Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Replies
-
Steve postedBut injecting that stuff doesn't make any energy suddenly poof into nonexistence which conservation of energy is about. It still exists but goes somewhere else (probably gets excreted in your example?)
No excretion. You are right, the energy doesn't poof. Except those are assumed energy values for a system and not exact.
As I mentioned COE holds for the steps as assumed closed processes but once you chose different paths COE isn't ruling what is available for use so CI are not quite equal to the same calories available for metabolism.
In the example I gave what actually occurs (my assumption here) is that there is no energy cost to move lipids into fat cells and back out on demand and triglycerides remain available in free form for higher direct use. The energy reduction is due to less lipid transport. For this individual the Atwater values would be wrong, CICO would be influenced and yet COE (the physical law) remains true.
My very unclear example being that COE of subsystems can hold but give different CICO results (total energy for metabolism not being conserved) therefore one shouldn't use COE to validate CICO.0 -
I'm still waiting on how you can eat whatever you want in whatever quantity and not gain weight.
I don't think you understand how this works. Why do people always extrapolate out to absurdity to try and prove a false point?
Because she made it same as if QUANTITY didn't matter at all when it does. You can't eat excess amounts of anything. That's what I understood from some of her previous posts - that you can eat as much healthy stuff as you want. That just isn't true. And that's what I read. Sorry if I'm wrong but that is what it looked like she was trying to get across.0 -
I'm still waiting on how you can eat whatever you want in whatever quantity and not gain weight.
It's all about the quality!
Just as well I usually eat the quality ice-creams.
Mmmm, ice cream. :drinker:0 -
Sweet!! in for round 2
j/k, I think it is all about CICO. Ultimately, no matter what disease or issue that one may have, it still comes down to Calories In versus Calories out. You may have to make adjustments because of diabetes, or thyroid issues, or even take some drugs, but it still ends up back at the first law of weight loss, CICO. Yes, things go better health wise if you eat the right combination of macro's but it always comes down to CICO.
If it isn't, why is it that all the huge success stories on these forums believe that? For the most part the only people I see agreeing with ginal59 are not where I want to be in one year. I don't mean to be snarky but I am going to listen and follow the people that are where I want to be.0 -
Just marking so I can read at my leisure later.0
-
I'm still waiting on how you can eat whatever you want in whatever quantity and not gain weight.
It's all about the quality!
Just as well I usually eat the quality ice-creams.
Hmm...I think I'll go to Quality Dairy and get some ice cream to eat while I continue to read this thread.0 -
I'm still waiting on how you can eat whatever you want in whatever quantity and not gain weight.
It's all about the quality!
Just as well I usually eat the quality ice-creams.
I eat whatever is cheapest at Wal-Mart. I will probably soon either: 1. Die. Or, 2. Quickly gain 100 lbs. I shall post my results for the benefit of MFP science. Except if I die, and then I will just disappear.
Edited because Stupid Phone.0 -
I promised myself I would not get sucked into this. I hate you all.
Now.
Does anyone else feel more than a little stabby at the word "quality" at this point? People keep throwing it around as if its contextual use is universally understood and agreed upon.
Don't bother saying crap like "quality matters" because it's hollow. When you refer to "quality" are you actually referencing "nutrient dense" foods? If that's the case, do tell what biochemical process is going on for an average person, with no particular medical problems, that allows for a nutrient-dense food to be metabolically superior to a less dense food of equal caloric content. Don't get me wrong, I'd advocate we'd eat nutrient dense foods b/c...well...we need nutrients. But if those needs are being met, good luck convincing me that something else is going to prevent me from losing weight.
If that isn't what's meant by "quality," feel free to go into what it does mean.0 -
Dude, that is pretty snarky.
If it isn't, why is it that all the huge success stories on these forums believe that? For the most part the only people I see agreeing with ginal59 are not where I want to be in one year. I don't mean to be snarky but I am going to listen and follow the people that are where I want to be.
