Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Options
Replies
-
Hey, good work! But that doesn't say anything about CICO being invalid. Of course macros matter for optimal loss of body fat vs lean body mass and macro ratios will differ depending on medical issues or whether you are bulking or cutting.0 -
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).
Are these people immune to gravity as well?0 -
But if you don't eat a particular calorie, it still can't make you fatter.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.
Or we just don't have a mathematical model that can account for all the variables...yet.
Our body is complicated, many factors play into our genetics and calorie is not just a calorie.
True, but does that really matter? Isn't there room for both -- that total calories matter but so do the type of calories. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I agree that they are both important, but I don't believe in CICO. Data shows otherwise and old model are outdated. Quality of food is very important.0 -
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.
Or we just don't have a mathematical model that can account for all the variables...yet.
Our body is complicated, many factors play into our genetics and calorie is not just a calorie.
Please explain why calorie is not a calorie SO I can explain the real meaning because you are saying it wrong?
Calories, or more correctly kilocalories, are a measure of energy by which we raise a certain amount of water (I think 1 kg) one degree Celsius. But how that unit of measure affects food absorption/consumption in the body and fat stores, muscle mass, weight loss, etc. isn't quite as straightforward.
I hate it when people are intentionally obtuse. It just muddies the waters of the discussion and adds no true value.0 -
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.
I agree to a large degree (although I am not sure where the 40% is coming from - however, with the number of obese people in the US, it is not particularly surprising).
I think the issue is that people tend to argue by throwing our total randomness (this thread is a point in case), which tends to muddy the waters re what the conversation 'should' be about imo.
Interesting study here...a factor that is often overlooked in discussions - dietary adherence. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n6/full/ijo20088a.html0 -
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.
Interesting! When I was actively losing, the loss was sluggish at 50/30/20 the MFP default. I set it to 40/30/30 and the pound literally melted away! Carbs really affect me which is one reason I don't think it is simply a matter of CICO either. I've read a lot that weight loss is not simply CICO.0 -
But if you don't eat a particular calorie, it still can't make you fatter.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.
Or we just don't have a mathematical model that can account for all the variables...yet.
Our body is complicated, many factors play into our genetics and calorie is not just a calorie.
True, but does that really matter? Isn't there room for both -- that total calories matter but so do the type of calories. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I agree that they are both important, but I don't believe in CICO. Data shows otherwise and old model are outdated. Quality of food is very important.
Data shows that you can consume more calories than you burn and still lose weight? Where is this data? Please link us to a study that says this.0 -
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).
Are these people immune to gravity as well?
Not that I know of, but the laws of gravity are not affected by biochemical reactions in the body like weight loss is. There is a reason why biology is considered a separate field of study than both chemistry and physics, even though there are areas of overlap.0 -
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?
Attacking another member is against MFP forum guidelines!0 -
Hormone problems can change the calories your body expends, they can reduce your ability to absorb nutrients out of food (resulting in less calories in).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.
[/quot
Yes Hormones play a big role.
I am a failed case of "calorie in and out" method but I do believe with all other factors such as hormones, fluctuation, it still has everything to do with the caloric deficit. Hormones confuse us so we can't get the number correct right away but eventually once we figure that out, it's still the number...That's just how I look at it. Having said that, I agree it's not always easy for everybody to figure it out right away...
But the one thing that is at the bottom of it all: your body can't use more dietary energy than you put in. If you put in 2000 calories worth of food, your body can't use more than 2000 of those calories. And if your body needs more than that to do the things you want it to do like think and breathe and have a beating heart, you don't die because that would be a little bit of a severe design flaw, so instead it uses its own body tissue (fat and sometimes muscle) for energy.0 -
Can I eat 5000+ calories a day of divine, healthy, 'clean' "quality' calories and not gain any weight at all...........please tell me I can0
-
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 .
Keep posting. I like looking at your avatar.
LMAO....:flowerforyou:0 -
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. I tried eating less and exercising more. I just gained weight.
2) You could be losing fat and gaining muscle. Do your other measurements.
3) WHAT you eat has more of an effect on weight loss. Just sayin'
0 -
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).
Are these people immune to gravity as well?
Personally, I think gravity is just a good starting point...or a solid suggestion...
...but it has, like, you know, limitations and stuff.0 -
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).
Are these people immune to gravity as well?
Not that I know of, but the laws of gravity are not affected by biochemical reactions in the body like weight loss is. There is a reason why biology is considered a separate field of study than both chemistry and physics, even though there are areas of overlap.
Notwithstanding that, if CICO doesn't apply, where are people getting the additional energy that they're storing?
There are lots of factors that can affect calories out, but that's essentially explainable in a CICO model.0 -
But if you don't eat a particular calorie, it still can't make you fatter.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.
Or we just don't have a mathematical model that can account for all the variables...yet.
Our body is complicated, many factors play into our genetics and calorie is not just a calorie.
True, but does that really matter? Isn't there room for both -- that total calories matter but so do the type of calories. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I agree that they are both important, but I don't believe in CICO. Data shows otherwise and old model are outdated. Quality of food is very important.
To lose weight food quality does not matter and that is what IIFYM shows which a lot of people use to lose weight. I also use it and have lost 22 pounds in 76 days and that is with a week stalling.0 -
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.
I agree to a large degree (although I am not sure where the 40% is coming from - however, with the number of obese people in the US, it is not particularly surprising).
I think the issue is that people tend to argue by throwing our total randomness (this thread is a point in case), which tends to muddy the waters re what the conversation 'should' be about imo.
Interesting study here...a factor that is often overlooked in discussions - dietary adherence. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n6/full/ijo20088a.html
The 40%+ comes from numbers put out on diabetes and pre-diabetes. And, as you said, is not surprising given the obesity levels in the US -- but it's also why I think it's that much more important to be more conversant in such nuances.
After all, if you're one of the 4 in 10 that have insulin resistance, success in your weight loss plan is going to be greatly affected by the macros you choose. Those that see greater success are more likely to stick with a program that works for them. Others sometime just keep cutting and cutting calories to see more results, which as we all know is not a great longterm solution. But if they knew that they'd have greater success by limiting their carbs, feel more satiated, etc., then they may be able to more easily make such a lifestyle change.
So when people say it doesn't matter, that it's all about total calories, I beg to differ.0 -
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.
Interesting! When I was actively losing, the loss was sluggish at 50/30/20 the MFP default. I set it to 40/30/30 and the pound literally melted away! Carbs really affect me which is one reason I don't think it is simply a matter of CICO either. I've read a lot that weight loss is not simply CICO.
Did the weight loss continue at the same rate or did it slow down?
How much did you have to lose at the time if you do not mind me asking.0 -
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.
Yes, protein is utilized differently then a doughnut, LOL!
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.
Interesting! When I was actively losing, the loss was sluggish at 50/30/20 the MFP default. I set it to 40/30/30 and the pound literally melted away! Carbs really affect me which is one reason I don't think it is simply a matter of CICO either. I've read a lot that weight loss is not simply CICO.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions