Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

1…1112141617…35

Replies

  • endermako
    endermako Posts: 785 Member
    1. No
    2. Yes
    If not calories in, calories out, then what?


    Ignore her dude. She believes in that ketosis bull
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?

    Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.

    If you have any, I'd love to see them.

    Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

    So for these macro profile extremes, apply an applicable TEF to certain macros and continue on with the CICO approach. It's really that simple (IMHO)...and at least for me (with an admittedly more "normal" macro profile), it is surprisingly predictive for my weight.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?

    Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.

    If you have any, I'd love to see them.

    Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

    The study I have been linking to in this thread shows that. The figure I posted an image of from that study shows that. I can provide you the study if you wish.

    I don't think it shows you all of what you think it shows. I don't see any discussion about different macros not making a difference in the loss of FFM over the long term.

    And it's two different things to say (1) CICO is incomplete or has some limitations versus (2) CICO is completely wrong. I'm not saying the latter, but the former.
  • 59gi
    59gi Posts: 307 Member
    Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?

    Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.

    If you have any, I'd love to see them.

    Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full




    ON LINE liabrary is not a scientific study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • dawniewest
    dawniewest Posts: 37 Member
    I do NOT believe in "calories in, calories out". But I do know that when I was younger, [I am 45] that it was MUCH easier to lose weight. My body responded to any prompt at all to drop pounds. I notice that many of the people who go with 'cals in, cals out" are younger. If it works for you, GREAT! :) But as I have aged, it has gotten increasingly more difficult to lose weight and I couldn't lose anything of my belly area at all! So I did my research, and went grain/corn free. I am doing great now, lower blood pressure, no bursitis pain, more energy, hormones evened out and the thinnest I've been in years. Before I started this WOE I worked out constantly, ate high fiber, low fat and as clean as possible. But nothing was happening and my health was deteriorating. I now eat more fat than I ever have along with plenty of fruits, veggies, dairy, beans, eggs and all meats (minus processed lunch meats) and I am steadily losing weight. So for me, it's is the type of calories I am consuming - clearly!
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?

    Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.

    If you have any, I'd love to see them.

    Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

    The study I have been linking to in this thread shows that. The figure I posted an image of from that study shows that. I can provide you the study if you wish.

    I don't think it shows you all of what you think it shows. I don't see any discussion about different macros not making a difference in the loss of FFM over the long term.

    And it's two different things to say (1) CICO is incomplete or has some limitations versus (2) CICO is completely wrong. I'm not saying the latter, but the former.

    Did you read the study? Do you have journal access as well?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.

    I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.

    Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.
    hormone fluctuations alter the calories out part. Water bloating isn't part of weight gain or loss in my book, you wouldn't say you didn't lose anything if you went on your scale naked first and the next time fully clothed and with a gallon bottle of water in your hand, would you? Water retention is usually temporary, small fluctuations by a few pounds from one day to the other.
    I have no idea what TOM is.

    I can assure you, if you were on a 8000 cal deficit you lost body weight. Maybe retained some water but not enough to make up for over 16 pounds. More likely: you didn't calculate your TDEE properly, or you didn't measure your food intake properly and heartrate monitors are often notoriously inaccurate to begin with.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?

    Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.

    If you have any, I'd love to see them.

    Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full




    ON LINE liabrary is not a scientific study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Marc-Andre Cornier1,†, W. Troy Donahoo1,2, Rocio Pereira1, Inga Gurevich5, Rickard Westergren6, Sven Enerback6, Peter J. Eckel3, Marc L. Goalstone1,5, James O. Hill2,4, Robert H. Eckel1,3 andBoris Draznin1,5,*

    would all likely take exception to your allegation.
  • 59gi
    59gi Posts: 307 Member
    Relevant figure from the 1964 metabolic study conducted by Kinsell et al.

    Capture2.jpg

    Alterations in macronutrient ratios made no difference on rate of weight loss over a 3 month period when subject was in a completely controlled environment. This study was done in a hospital under completely controlled conditions, subject only ate what was given to them by the study coordinators...it was not a "survey".

    You asked for a study that supports CICO and I provided one. Are you going to respond to it at all or just ignore it?




    A 1964 study, you can do better then this, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?

    Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.

    If you have any, I'd love to see them.

    Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full




    ON LINE liabrary is not a scientific study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    No, but the cited sources are.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?

    Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.

    If you have any, I'd love to see them.

    Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full




    ON LINE liabrary is not a scientific study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    :facepalm: yeah, actually...that one is a study.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?

    Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.

    If you have any, I'd love to see them.

    Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

    I was referring to studies on people with similar metabolic issues (sorry - should have been clearer). I agree - insulin sensitivity impacts fat loss - but that is the the CO portion of the CICO.

    Not all calories are equal - but it is still CICO.

    But that's the whole point and why CICO has limited practical application. It's great for those with no issues. But for those with issues, it has limitations. And over 40% of the US adult population has insulin resistance issues -- that's not just a few special snowflakes. Thyroid issues are estimated at something like 8% of the US population. So, once again, CICO is a great guideline, but it has limitations and it's not an absolute law as far as practical application is concerned for your average dieter (i.e. non-physicists).

    For example, it's really helpful to know that if you are insulin sensitive, you'll lose more fat eating 60% carbs, 20% fat and 20% protein in an isocaloric deficit as opposed to 40/40/20. Or if you're insulin resistant, it will be the exact opposite. Sure, a deficit is still needed, but how you create that deficit can maximize your results. Some that just rely on CICO alone miss this.
  • 59gi
    59gi Posts: 307 Member
    Surely, even the CICO purists have seen studies where different macro combinations resulted in different weight and fat loss amounts, right?

    Actually, long term studies have shown a surprising similarity of FFM decrease.

    If you have any, I'd love to see them.
































    http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/







    Here's one I came across that shows a different story...shows considerably different results for diets with different levels of carbs vs. fats (protein is the same) for those with differing levels of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity. It seems to indicate to me that not all calories are the same, though CICO is still a useful guideline. Just not an absolute law.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full




    ON LINE liabrary is not a scientific study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    :facepalm: yeah, actually...that one is a study.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/

    Is still your rebuttal to an actual study?

    It's a ****ing blog selling an ebook. Are you really that slow?
  • 59gi
    59gi Posts: 307 Member
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24984988
  • albayin
    albayin Posts: 2,524 Member
    I do NOT believe in "calories in, calories out". But I do know that when I was younger, [I am 45] that it was MUCH easier to lose weight. My body responded to any prompt at all to drop pounds. I notice that many of the people who go with 'cals in, cals out" are younger. If it works for you, GREAT! :) But as I have aged, it has gotten increasingly more difficult to lose weight and I couldn't lose anything of my belly area at all! So I did my research, and went grain/corn free. I am doing great now, lower blood pressure, no bursitis pain, more energy, hormones evened out and the thinnest I've been in years. Before I started this WOE I worked out constantly, ate high fiber, low fat and as clean as possible. But nothing was happening and my health was deteriorating. I now eat more fat than I ever have along with plenty of fruits, veggies, dairy, beans, eggs and all meats (minus processed lunch meats) and I am steadily losing weight. So for me, it's is the type of calories I am consuming - clearly!

    it all boils down to final calories you put in your body...eating "clean" might help one to feel full and satified at the same time so they don't go overboard....

    Despite all weight loss stuff, I think eating food of quality is beneficial no matter what.
  • 59gi
    59gi Posts: 307 Member
    http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/

    Is still your rebuttal to an actual study?

    It's a ****ing blog selling an ebook. Are you really that slow?




    LOLOLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24984988
  • jmv7117
    jmv7117 Posts: 891 Member
    Calories in vs Calories out doesn't take into consideration hormone fluctuations (peri-menopause), water bloating, TOM etc.

    I did two months of strict control, measured and weighed everything -- fitbit tracked activity, etc. I ran a -8000 cal deficit every week. According to that math I should have lost 2lbs/week on average. And after two months? Rather than losing anything, I gained a pound.

    Nothing is just that simple. We are complex creatures. What works for some doesn't work for others.

    I fully agree! CICO does not take into consideration the impact of hormones period. Humans do not fit a mathematical model either.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    When you all show me your scientific data that cico is fact I will show you more scientific data.





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

    They have...your turn.

    Just curious, do you use this site to count your calories?

    IT'S CALLED MYFITNESSPAL, NOT A CALORIE COUNTING SITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    I'm sorry you don't like to be wrong, but you are LOLLLLLL!!!

    "MyFitnessPal
    www.myfitnesspal.com/
    Over 50 million people have lost weight with MyFitnessPal's FREE calorie counter. Get free access to the world's largest food database. "
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24984988
    Says nothing about CICO.

Categories