Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

bump to read later

Quoting things multiple times and in multiple ways (via multiple links) does not make it more correct.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/post/new/1347263-do-you-believe-in-strictly-calories-in-calories-out?quote=20665909

Quotes from the NEJM paper (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleTop) that some blogger used as evidence that "quality" of calories trumps CICO:

"weight stability requires a balance between calories consumed and calories expended" So CICO.

"Some foods — vegetables, nuts, fruits, and whole grains — were associated with less weight gain when consumption was actually increased. Obviously, such foods provide calories and cannot violate thermodynamic laws. Their inverse associations with weight gain suggest that the increase in their consumption reduced the intake of other foods to a greater (caloric) extent, decreasing the overall amount of energy consumed." So it's still a matter of CICO, but changing eating habits or feeling more full after eating resulted in people unwittingly reducing their calories consumed.

"Overall, our analysis showed divergent relationships between specific foods or beverages and long-term weight gain, suggesting that dietary quality (the types of foods and beverages consumed) influences dietary quantity (total calories)." So total CICO still was the direct scientific cause of weight gain or loss, but dietary quality influences CICO, i.e. people that eat unfilling foods or super calorie dense foods tend to eat a calorie surplus. Duh.

"Our findings suggest that both individual and population-based strategies to help people consume fewer calories may be most effective when particular foods and beverages are targeted for decreased (or increased) consumption." So the researchers are asserting that eating "healthier" diets should help people reach the END GOAL of consuming fewer calories. Got it.

This content has been removed.

Yes, because our body does not utilize every calorie the same.

You seriously have got to be the worst poster I have seen on MFP in a long time. You always just throw out opinions with no substance. Ever. EVER.

No you need to study my friend.

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

It's not my opinion. I have done many years of research on the subject, and do not have the time or inclination to post every research document that I have read over the 35+ years. CICO is wrong. Quality of foods matter, because we metabolize them differently.

You do not need to agree with me, but you need to stick to the subject matter without attacking me personally.

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.

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.

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. "

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

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

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

Yeah actually, that is an opinion source written by someone named Charlotte on a commercial website called thegreatfitness experiment. It is not a study. It mentions a "study" but when you click the link rather than take you to an actual study it takes you to another internet opinion piece by someone named Jane Brody in which a "Harvard study" is mentioned but not cited.

Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?

Quoting things multiple times and in multiple ways (via multiple links) does not make it more correct.

LOLOLOLOLLLLLL

CICO old dogma!



http://davidgillespie.org/why-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics-has-no-place-in-human-nutrition/

Please, for the next 30 days eat 5000 calories of all 'healthy', 'clean' approved foods and come back to this thread and tell us that you didn't gain any weight at all.

Will do that when you eat 5000 calories from doughnut!
This!

I'd actually take you up on this but I'm not sure how we would be able hold each other accountable to it. Are you actually willing to eat 5000 calories per day or are you just having an "LOL" moment here?

That said I thought the point you were trying to make was amount of calories didn't matter, food quality mattered. So why is it necessary to eat 5000 calories worth of donuts to be comparable to eating 5000 calories of "healthy" food then? According to your logic you should be able to eat 5000 calories of healthy food and be better off for weight loss or maintenance than if I ate 1800 calories of just donuts right?

Yes, because our body does not utilize every calorie the same.

You seriously have got to be the worst poster I have seen on MFP in a long time. You always just throw out opinions with no substance. Ever. EVER.

No you need to study my friend.

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

It's not my opinion. I have done many years of research on the subject, and do not have the time or inclination to post every research document that I have read over the 35+ years. CICO is wrong. Quality of foods matter, because we metabolize them differently.

You do not need to agree with me, but you need to stick to the subject matter without attacking me personally.

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.

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.

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. "

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

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

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

Yeah actually, that is an opinion source written by someone named Charlotte on a commercial website called thegreatfitness experiment. It is not a study. It mentions a "study" but when you click the link rather than take you to an actual study it takes you to another internet opinion piece by someone named Jane Brody in which a "Harvard study" is mentioned but not cited.

Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?

How is this my friend:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?

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

Thanks. Has anyone actually read this or is it a case of just passing around a study link. I'd be willing to read it if others have read it but if I end up being the only one who has actually read it can't help but feel like I will be just wasting my time.

Yes, because our body does not utilize every calorie the same.

You seriously have got to be the worst poster I have seen on MFP in a long time. You always just throw out opinions with no substance. Ever. EVER.

No you need to study my friend.

