Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

1…6791112…24

Replies

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"

    lol - where exactly did anyone say it was good for you. Don't try and move the goal posts .
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 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.
  • 59gi
    59gi Posts: 307 Member
    When you all show me your scientific data that cico is fact I will show you more scientific data.





    ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    [/qu

    They have...your turn.




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


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



    http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/

    Just curious, do you use this site to count your calories?
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"
    Literally nobody has implied that.

    @Lindsey - yes. Recent evidence suggest protein is nearly never stored as fat, and there's TEF to consider too.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"

    It isn't good for you, no one claims that. Complete strawman.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 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.


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



    http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/

    As I said earlier, just because you post something multiple times, it does not make it correct.
  • yo_andi
    yo_andi Posts: 2,178 Member
    http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/

    Still an article, not a study. Give. It. Up.



    You are wrong !!!!!!!!


    http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/

    dcd52fc19e5f986f8097f8e9e38c4dca4f4ff2c5036c43e5d89ac9cc6a5952be.jpg
  • 3bambi3
    3bambi3 Posts: 1,650 Member
    When you all show me your scientific data that cico is fact I will show you more scientific data.





    ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    [/qu

    They have...your turn.




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


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



    http://thecaloriemythbook.com/medicalreviews/

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

    I realize it's called My Fitness Pal. But you have weight you want to lose. I'm just wondering, if you're not counting calories, how is it you are losing weight? Are you actually saying that you are losing weight WITHOUT eating at a deficit?
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"
    nicolas-cage-laughing.gif
  • 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
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 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?
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"

    IF I eat one doughnut a day for a week at well say 400-500 calories I will lose 4 pounds in one week with no exercise and I love my exercise

    Now would that happen. I would say no because micro needs to be met so your body performers what it needs to do at optimal levels.
  • 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.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Now the trolling is apparent..........

    "Now"?!?

    You point is completely valid...

    ...it's just a few pages late.



    On a totally unrelated note, is trolling still trolling if the person doing the trolling doesn't realize they're trolling? In other words, does trolling require awareness and/or intent?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"
    Literally nobody has implied that.

    @Lindsey - yes. Recent evidence suggest protein is nearly never stored as fat, and there's TEF to consider too.
    TEF differences are basically negligible If I remember correctly from another thread a while back, it would be sub 100 calories difference between a 100% protein and a 100% simple carbs diet.
  • BluenoserGal
    BluenoserGal Posts: 55 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.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Now the trolling is apparent..........

    "Now"?!?

    You point is completely valid...

    ...it's just a few pages late.



    On a totally unrelated note, is trolling still trolling if the person doing the trolling doesn't realize they're trolling? In other words, does trolling require awareness and/or intent?
    It does, otherwise it just rhymes with soupidity and starts with st.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Now the trolling is apparent..........

    "Now"?!?

    You point is completely valid...

    ...it's just a few pages late.



    On a totally unrelated note, is trolling still trolling if the person doing the trolling doesn't realize they're trolling? In other words, does trolling require awareness and/or intent?

    Yeah, trolling requires intent imo. Otherwise you are just dense as another poster mentioned.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 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.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 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.

    Water bloating?

    When people talk about weight loss they mean fat loss. Water retention fluctuations will of course make your weight fluctuate no matter what method you take towards weight loss.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"
    Literally nobody has implied that.

    @Lindsey - yes. Recent evidence suggest protein is nearly never stored as fat, and there's TEF to consider too.
    TEF differences are basically negligible If I remember correctly from another thread a while back, it would be sub 100 calories difference between a 100% protein and a 100% simple carbs diet.
    It depends on the basal calorie content of a diet, and for my purposes that would be more substantial than 100 calories, but yes, generally it's not worth worrying about - it just does have some small effect over the very long term. Memory is not serving me the quoted figures for TEF, but I believe protein is highest, followed by carbs then fat.

    Edit:
    Carbohydrates: 5 to 15% of the energy consumed
    Protein: 20 to 35%
    Fats: at most 5 to 15 %

    Pulled from Wikipedia under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_dynamic_action, but there are 11 cited references/studies on the page.
  • 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?

    Nearly all I have seen were explainable due to lack of controlled intake, subject recall of consumption, etc. which would support a position that different macronutrient profiles affect satiety, but not that CI-CO is invalid. And for those that still showed a possible statistical significance, they've had trouble replicating the results and even follow-up studies invalidating the results (which again I suspect is measurement error in these non-metabolic ward studies...because precisely measuring calories over a relatively short period of time is hard).
  • turtlebeth
    turtlebeth Posts: 57 Member
    Not qualified to answer most of your questions as I am new to this experience myself, BUT I do know that you can get an awesomely long tape measure in the quilting supply section of Walmart! That's where I got mine and I hoard it from my daughters who lose theirs regularly.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Get scientific fact and show me " how a diet fool of doughnuts are good for you!"
    Literally nobody has implied that.

    @Lindsey - yes. Recent evidence suggest protein is nearly never stored as fat, and there's TEF to consider too.
    TEF differences are basically negligible If I remember correctly from another thread a while back, it would be sub 100 calories difference between a 100% protein and a 100% simple carbs diet.
    It depends on the basal calorie content of a diet, and for my purposes that would be more substantial than 100 calories, but yes, generally it's not worth worrying about - it just does have some small effect over the very long term. Memory is not serving me the quoted figures for TEF, but I believe protein is highest, followed by carbs then fat.

    http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/EnergyBalance.html
  • 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?

Categories