I may find ginal59 to be incorrect and miss out on what CICO means but the above attitude is crappy.0 -
Ugh, I got to page 14 or something and wanted to quote and respond and now I can't! Damn roll! :mad:
Anyway, way back several pages ago Lindsay? posted a study "Insulin Sensitivity Determines the Effectiveness of Dietary Macronutrient Composition on Weight Loss in Obese Women" as evidence against CICO in these situations.
I would like to comment on this study. The groups were very small at only n=4. Apart from 3 day food diaries and food provided, there was no other way to monitor intake. I don't believe that the result has been replicated since. There are other studies that report no difference in weight loss under similar circumstances. eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17023708
Fifty-seven randomly assigned, insulin-resistant, obese persons completed a 16-wk calorie-restricted diet with 15% of energy as protein and either 60% and 25% or 40% and 45% of energy as carbohydrate and fat, respectively. Weight loss with 60% or 40% of energy as carbohydrate (5.7 +/- 0.7 or 6.9 +/- 0.7 kg, respectively) did not differ significantly, and improvement in insulin sensitivity correlated with the amount of weight lost (r = 0.50, P < 0.001).
To cite the first study as evidence against CICO is a stretch IMO.
That's it.
I'm probably late to the party and it's moved on by now...sorry :laugh:0 -
In...
...for 2k CoB.
(I'll explain later...when it inevitably becomes relevant to the discussion.)0 -
In again. for science.0
-
In the example I gave what actually occurs (my assumption here) is that there is no energy cost to move lipids into fat cells and back out on demand and triglycerides remain available in free form for higher direct use. The energy reduction is due to less lipid transport. For this individual the Atwater values would be wrong, CICO would be influenced and yet COE (the physical law) remains true.
My very unclear example being that COE of subsystems can hold but give different CICO results (total energy for metabolism not being conserved) therefore one shouldn't use COE to validate CICO.
Overall CoE and CoE of any defined subsystem holds, it's all about definition and measurement. Energy is a variable of state unconcerned with how you got there - bit like multiplication doesn't care about the order but addition and multiplication together does.
Futile cycling of fats from lipolysis back into adipose tissue is certainly a mechanism in play -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/40.short shows how caffeine (no calories in) increases energy expenditure (more calories out) and increases lipolysis.0 -
Dude, that is pretty snarky.
If it isn't, why is it that all the huge success stories on these forums believe that? For the most part the only people I see agreeing with ginal59 are not where I want to be in one year. I don't mean to be snarky but I am going to listen and follow the people that are where I want to be.
I may find ginal59 to be incorrect and miss out on what CICO means but the above attitude is crappy.
I read that again and you are right it is snarky, but after I thought about it, I am not going to back out of the statement or apologize. If you want to be financially independent, you do not take advice from someone who isn't. So I want to lose more weight and become a fitter me. I am going to listen to those that have been successful.0 -
I promised myself I would not get sucked into this. I hate you all.
Now.
Does anyone else feel more than a little stabby at the word "quality" at this point? People keep throwing it around as if its contextual use is universally understood and agreed upon.
Don't bother saying crap like "quality matters" because it's hollow. When you refer to "quality" as you actually referencing "nutrient dense" foods? If that's the case, do tell what biochemical process is going on for an average person, with no particular medical problems, that allows for a nutrient-dense food to be metabolically superior to a less dense food of equal caloric content. Don't get me wrong, I'd advocate we'd eat nutrient dense foods b/c...well...we need nutrients. But if those needs are being met, good luck convincing me that something else is going to prevent me from losing weight.
If that isn't what's meant by "quality," feel free to go into what it does mean.
Quality does matter.
But I think that has a lot more to do with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance than fresh beans.0 -
. Weight loss with 60% or 40% of energy as carbohydrate (5.7 +/- 0.7 or 6.9 +/- 0.7 kg, respectively) did not differ significantly, and improvement in insulin sensitivity correlated with the amount of weight lost (r = 0.50, P < 0.001).
What was the p value for the 1.2 kg / 21% extra weight loss on the second treatment ? It's 82 calories a day equivalent.0 -
I promised myself I would not get sucked into this. I hate you all.
Now.
Does anyone else feel more than a little stabby at the word "quality" at this point? People keep throwing it around as if its contextual use is universally understood and agreed upon.
Don't bother saying crap like "quality matters" because it's hollow. When you refer to "quality" as you actually referencing "nutrient dense" foods? If that's the case, do tell what biochemical process is going on for an average person, with no particular medical problems, that allows for a nutrient-dense food to be metabolically superior to a less dense food of equal caloric content. Don't get me wrong, I'd advocate we'd eat nutrient dense foods b/c...well...we need nutrients. But if those needs are being met, good luck convincing me that something else is going to prevent me from losing weight.
If that isn't what's meant by "quality," feel free to go into what it does mean.
Quality does matter.
But I think that has a lot more to do with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance than fresh beans.
I have a question. What is that in your profile pic? A painting or something? It's really cool and I was just curious. Sorry for hijack!0 -
Dude, that is pretty snarky.
If it isn't, why is it that all the huge success stories on these forums believe that? For the most part the only people I see agreeing with ginal59 are not where I want to be in one year. I don't mean to be snarky but I am going to listen and follow the people that are where I want to be.
I may find ginal59 to be incorrect and miss out on what CICO means but the above attitude is crappy.
I read that again and you are right it is snarky, but after I thought about it, I am not going to back out of the statement or apologize. If you want to be financially independent, you do not take advice from someone who isn't. So I want to lose more weight and become a fitter me. I am going to listen to those that have been successful.
It was snarky...but full of truth. Don't take it back
I support you! 0 -
Like in a God and Jesus kinda way? Because that's sexist!0
-
In the example I gave what actually occurs (my assumption here) is that there is no energy cost to move lipids into fat cells and back out on demand and triglycerides remain available in free form for higher direct use. The energy reduction is due to less lipid transport. For this individual the Atwater values would be wrong, CICO would be influenced and yet COE (the physical law) remains true.
My very unclear example being that COE of subsystems can hold but give different CICO results (total energy for metabolism not being conserved) therefore one shouldn't use COE to validate CICO.
Overall CoE and CoE of any defined subsystem holds, it's all about definition and measurement. Energy is a variable of state unconcerned with how you got there - bit like multiplication doesn't care about the order but addition and multiplication together does.
Futile cycling of fats from lipolysis back into adipose tissue is certainly a mechanism in play -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/40.short shows how caffeine (no calories in) increases energy expenditure (more calories out) and increases lipolysis.
And the available energy for metabolism doesn't hold constant (therefore not due to COE). And yes, it's about definitions, selected variables and measurement.0 -
Ugh, I got to page 14 or something and wanted to quote and respond and now I can't! Damn roll! :mad:
Anyway, way back several pages ago Lindsay? posted a study "Insulin Sensitivity Determines the Effectiveness of Dietary Macronutrient Composition on Weight Loss in Obese Women" as evidence against CICO in these situations.
I would like to comment on this study. The groups were very small at only n=4. Apart from 3 day food diaries and food provided, there was no other way to monitor intake. I don't believe that the result has been replicated since. There are other studies that report no difference in weight loss under similar circumstances. eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17023708
Fifty-seven randomly assigned, insulin-resistant, obese persons completed a 16-wk calorie-restricted diet with 15% of energy as protein and either 60% and 25% or 40% and 45% of energy as carbohydrate and fat, respectively. Weight loss with 60% or 40% of energy as carbohydrate (5.7 +/- 0.7 or 6.9 +/- 0.7 kg, respectively) did not differ significantly, and improvement in insulin sensitivity correlated with the amount of weight lost (r = 0.50, P < 0.001).
To cite the first study as evidence against CICO is a stretch IMO.
That's it.
I'm probably late to the party and it's moved on by now...sorry :laugh:
I'm not familiar with the study you quoted, but it appears from what you stated, that there were significant differences. 5.7 versus 6.9 kgs (or 12.56 vs. 15.21 lbs) is a 21% difference. Sure, it's not a 80-100% difference like was shown in the other study. But, to say that's not significant, I completely disagree with that. I'd also like to see the difference in amount of insulin resistance (sorry, didn't read study, so perhaps it addresses) as the greater the insulin resistance, the greater the difference in carbs is likely going to make.
And, for anecdotal evidence, go check out an insulin resistance board, like the PCOS board -- you'll find a lot of people will say that they had to lower carbs to see results, or better results.0 -
Dude, that is pretty snarky.
If it isn't, why is it that all the huge success stories on these forums believe that? For the most part the only people I see agreeing with ginal59 are not where I want to be in one year. I don't mean to be snarky but I am going to listen and follow the people that are where I want to be.
I may find ginal59 to be incorrect and miss out on what CICO means but the above attitude is crappy.
I read that again and you are right it is snarky, but after I thought about it, I am not going to back out of the statement or apologize. If you want to be financially independent, you do not take advice from someone who isn't. So I want to lose more weight and become a fitter me. I am going to listen to those that have been successful.
So if a scientist isn't physically fit to your standards, you won't listen to his/her expertise in his chosen field? Same with doctors?
Not exactly a very good analogy.0 -
I'm not familiar with the study you quoted, but it appears from what you stated, that there were significant differents. 5.7 versus 6.9 kgs (or 12.56 vs. 15.21 lbs) is a 21% difference. Sure, it's not a 80-100% difference like was shown in the other study. But, to say that's not significant, I completely disagree with that. I'd also like to see the difference in amount of insulin resistance (sorry, didn't read study, so perhaps it addresses) as the greater the insulin resistance, the greater the difference in carbs is likely going to make
The "significance" is a statistical one, P=0.26 between groups, it would be personally / clinically significant I guess.
The next bit after the original quote includes " improvement in insulin sensitivity correlated with the amount of weight lost (r = 0.50, P < 0.001). Subjects following the diet with 40% of energy as carbohydrate had greater reductions in daylong insulin and triacylglycerol (P < 0.05) and fasting triacylglycerol (0.53 mmol/L; P = 0.04) concentrations, greater increases in HDL-cholesterol concentrations (0.12 mmol/L; P < 0.01) and LDL particle size (1.82 s; P < 0.05), and a greater decrease in plasma E-selectin (5.6 ng/L; P = 0.02) than did subjects following the diet with 60% of energy as carbohydrate." - so several statistically significant improvements on the reduced carb arm, even at 40% carbs.0 -
I promised myself I would not get sucked into this. I hate you all.
Now.
Does anyone else feel more than a little stabby at the word "quality" at this point? People keep throwing it around as if its contextual use is universally understood and agreed upon.
Don't bother saying crap like "quality matters" because it's hollow. When you refer to "quality" as you actually referencing "nutrient dense" foods? If that's the case, do tell what biochemical process is going on for an average person, with no particular medical problems, that allows for a nutrient-dense food to be metabolically superior to a less dense food of equal caloric content. Don't get me wrong, I'd advocate we'd eat nutrient dense foods b/c...well...we need nutrients. But if those needs are being met, good luck convincing me that something else is going to prevent me from losing weight.
If that isn't what's meant by "quality," feel free to go into what it does mean.
Quality does matter.
But I think that has a lot more to do with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance than fresh beans.
I have a question. What is that in your profile pic? A painting or something? It's really cool and I was just curious. Sorry for hijack!
That is an extract of Posada.
He's a political cartoonist and engraver from the 1900s in Mexico and important influencer of Orozco and other LatAm painters. The color element is just my head - a collage I was work on with my daughters, my head replaces one of the skulls on the ground.
His stuff is great.
0 -
Calories In/Calories Out ALWAYS works one way - if you eat more calories than you expend, you're going to gain weight, no question about it. However, suppose your body doesn't like carbs for genetic reasons. You could eat 1000 calories, and your body might decide to convert 200 of those into fat right away and only allow you 800 calories of energy. What then?
There's a reason we're told not to eat fewer than 1200 calories each day - the body really can (and does) get picky about how it works with those calories.0 -
Then you would die if your body didn't take the rest of the energy it needs back out of your fat.Calories In/Calories Out ALWAYS works one way - if you eat more calories than you expend, you're going to gain weight, no question about it. However, suppose your body doesn't like carbs for genetic reasons. You could eat 1000 calories, and your body might decide to convert 200 of those into fat right away and only allow you 800 calories of energy. What then?
There's a reason we're told not to eat fewer than 1200 calories each day - the body really can (and does) get picky about how it works with those calories.0 -
Calories In/Calories Out ALWAYS works one way - if you eat more calories than you expend, you're going to gain weight, no question about it. However, suppose your body doesn't like carbs for genetic reasons. You could eat 1000 calories, and your body might decide to convert 200 of those into fat right away and only allow you 800 calories of energy. What then?
There's a reason we're told not to eat fewer than 1200 calories each day - the body really can (and does) get picky about how it works with those calories.
Your body uses it's fat stores for energy then.0 -
I'm not familiar with the study you quoted, but it appears from what you stated, that there were significant differents. 5.7 versus 6.9 kgs (or 12.56 vs. 15.21 lbs) is a 21% difference. Sure, it's not a 80-100% difference like was shown in the other study. But, to say that's not significant, I completely disagree with that. I'd also like to see the difference in amount of insulin resistance (sorry, didn't read study, so perhaps it addresses) as the greater the insulin resistance, the greater the difference in carbs is likely going to make
The "significance" is a statistical one, P=0.26 between groups, it would be personally / clinically significant I guess.
The next bit after the original quote includes " improvement in insulin sensitivity correlated with the amount of weight lost (r = 0.50, P < 0.001). Subjects following the diet with 40% of energy as carbohydrate had greater reductions in daylong insulin and triacylglycerol (P < 0.05) and fasting triacylglycerol (0.53 mmol/L; P = 0.04) concentrations, greater increases in HDL-cholesterol concentrations (0.12 mmol/L; P < 0.01) and LDL particle size (1.82 s; P < 0.05), and a greater decrease in plasma E-selectin (5.6 ng/L; P = 0.02) than did subjects following the diet with 60% of energy as carbohydrate." - so several statistically significant improvements on the reduced carb arm, even at 40% carbs.
What do you think would happen to those values if the Atwater factors for carbs shifted to say 4,1 or 4.4? :drinker:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full
"The difference between metabolizable energy (ME) calculated by using Atwater and similar factors and determined ME values was up to 4% for the refined diet and up to 11% for the low-fat, high-fiber diets. Various factorial and empirical systems for calculating food energy failed to reflect the results of the direct determinations."0 -
I promised myself I would not get sucked into this. I hate you all.
Now.
Does anyone else feel more than a little stabby at the word "quality" at this point? People keep throwing it around as if its contextual use is universally understood and agreed upon.
Don't bother saying crap like "quality matters" because it's hollow. When you refer to "quality" are you actually referencing "nutrient dense" foods? If that's the case, do tell what biochemical process is going on for an average person, with no particular medical problems, that allows for a nutrient-dense food to be metabolically superior to a less dense food of equal caloric content. Don't get me wrong, I'd advocate we'd eat nutrient dense foods b/c...well...we need nutrients. But if those needs are being met, good luck convincing me that something else is going to prevent me from losing weight.
If that isn't what's meant by "quality," feel free to go into what it does mean.
It's not just you :happy:0 -
I promised myself I would not get sucked into this. I hate you all.
Now.
Does anyone else feel more than a little stabby at the word "quality" at this point? People keep throwing it around as if its contextual use is universally understood and agreed upon.
Don't bother saying crap like "quality matters" because it's hollow. When you refer to "quality" are you actually referencing "nutrient dense" foods? If that's the case, do tell what biochemical process is going on for an average person, with no particular medical problems, that allows for a nutrient-dense food to be metabolically superior to a less dense food of equal caloric content. Don't get me wrong, I'd advocate we'd eat nutrient dense foods b/c...well...we need nutrients. But if those needs are being met, good luck convincing me that something else is going to prevent me from losing weight.
If that isn't what's meant by "quality," feel free to go into what it does mean.
It's not just you :happy:
No kidding. 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