Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Options
Replies
-
What was your calorie intake?
I lost 18 pounds in 35 days eating quality foods.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!
Humour me. For this specific question, let's assume quality of food was the key factor. Was it 2000? 3000? 4000?0 -
Well the foods were given to them so the serving sizes can be assumed to have been accurate.
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"
This.
Plus the sample size was really small. n=6 isn't adequate to get meaningful results. Maybe some people exercised more than others and didn't mention it (they felt better and so moved more). Or maybe TDEE was miscalcuated for a few people. Or maybe some people were using measuring cups instead of a food scale. Or maybe some people were just guesstimating serving sizes. When a study is performed in a non-controlled environment (the subjects weren't kept in a hospital or anything, they were at home) and the sample size is small, the results are pretty null.
I'm not saying that the conclusions aren't true. But they need to do a better controlled study with more people to validate it.
What I also noticed is that there was no mention of lbm retention. Since lindsey said 1 pound of muscle only yields 600-something calories, the ones with higher weight loss might have lost more lbm?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.
And this is what I think is silly -- this decoupling of the amorphous "good for your health" and weight loss. They're linked. One will affect the other, either in how much fat versus muscle you lose, overall lbs lost, how you feel, how you sleep, how your hormones adjust, how manageable the program is for you, etc. -- that will all affect your ultimate weight loss and body composition goals. To pretend that they're totally different things to me is an issue of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Yes...and no one disagrees with that, or at least I have yet to meet someone who disagrees with that. We all agree that having a healthy diet is important for sustained weight loss right? Anyone disagree with that?
Here is the thing though, that is not an invalidation of CICO. CICO is still applicable and is still true.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!
I lost 18 pounds in 35 days eating quality foods.
Nope, you are wrong quality matters.
YOu lost weight because you were eating fewer calories than you burned. its that simple.0 -
No, I never said that calories are not important, what I said is that I do not believe in CICO.
Okay. Can you define what you mean by CICO in your own words because I cannot help but feel that you think it is something that it isn't.
Really?
Really.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!
I lost 18 pounds in 35 days eating quality foods.
Nope, you are wrong quality matters.
YOu lost weight because you were eating fewer calories than you burned. its that simple.
Of course quality matters - to your body composition. But not to total weight loss.
What do you think CICO means?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!
I lost 18 pounds in 35 days eating at a net calorie deficit (aka CI<CO).
FIFY0 -
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.
No, I never said that calories are not important, what I said is that I do not believe in CICO.
Okay. Can you define what you mean by CICO in your own words because I cannot help but feel that you think it is something that it isn't.
Really?
yes....really. You are talking past people rather than at them, talking to some mythical person who doesn't exist. What do you think CICO means exactly and why do you think it is wrong.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.
But all that does is change the CO part. It's like saying 2 - 2 =/= 2 - 3 =/= 1 - 3 .
No, eating same calories with different result.0 -
(Has anyone else given thought to whether or not it's a violation of the "spam" section of the Community Guidelines (all hail!) to constantly quote existing posts without adding anything to them? No? Just me? Oh. Well, carry on then...)0
-
Okay. Can you define what you mean by CICO in your own words because I cannot help but feel that you think it is something that it isn't.
Really?
Nope that's not what it means. 2nd try.
***I'll help ya,. Tell her it means "Combat Information Center Officer" ***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.
No, I never said that calories are not important, what I said is that I do not believe in CICO.
Okay. Can you define what you mean by CICO in your own words because I cannot help but feel that you think it is something that it isn't.
Really?
yes....really. You are talking past people rather than at them, talking to some mythical person who doesn't exist. What do you think CICO means exactly and why do you think it is wrong.
You better get the definition right of calorie in calorie out. This is the dogma that you are supporting to lose weight.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.
But all that does is change the CO part. It's like saying 2 - 2 =/= 2 - 3 =/= 1 - 3 .
No, eating same calories with different result.
So CI is different. You do understand that you can eat the same number of calories that it says on a box and yet have a different CI right?
This is why I want you to define in your own words what you think CICO is.0 -
Okay. Can you define what you mean by CICO in your own words because I cannot help but feel that you think it is something that it isn't.
Really?
Nope that's not what it means. 2nd try.
***I'll help ya,. Tell her it means "Combat Information Center Officer" ***0 -
Can you PLEASE for the love of god learn how to properly quote?0
-
Okay. Can you define what you mean by CICO in your own words because I cannot help but feel that you think it is something that it isn't.
Really?
Nope that's not what it means. 2nd try.
***I'll help ya,. Tell her it means "Combat Information Center Officer" ***
[/quote]
sarcasm shows your ignorance.0 -
[/quote]Okay. Can you define what you mean by CICO in your own words because I cannot help but feel that you think it is something that it isn't.
Really?
Nope that's not what it means. 2nd try.
***I'll help ya,. Tell her it means "Combat Information Center Officer" ***
sarcasm shows your ignorance.
To clarify I am not asking you what the letters stand for, I know you know that....I am asking you what you think it means. How it applies to weight loss.0 -
For yourself, and I, perhaps optimisation is a concern. But I think your time spent on this forum should make it apparent that most people just want to lose some weight, and don't really care for the science or faffing around with numbersYes, 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.
True, but if you can't really determine the numbers, then you have to do more to cover that margin of error. And regardless of that, isnt' everyone interested in figuring out the most effective way that works for them? If lowering or raising their carbs, depending on the individual, results in greater, more effective results, doesn't everyone want to know that?
Doesn't everyone want to maximize their efforts? Get the most bang for their buck? And, isn't finding the most effective way what will lead to the most sustainable longterm changes?
In some ways, sure. But there are a lot of people that are doing everything *right* and don't see the results. They get frustrated and just chuck the whole thing. Or think they're going crazy. I was one of those people and struggled with various issues for over 10 years. I didn't understand or even know what insulin resistance was or how it or issues like thyroid problems could greatly shift the CICO numbers. It was super, super frustrating.
Had I known then what I know now, man, I would have saved a decade of super frustration and lack of consistent results...and probably damaging myself (thankfully, not permanently).
So, to me, discussing these sorts of caveats are important. Especially when over 40% of your population has such issues. It's not like a mere 1 or 2%.0 -
Not 100% true, the numbers on the box are just an average too, so the actual amount could be higher. So you could technically absorb more calories than stated on the box, but never more than the food actually contained.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.
Nutritional labels can be off by 20% so if you are eating a lot of processed foods you may actually be consuming as much as 20% more calories than you think you are.0 -
Not 100% true, the numbers on the box are just an average too, so the actual amount could be higher. So you could technically absorb more calories than stated on the box, but never more than the food actually contained.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.
Nutritional labels can be off by 20% so if you are eating a lot of processed foods you may actually be consuming as much as 20% more calories than you think you are.
You say that as if "non-processed" foods don't suffer from the same potential measurement error.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions