Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Options
Replies
-
Okay, then how do isocaloric diets (with the same caloric deficits) result in different weight loss? If it's all CICO, then the macros shouldn't matter and the results should be the same.
CICO doesn't purport that every human is equal.
It's the same equation, but the individual variables will differ.
I agree, and since we can't account for most of the individual variances with any sort of meaningful accuracy, the CICO calculation has its limitations. As I said, good guideline, but not absolute law in a practical application sense.
Having tracked my CI, CO, and weight daily for three years now, I have a remarkably predictive model for my own weight. In the beginning, it took some time to adjust for measurement errors, assumptions of TDEE (without exercise), calorie burn from exercise, etc., but having made the necessary adjustments, I have a model that I can use to precisely control my weight in either direction. If not CICO, on what basis does my model work?
I am amazed at how so many are quick to dismiss it because of what they believe to be an error in the concept (when it is more likely an error in their application of it)...and yet I shouldn't be because meticulous records require a level of dedication and commitment beyond what many are willing to invest.
And yes, these three years include a wide range of food "quality" from the strictest of paleo in 2012 to the SADdest of SAD at other times. In my experience, more influential on the model than the "type" of food is the "quantity" of food...meaning the calculated TDEE changes fairly substantially when you compare deficit eating to surplus eating (and these differences continue growing the longer I'm at either extreme)...but with the necessary adjustments, is still remarkably predictive.
TL;DR - The CICO concept is very simple and effective. The individual variables will need to be adjusted. But once they are, it is a remarkably powerful tool.0 -
So, that's another example of how the CI part of the equation can greatly affect your weight loss success that is not wholly accounted for it its caloric value.
Avoiding the validity or otherwise of the specifics, some of what you eat may cause you to want to eat more. That's fine, but if you do eat more then you're ingesting more calories. Doesn't invalidate the energy balance point.
Once again, not trying to invalidate the energy balance point. Just make practical suggestions based on known information. Getting into a physics purist argument is not my point. Getting into what helps people lose weight most effectively is, and that's why what you eat is going to be more important than just its sheer caloric value -- not only to your health, but also to the success of your nutrition plan and your actual results.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.
Okay, then how do isocaloric diets (with the same caloric deficits) result in different weight loss? If it's all CICO, then the macros shouldn't matter and the results should be the same.
CICO doesn't purport that every human is equal.
It's the same equation, but the individual variables will differ.
What we eat matters and it is not just cico!
Yes. Do you see someone saying differently?
Yes. There have been several people that made the point that its only the caloric value of what you eat that is important to weight loss.0 -
Not saying the study is wrong. It did say however that most of the meals were eaten at home by the participants and it was mentioned some might have eaten in secret even though they were told not to which is a problem already. But let's look at the results.
Water retention, miscalculation of Ci or Co, changes in the Co part, digestive issues,...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.
Okay, then how do isocaloric diets (with the same caloric deficits) result in different weight loss? If it's all CICO, then the macros shouldn't matter and the results should be the same.
So are you saying that the entire study is wrong? Or something else?
And, in the end, if it is a CO change -- though the evidence doesn't support that -- then that's a VERY, VERY important thing to know. To know that your change in CI can so greatly affect the CO part of the equation.
Once again, however you slice it, the type of calories matter --- either because we don't fully understand the process and fail to account for it fully in CICO, or because you can manipulate the CO part of the equation so greatly by the type of calories creating CI part.
They were all on a 400 calorie deficit for 16 weeks which makes the average weight loss they should have experienced 6 kg. And the ones who lost least were exactly at that amount as would be expected.
The question that remains would be how/what the ones that lost more lost. I'm still reading throught the end of the study but I want to post this so it doesn't get lost in the probably 2 new pages that have appeared since I started writing this.0 -
Sure, but mathematically, you can imagine a scenario with the right numbers manipulation where someone could gain or stay the same whereas another lost -- you'd just have to shift the bar for the calculated deficit closer to maintenance.
No, because if they were gaining or maintaining then they wouldn't be in deficit.But different weight loss is the whole point. If all calories were created equal and quantity was the ONLY thing that matter, then the results would be the same. Since they are different, there is another factor(s) at play that are not accounted for in sheer caloric value.
Energy, is entirely about energy. How that energy release is profiled is affected by the makeup both of the fuel and the individual. But that doesn't invalidate the energy balance.0 -
Okay, then how do isocaloric diets (with the same caloric deficits) result in different weight loss? If it's all CICO, then the macros shouldn't matter and the results should be the same.
Because the measured calorie expenditure, hence deficit, can only ever be an approximation. Lots of different factors are going to affect expenditure, which will lead to absorption of energy by the body to be less than forecast, far fewer lead to it being greater than forecast.
The key point in your statement is different weight loss, yet upthread we've got people claiming a significant deficit yet gaining weight. Not going to happen, unless they're storing solar energy and wind power.
Sure, but mathematically, you can imagine a scenario with the right numbers manipulation where someone could gain or stay the same whereas another lost -- you'd just have to shift the bar for the calculated deficit closer to maintenance.
But different weight loss is the whole point. If all calories were created equal and quantity was the ONLY thing that matter, then the results would be the same. Since they are different, there is another factor(s) at play that are not accounted for in sheer caloric value.
This is still just variables in the CO portion. It does not negate the fact that you need to be in a caloric deficit to lose fat.
Once again, not my point. I'm not saying that you don't need to be in a caloric deficit, but how you manipulate that deficit will make a difference in your weight loss. So, it's not all about sheer caloric value -- otherwise, results wouldn't differ, and they do.
Am I not saying this clearly?0 -
I almost agree with you, but I would say energy balance, and thusly sheer caloric value, comes first because it at least provides a basal approximation for what should cause a change in weight, whereas the macro partitioning will have more widely unpredictable results across a wide demographic.So, that's another example of how the CI part of the equation can greatly affect your weight loss success that is not wholly accounted for it its caloric value.
Avoiding the validity or otherwise of the specifics, some of what you eat may cause you to want to eat more. That's fine, but if you do eat more then you're ingesting more calories. Doesn't invalidate the energy balance point.
Once again, not trying to invalidate the energy balance point. Just make practical suggestions based on known information. Getting into a physics purist argument is not my point. Getting into what helps people lose weight most effectively is, and that's why what you eat is going to be more important than just its sheer caloric value -- not only to your health, but also to the success of your nutrition plan and your actual results.0 -
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.
Though I've seen the number before and still have issue with the claim that nearly half the population has insulin issues...
Ok. Fine. Even if I don't agree I'll give it to you, macros can carry greater importance for people with special medical conditions.
But guess what? They still need to count their calories! Because if anyone is in a caloric surplus, they will gain weight. Someone suffering from special conditions might need to not only limit their calories, but they may have to limit them MORE than people without such restrictions.
So no. People having special conditions does not prove CICO doesn't work, if anything it points to an even greater need for calorie monitoring.
When someone shows me the person who lost weight eating a caloric surplus of "clean foods" I'll cede my point. But that will never happen. Because we're discussing science, not magic.
That's not an argument I'm making (though others may have). I don't think it's an either or situation, but a both and situation. I do think CICO is important and has validity -- I just don't think it's the entire story.
I think calorie counting is important and helpful to many, but so are macros, for good reason. So because I believe that the quality of the calories is important doesn't meant that I also don't believe that the quantity of calories is important.
Excellent reply! It is not straight CICO, but many factors.0 -
So, that's another example of how the CI part of the equation can greatly affect your weight loss success that is not wholly accounted for it its caloric value.
Avoiding the validity or otherwise of the specifics, some of what you eat may cause you to want to eat more. That's fine, but if you do eat more then you're ingesting more calories. Doesn't invalidate the energy balance point.
Once again, not trying to invalidate the energy balance point. Just make practical suggestions based on known information. Getting into a physics purist argument is not my point. Getting into what helps people lose weight most effectively is, and that's why what you eat is going to be more important than just its sheer caloric value -- not only to your health, but also to the success of your nutrition plan and your actual results.
I know that this is continuing the 'off point' sub conversation, but it can work both ways, as in higher carbs can actually help fat loss indirectly. Someone who is not insulin resistant often does well on higher carbs (and this assumes appropriate protein and facts for health and LBM retention). Carbs provide energy, energy fuels workouts, workouts encourage LBM retention/gain and better nutrient partitioning.0 -
Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.0
-
When a person has surgery, the dieticians put patients on a higher protein diet to help them heal, not on a coke and doughnut diet.
urrrr....ummm.....what on earth has that to do with CICO?
Because this is the way the "clean eating crowd" tries to prove they're right and IIFYM is wrong. They completely ignore everything about CICO or IIFYM and pretend that all people practicing moderation just eat junk 100% of the time.
Clearly that wouldn't work. No one is saying that would work. It wouldn't fit any macros, thereby negating the entire principle behind IF IT FITS YOUR MACROS.
What they create is a strawman argument that is easy for them to tear down. Unfortunately for them (and luckily for us) they're only winning an argument of their own creation.
Yes but don't you realize that by its very name -- If It Fits My Macros -- acknowledges that not all calories are the same. Otherwise, it would be IIFMC -- If It Fits My CALORIES.0 -
Sure, but mathematically, you can imagine a scenario with the right numbers manipulation where someone could gain or stay the same whereas another lost -- you'd just have to shift the bar for the calculated deficit closer to maintenance.
