Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

stevencloser · July 2014

If you were an actual researcher you would post your sources. CiCo isn't wrong because the second law of thermodynamics is fact.

Also because conservation of energy.

Unknown · July 2014

This content has been removed.

QuietBloom · July 2014

Why are we supposed to stick to your 'facts' when you don't wish back them up? I suppose that all of your knowledge comes from peer reviewed scientific research articles? Or does it come from opinion blogs? These are important distinctions. The fact that you don't even know that CICO does NOT mean food quality doesn't matter is very telling to me.

59gi · July 2014

59gi · July 2014

If you read my other posts on MFP you will see that I have posted many research data, so I do back up what I'm saying. CICO is wrong.

eric_sg61 · July 2014

There aren't any studies that prove it wrong, if so please present it..........we'll wait

Why Calories Count
The Science Behind Why Calories Matter - And Why Dismissing Them Is Naive
http://ca.askmen.com/sports/bodybuilding/why-calories-count.html

"Aragon told me that no such study exists that shows people being overfed and losing weight. What’s more, there is no study in existence that shows people being underfed and not losing weight. "

59gi · July 2014

Here is one: http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

ironanimal · July 2014

If you're talking about TEF, it is a very minor consideration. If you don't put the energy in in the first place, it won't matter how differently it is processed.

ironanimal · July 2014

That's not a study. It's an opinion article.

EvgeniZyntx · July 2014

And no - Calories in and Calories out isn't true because of SLoT. SLoT can hold for a variety of situations where selective substrate metabolism may occur. Entropy, in a system where energy is being added is not a isolated system - entropy is just neither conserved or decreasing because of that basic tenant isn't observed.

What you probably mean is the First Law of Thermo - relative to the conservation of energy. You'd be basically wrong there too. Nothing there requires that biological processes be homeostatic - protein synthesis pathways are in many ways more exothermic and could result in an apparent break from FLoT with regards to CiCo.

Put away the Laws of Thermodynamics they've been abused a lot when discussing CiCo.

Calories In Calories out generally works because the general principal of a deficit is significantly more important factor than the efficiency changes when substrate are modified in diets. If done correctly, it's more important factor than meal timing, hours of sleep, sunlight, what not... but it is incorrect to assume it is 1:1 equation that isn't influenced (short term or long term) by factors like glycogen storage... etc.

Calories in Calories out generally works because the research shows that it is one of the most important factors.

If we were talking about a strict formuation of a LoT then things like diet hysteresis wouldn't occur - but we know that current metabolic performance depends on the prior diet path resulting in specific hormonal response, along with LBM.

If this was just about LoT then diseases like Triglyceride Storage Disease couldn't exist since somehow physical laws would make it impossible to have situations where lipids are not released, right? Well, those situations exist - there are diseases where fat just accumulates and the body over-utilizes other substrates for energy needs. Fortunately they are extremely rare and not of general concern for someone following CiCo.

Let the Laws of Thermodynamics rest in the corner, like the good dogs that they are, they do not need to be brought out and made to jump hoops to entertain the function of biological systems.

_Zardoz_ · July 2014

I think you need to do some research on the difference between a scientific study and an opinion. It may help you

s_pekz · July 2014

in for science

MeanderingMammal · July 2014

The General Diet and Weight Loss Forum is intended for unsubstantiated opinion, woo and nonsense though isn't it

59gi · July 2014

59gi · July 2014

Wrong Harvard is not an opinion source.

http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html

59gi · July 2014

http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html

MeanderingMammal · July 2014

That's not helped your case. First line is "I think..." and it's unsupported. So your opinion is backed up by someone elses opinion and speculation.

stevencloser · July 2014

Yes, what I'm trying to say is that a body needs energy and that energy has to come from somewhere and the other way around if more energy goes in than your body needs that energy can't disappear into nothingness (conservation of energy).

EvgeniZyntx · July 2014

That isn't a scientific article.

And while a doctor might say that there are flaws in CiCo (and it isn't perfect), those flaws do not invalidate it for general use.
It isn't 100% accurate but it is generally more important to assure a deficit than to focus on a substrate.

You can't eat ad libitum of just x and lose weight.

Weight loss is a factor of calories consumed.

59gi · July 2014

Wrong my friend, not my opinion. Read and learn!

http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html

Veil5577 · July 2014

If CICO doesn't work, explain the Twinkie diet and how a guy lost weight eating Twinkies but kept a calorie deficit?

It's a simple fact. Burn more than you take in=weight loss.

eric_sg61 · July 2014

Dr. Michael Israetel Nutritional Priorities for Body Composition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szzo5Uy5aQU
Cliffs:
Most important Variables:
1. CICO -The most important of any diet
2. Macronutrient amounts
3. Nutrient Timing - considerablely less impact than 1 & 2
4. Food Composition -dead last in nutritional priority

MeanderingMammal · July 2014

The fact that behaviour, commitment, consistency and awareness all play a part doesn't render the underlying principle of creating a net calorie deficit invalid.

The fact that a parachute works isn't evidence that gravity doesn't work, it's evidence for the interplay of different factors in a system having an effect.

ironanimal · July 2014

Oh look another article, with no link to the study they're supposedly basing their commentary on - usually indicative of cherry picking information for their personal agenda.

stevencloser · July 2014

Don't forget "often misinterpreting the presented data to fit your opinion" when I think about the aspartame thread and the cancer rats...

Hendrix7 · July 2014

I have only skim read this study so forgive me......... however, no mention appears to be made of the participants actually tracking daily calorie intake? They filled out a questionnaire every 2 years to report on lifestyle changes..the study seems to report that weight gain is associated with the consumption of certain types of foods which in itself is reasonable.

It does NOT appear to state that regardless of overall calorie intake, certain types of food lead directly weight gain.

Based on my (admittedly very brief) look at this, it doesn't seem to support what you are saying.

someone with more time on their hands could probably due a better job with the full text

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleMethods

EvgeniZyntx · July 2014

This is true, but conservation of energy doesn't disallow for CiCo to have issues - imagine that eating x with y resulted in the energy of x not being absorbed. Or that eating y in the morning was slight more enzymatically efficient in conversion to energy than eating it in the evening ... Would conservation of energy be abused? Not at all.

Those exact things do happen, but they are just not very important. And people that try to blow up CiCo focus on those.

CiCo isn't exact it doesn't follow conservation of energy exactly but it remains a solid empirical method because hundreds of studies and the leading metabolic models show that the principal factor of available energy over the long term is the energy consumed. All the other factors, that do exist, play second fiddle.

In a way CiCo is "broken" but is was never an exact equation, it works because ... we've seen it work empirically. One could write this better as weight loss is a factor of many things .....

weight loss = F(α * Calories In, β * Calories out, γ * past weight, δ * exercise timing, etc.....)

the alpha and the beta remain the most important elements, in the absence of certain diseases.

59gi · July 2014

http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/calories.htm

Momjogger · July 2014

This article mimics what I have experienced in real life and what I base my eating on when I am being healthy and actively trying to lose weight. Thanks for the link!

amyenman1 · July 2014

Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

Replies

Categories