Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

RGv2

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.

59gi

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.

lindsey1979

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.

Sarauk2sf

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.

OkamiLavande

This is so entertaining.

I'm with this guy. I believe in CICO by the way, just throwing that out there. Yes not all calories are created equal because some are better at satiety than others, but that's eat. You can't eat 5000 calories worth or veggies and lean meats and NOT gain weight unless you are like..MMA guy Mt Kilimanjaro + a few hundred pounds and totally use 5000 calories a day. But you aren't and you'll gain wait.

Aaron_K123

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.

No, because if they were gaining or maintaining then they wouldn't be in deficit.

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.

Energy, is entirely about energy. How that energy release is profiled is affected by the makeup both of the fuel and the individual. But that doesn't invalidate the energy balance.

Not all energy is created equal

What does that even mean? All calories are calories and a calorie in food is the amount of energy required to raise 1 kilogram (litre) of water by 1 degree celsius. Now might person A gets 80% of the caloric value from their digestive process from that calorie if it comes from protein but person B gets only 60% because their gut flora do not process it as efficiently? Sure, I can believe that...but that doesn't invalidate CICO that just means the CI for one person is lower than for the other and it is up to them to determine what their CI is.

If you mean is 100 calories on a food box 100 calories for everyone on the planet then no it isn't, but that doesn't negate CICO.

MeanderingMammal

Not all energy is created equal

kinetic energy is extremely difficult to metabolise...

OkamiLavande

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.

I'm on a pudding, jello, and applesauce diet and I've lost weight. Prescribed by a surgeon thank you very much. Not everyone can eat those types of diets after surgery, especially throat surgery.

stevencloser

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.

Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.

lindsey1979

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.

Aaron_K123

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"?

59gi

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.

lindsey1979

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.

Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.

Also requires a closed system. The human body is not a closed system.

QuietBloom

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.

Aaron_K123

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.

DeguelloTex

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.

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?

lindsey1979

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.

ironanimal

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.

Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It can only change from one state into another.

Also requires a closed system. The human body is not a closed system.

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.

59gi

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.

jmv7117

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.