No, because if they were gaining or maintaining then they wouldn't be in deficit.But different weight loss is the whole point. If all calories were created equal and quantity was the ONLY thing that matter, then the results would be the same. Since they are different, there is another factor(s) at play that are not accounted for in sheer caloric value.
Not all energy is created equal
Energy, is entirely about energy. How that energy release is profiled is affected by the makeup both of the fuel and the individual. But that doesn't invalidate the energy balance.0 -
i do believe in calories in, calories out but i try to eat kind of healthy0
-
Sure, but mathematically, you can imagine a scenario with the right numbers manipulation where someone could gain or stay the same whereas another lost -- you'd just have to shift the bar for the calculated deficit closer to maintenance.
No, because if they were gaining or maintaining then they wouldn't be in deficit.But different weight loss is the whole point. If all calories were created equal and quantity was the ONLY thing that matter, then the results would be the same. Since they are different, there is another factor(s) at play that are not accounted for in sheer caloric value.
Energy, is entirely about energy. How that energy release is profiled is affected by the makeup both of the fuel and the individual. But that doesn't invalidate the energy balance.
Not all energy is created equal 0 -
Calories in - calories out is 100% correct. For weightloss. However if you want to be healthy, you also want to make sure your macros are good too.
I think this says it all... end of argument.0 -
I almost agree with you, but I would say energy balance, and thusly sheer caloric value, comes first because it at least provides a basal approximation for what should cause a change in weight, whereas the macro partitioning will have more widely unpredictable results across a wide demographic.So, that's another example of how the CI part of the equation can greatly affect your weight loss success that is not wholly accounted for it its caloric value.
Avoiding the validity or otherwise of the specifics, some of what you eat may cause you to want to eat more. That's fine, but if you do eat more then you're ingesting more calories. Doesn't invalidate the energy balance point.
Once again, not trying to invalidate the energy balance point. Just make practical suggestions based on known information. Getting into a physics purist argument is not my point. Getting into what helps people lose weight most effectively is, and that's why what you eat is going to be more important than just its sheer caloric value -- not only to your health, but also to the success of your nutrition plan and your actual results.
I totally agree. I think for the vast majority of people, sheer caloric value will likely be the biggest issue. That's why I say CICO is a good guideline. And when you fall outside of those guidelines, it's time to check in with your doctor -- for insulin resistance, thyroid issues, etc. because something is not right with you.0 -
Okay, then how do isocaloric diets (with the same caloric deficits) result in different weight loss? If it's all CICO, then the macros shouldn't matter and the results should be the same.
CICO doesn't purport that every human is equal.
It's the same equation, but the individual variables will differ.
I agree, and since we can't account for most of the individual variances with any sort of meaningful accuracy, the CICO calculation has its limitations. As I said, good guideline, but not absolute law in a practical application sense.
Having tracked my CI, CO, and weight daily for three years now, I have a remarkably predictive model for my own weight. In the beginning, it took some time to adjust for measurement errors, assumptions of TDEE (without exercise), calorie burn from exercise, etc., but having made the necessary adjustments, I have a model that I can use to precisely control my weight in either direction. If not CICO, on what basis does my model work?
I am amazed at how so many are quick to dismiss it because of what they believe to be an error in the concept (when it is more likely an error in their application of it)...and yet I shouldn't be because meticulous records require a level of dedication and commitment beyond what many are willing to invest.
And yes, these three years include a wide range of food "quality" from the strictest of paleo in 2012 to the SADdest of SAD at other times. In my experience, more influential on the model than the "type" of food is the "quantity" of food...meaning the calculated TDEE changes fairly substantially when you compare deficit eating to surplus eating (and these differences continue growing the longer I'm at either extreme)...but with the necessary adjustments, is still remarkably predictive.
TL;DR - The CICO concept is very simple and effective. The individual variables will need to be adjusted. But once they are, it is a remarkably powerful tool.
This.
Difficulty of application does not negate the validity of a model. People may have conditions that make the amount of calories they actually take in from foods not equivalent to what is marked on the box (which is just a calormetric measurment) and/or they may have different burn rates for similar exercises to other people. It can certainly be difficult to determine what your CI from foods is and what your CO from exercise and your BMR is...but that difficulty in and of itself does not make CICO invalid.
It can, as said above, take years of meticulous measurement and adjustment to get a lock on it especially if you deviate from the population average by a significant margin. It takes work to be sure.0 -
Getting into what helps people lose weight most effectively is, and that's why what you eat is going to be more important than just its sheer caloric value -- not only to your health, but also to the success of your nutrition plan and your actual results.
On that, I think we're agreed.
And on that note, I have 1500 calories about to be consumed to make up for the amount of phys I've done in the last few days.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