Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Replies
-
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 -
What do you think would happen to those values if the Atwater factors for carbs shifted to say 4,1 or 4.4?
the insulin sensitivity and blood values ? I don't think they would be affected at all.
If CICO uses the "wrong" factors for CI then if the value you propose were the only thing to change then the calorie deficits would be different from what the study set out to do, if it were only carbs the error would clearly be bigger in the higher carb case.
If the factors are in doubt that would be another reason to say "no" to the original question. I can't believe in strictly anything if you're telling me the factors are uncertain.
Edit to add - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649/T2.expansion.html shows some difficulty in deciding how much carbohydrate is present, let alone its energy value.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.
Except that it sometimes doesn't work quite that linearly. Sometimes, you just feel terrible -- super tired because the energy isn't there. And hungry. And, so you either grin and bear it and feel terrible or you eat more -- which is why insulin resistance makes losing weight so difficult.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.
Except that it sometimes doesn't work quite that linearly. Sometimes, you just feel terrible -- super tired because the energy isn't there. And hungry. And, so you either grin and bear it and feel terrible or you eat more -- which is why insulin resistance makes losing weight so difficult.
Your energy levels may go down - but your body uses fat (and sometimes muscle) for energy if it does not have other reserves - otherwise you would be dead.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.
Except that it sometimes doesn't work quite that linearly. Sometimes, you just feel terrible -- super tired because the energy isn't there. And hungry. And, so you either grin and bear it and feel terrible or you eat more -- which is why insulin resistance makes losing weight so difficult.
Your energy levels may go down - but your body uses fat (and sometimes muscle) for energy if it does not have other reserves - otherwise you would be dead.
Sure, absolutely. But people want to lose fat, not muscle, as a general rule. And if you've got a set up that makes that more difficult because of wonky glucose metabolism, it's a really uphill battle.
If you're never experienced insulin resistance, it's really hard. It's the equivalent often of feeling like you've eaten a lot less calories than you really have -- like you're on a starvation diet, when you're not because the glucose isn't getting into the cells like it should. It feels like you have low blood sugar when you don't -- so you get hungry like a person with low blood sugar does. Then, if you eat, more of that glucose is stored as fat because the dump of insulin forces the cells to take up the energy and more gets stored since you really didn't need it in the first place. It takes a lot more "willpower" than is normally needed in a regular weight loss regime because of this issue. So, people correct to some degree with lowering carbs and medication sometimes.
It's similar to hypothyroid issues. The answer isn't just to keep reducing your calories until you're at bad levels -- like less than 1000/day. People with untreated hypothyroid are often plagued with terrible fatigue. The answer isn't to say, "hey, your CO is really low, so just eat less to compensate." The answer is to try and figure out your issues to bring your levels within "normal" range.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.
Except that it sometimes doesn't work quite that linearly. Sometimes, you just feel terrible -- super tired because the energy isn't there. And hungry. And, so you either grin and bear it and feel terrible or you eat more -- which is why insulin resistance makes losing weight so difficult.
Your energy levels may go down - but your body uses fat (and sometimes muscle) for energy if it does not have other reserves - otherwise you would be dead.
Sure, absolutely. But people want to lose fat, not muscle, as a general rule. And if you've got a set up that makes that more difficult because of wonky glucose metabolism, it's a really uphill battle.
If you're never experienced insulin resistance, it's really hard. It's the equivalent often of feeling like you've eaten a lot less calories than you really have -- like you're on a starvation diet, when you're not. It takes a lot more "willpower" than is normally needed in a regular weight loss regime because of this issue. So, people correct to some degree with lowering carbs and medication sometimes.
It's similar to hypothyroid issues. The answer isn't just to keep reducing your calories until you're at bad levels -- like less than 1000/day. People with untreated hypothyroid are often plagued with terrible fatigue. The answer isn't to say, "hey, your CO is really low, so just eat less to compensate." The answer is to try and figure out your issues to bring your levels within "normal" range.
Of course it is, nobody is saying that that isn't the optimal solution. But it still doesn't invalidate that CICO is the single most important factor related to losing weight.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.
Except that it sometimes doesn't work quite that linearly. Sometimes, you just feel terrible -- super tired because the energy isn't there. And hungry. And, so you either grin and bear it and feel terrible or you eat more -- which is why insulin resistance makes losing weight so difficult.
Your energy levels may go down - but your body uses fat (and sometimes muscle) for energy if it does not have other reserves - otherwise you would be dead.
Sure, absolutely. But people want to lose fat, not muscle, as a general rule. And if you've got a set up that makes that more difficult because of wonky glucose metabolism, it's a really uphill battle.
If you're never experienced insulin resistance, it's really hard. It's the equivalent often of feeling like you've eaten a lot less calories than you really have -- like you're on a starvation diet, when you're not because the glucose isn't getting into the cells like it should. It feels like you have low blood sugar when you don't -- so you get hungry like a person with low blood sugar does. Then, if you eat, more of that glucose is stored as fat because the dump of insulin forces the cells to take up the energy and more gets stored since you really didn't need it in the first place. It takes a lot more "willpower" than is normally needed in a regular weight loss regime because of this issue. So, people correct to some degree with lowering carbs and medication sometimes.
It's similar to hypothyroid issues. The answer isn't just to keep reducing your calories until you're at bad levels -- like less than 1000/day. People with untreated hypothyroid are often plagued with terrible fatigue. The answer isn't to say, "hey, your CO is really low, so just eat less to compensate." The answer is to try and figure out your issues to bring your levels within "normal" range.
I realize that most people want to lose only fat - I am not sure what further point you are making here, other than that you have made. I was responding to the person who made the post - and I am not sure what your response to my comment has to do with that.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.
Nope, it's statistically not significant whether you disagree or not. Have a look at the error bars. The groups overlap. 5.7 +/- 0.7 = 5-6.4 and 6.9 +/- 0.7 = 6.2-7.6
"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." There is no statistically significant difference.0 -
A p value <0.05 would generally be considered statistically significant.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.
Those on the lower carb diet definitely had several improved markers, but my point was that weight loss didn't differ.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.
Nope, it's statistically not significant whether you disagree or not. Have a look at the error bars. The groups overlap. 5.7 +/- 0.7 = 5-6.4 and 6.9 +/- 0.7 = 6.2-7.6
"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." There is no statistically significant difference.
Is that how you determine statistical significance? Because it's my understanding that isn't the case. Going the other way, it could also be 5.0 and 7.6.0 -
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.
Have been following this thread without commenting for a while.
Debunk what someone is saying, debate their point of view, even comment on their use of the forum (eg whether they can use quotes properly)
But don't make personal comments - that crosses a line and is very poor form.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions