Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Not all energy is created equally.

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?

I think I have pretty much understood what you are saying (and generally do not disagree) - however, in a thread where some people try to indicate that you can gain weight on a deficit, I think it important to make the point that it is not what you are saying.

Also, I wanted to make it clear that results differ mainly when you look at people with metabolic issues. When you look at populations when they do not have them (and even in conflicting studies where they do to be honest), then results do not differ significantly.

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

What does that even mean? All calories are calories and a calorie in food is the amount of energy required to raise 1 kilogram (litre) of water by 1 degree celsius. Now might person A gets 80% of the caloric value from their digestive process from that calorie if it comes from protein but person B gets only 60% because their gut flora do not process it as efficiently? Sure, I can believe that...but that doesn't invalidate CICO that just means the CI for one person is lower than for the other and it is up to them to determine what their CI is.

If you mean is 100 calories on a food box 100 calories for everyone on the planet then no it isn't, but that doesn't negate CICO.

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.

I'm on a pudding, jello, and applesauce diet and I've lost weight. Prescribed by a surgeon thank you very much. Not everyone can eat those types of diets after surgery, especially throat surgery.

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?

I think I have pretty much understood what you are saying (and generally do not disagree) - however, in a thread where some people try to indicate that you can gain weight on a deficit, I think it important to make the point that it is not what you are saying.

Also, I wanted to make it clear that results differ mainly when you look at people with metabolic issues. When you look at populations when they do not have them (and even in conflicting studies where they do to be honest), then results do not differ significantly.

I agree that people who think CICO is totally invalid are way off, so I totally agree with you wanting to dispel that notion. But, on the flipside, there are a LOT more people that I've seen that say CICO is the ONLY thing. And I'd like to dispel that notion as well.

As I said before, I think they're both important parts of the weight loss puzzle for people.