then we'd have a problem with CICO being invalid.
Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.
I think this says it all... end of argument.
Not all energy is created equally.
Also requires a closed system. The human body is not a closed system.
Yes, but both sides of the equation are affected by (1) how much food is actually absorbed -- that throws off your CI part and (2) other energy expended that's not fully captured, like heat, on the CO part. We try to measure those as much as we can through the caloric value of food and things like RMR testing, but it's not fully accurate.
That's why most people estimate their CO by looking at their weight loss results and working backwards. But there is a lot of error there since 1 lb of fat creates about 3500 calories of energy and 1 lb of muscle creates somewhere between 600 and 1700 calories. So, even when you lost 1 lb, there is not a great way to reverse engineer that calculation. Then you have issues about how your macros result in different weight and fat losses, which makes the calculations even more of educated guesses.
Btw. I read through your study completely now. As said, the ones who lost least lost about as much as was expected. Their conclusion about the ones who lost more lost weight because "we don't know, maybe TEE or more burn from being more active, or undereating, maybe something to do with something someone else noticed that some people's calories burned while sleeping would change significantly on different diets. Tl;Dr;: there has to be more studies done"0 -
Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.
I think this says it all... end of argument.
Not all energy is created equally.
Also requires a closed system. The human body is not a closed system.
false. Conservation of energy applies to all systems. You cannot create or destroy energy in an open, isolated or closed system. You are thinking of the second law.
You're right. But CICO is based on BOTH laws, correct?
No, not really...the second law deals with isolated systems which humans certainly are not. Unless you can explain why the fact that entropy can never decrease in an isolated system has to do with CICO.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