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

It's not my opinion. I have done many years of research on the subject, and do not have the time or inclination to post every research document that I have read over the 35+ years. CICO is wrong. Quality of foods matter, because we metabolize them differently.

You do not need to agree with me, but you need to stick to the subject matter without attacking me personally.

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.

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.

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. "

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

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

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

Yeah actually, that is an opinion source written by someone named Charlotte on a commercial website called thegreatfitness experiment. It is not a study. It mentions a "study" but when you click the link rather than take you to an actual study it takes you to another internet opinion piece by someone named Jane Brody in which a "Harvard study" is mentioned but not cited.

Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?

How is this my friend:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

I'm beginning to think you really don't know what a study is. That was published in a harvard news magazine called the Gazzette and is, AGAIN, an editorial opinion piece written by Andrea Moody at the communications department. It at least claims to link to the actual study (not conducted at Harvard by the way) but if you click it the link is broken. It is pretty clear you haven't read this study yourself since you have been completely unable to link to it.

A couple questions. I used the search function but some of the info may be outdated - not sure.

#1) Do YOU believe in strictly calories in - calories out? As in, you could eat all of your calories in pure table sugar, and although its incredibly unhealthy, you would lose weight if you're in a caloric defecit? If so, is there ever a situation where a caloric deficit would NOT lead to weight loss?

#2) Ever since I introduced weight lifting (bench press, squat, dead lift, shoulders) 3 weeks ago, my weight loss has screeched to a snails pace (1 pound or less per week while being in a 2.5 pound caloric deficit). It is common knowledge that you don't build muscle while in a caloric defect. Am I holding onto water in the muscles for nearly 3 weeks now? As soon as I get my hands on a tape measure large enough I'll start measuring.

#3) If Insulin stores fat, how do we lose weight while eating carbs and sugars (even in a caloric deficit) while insulin levels are elevated?

Thanks.

1) NO!
2) Yes
3) it's complicated

Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?

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

Thanks. Has anyone actually read this or is it a case of just passing around a study link. I'd be willing to read it if others have read it but if I end up being the only one who has actually read it can't help but feel like I will be just wasting my time.

This is what I posted [twice] earlier which she refuses to respond to

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

Yes, because our body does not utilize every calorie the same.

You seriously have got to be the worst poster I have seen on MFP in a long time. You always just throw out opinions with no substance. Ever. EVER.

No you need to study my friend.

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

It's not my opinion. I have done many years of research on the subject, and do not have the time or inclination to post every research document that I have read over the 35+ years. CICO is wrong. Quality of foods matter, because we metabolize them differently.

You do not need to agree with me, but you need to stick to the subject matter without attacking me personally.

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.

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.

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. "

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

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

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

Yeah actually, that is an opinion source written by someone named Charlotte on a commercial website called thegreatfitness experiment. It is not a study. It mentions a "study" but when you click the link rather than take you to an actual study it takes you to another internet opinion piece by someone named Jane Brody in which a "Harvard study" is mentioned but not cited.

Where is the actual study? Did you read the actual study?

How is this my friend:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

Okay I did some digging on pubmed with those authors mentioned in the opinion article and came up with this study published in JAMA in 2012.

Is this the study you are referring to?

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

Have you read it?

When you all show me your scientific data that cico is fact I will show you more scientific data.





ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#1 -- CICO is a good guideline, but there are a LOT of underlying assumptions in its actual calculation and application. When those assumptions go awry, it changes the balance of the equation. Insulin resistance or a thyroid problem are good examples of things going awry. The CO part of the equation is virtually impossible to calculate accurately. So keeping those two caveats in mind, it can be a very useful guideline. If you're deviating greatly from those guidelines, then it's probably a good idea to go to the doctor to figure out what is up with your individual system.

CICO becomes dangerous when people treat such complicated biochemical reactions in the body like a simple physics experiment. We are unable to directly gauge the vast majority of them, so we can only view them indirectly -- and that's usually through weightloss, so it's a very circular system. Or when people discuss issues such as starvation -- yes if you don't eat, you will eventually lose weight. But, such oversimplifications aren't that helpful either because they don't address whether you're losing weight in the most effective way possible or even in a healthy manner for any particular individual.

Lastly, CICO fails to take into account the difference between macros or the necessity of micros -- and how they can shift the equation as well due to failure in the underlying assumptions. Some folks will lose more fat/weight on higher carb percentage and other will lose more fat/weight on lower carb percentage based on their insulin sensitivity. CICO is blind to such things, so it's only somewhat helpful in helping individuals figure out what works best for them and their biochemistry.

It's a good guideline, but it has its limitations.