Is it really just Calories In, Calories Out? What do you think?
Replies
-
I would go with the unpopular notion that it is Calories in/Calories out.
The problem that on the Calories out side, your allocated daily calories equation would look like something like this:
Calories out = your BMR calories + exercise calories +/- hormonal changes +/- thyroid condition +/- muscle gained/loss +/- certain medications - stress - lack of sleep, etc, etc, etc...
There is no way to determine the value of any one of those components other than trial and error. Also, the Calories in is not a slam dunk either. Processed foods have an up to 20% error on reported calories, if one eats out at all, good luck in computed the calories at a mom/pop hamburger place, etc. Of course, you can control this part of the equation more so than the output side.
In the end for me, I do the best I can to monitor food and exercise (within reason) and trust that the Calories out was computed right in MFP and monitor my weight each day looking for weight trends and act on it if I get outside of a predetermined weight range.
That is my two cent on all this; I am probably just wrong and just got lucky!! ;-)
JB
0 -
The whole process is trial and error. You are right that CICO works, we just don't always know what the numbers are, lol.0
-
If I am logging my calories I am eating intentionally, which is a whole lot better than how I was eating in my pre-MFP life. So, despite all of the variables that can mess with my weight loss I am still better off than I was before. And luckily, I am still losing weight. I did have to tighten it up after a plateau, though.0
-
0
-
I think it's very interesting. It does approach the bigger issue of overall health and wellness as opposed to just weight loss. Much of it aligns with what I am doing already and it adds some form and content to it. I think I'll look deeper.0
-
Yup... When I was seeing a dietician, his position was that exercise was all about quality of life as opposed to loss of weight. He acknowledged Intermittent Fasting was an effective diet tool but said few have the self-discipline to use it for more than temporary weight loss.I think it's very interesting. It does approach the bigger issue of overall health and wellness as opposed to just weight loss. Much of it aligns with what I am doing already and it adds some form and content to it. I think I'll look deeper.0 -
I fast everyday for about 3-4 hours, that is if I am awake. If I am asleep, I can make it longer before I cave.0
-
I fast everyday for about 3-4 hours, that is if I am awake. If I am asleep, I can make it longer before I cave.
Um, yeah! Sorry @UncleMac. Did not mean to poke fun. I exercise a lot, count the calories in and out and it all seems to be working. I pretty much figure if I keep on a regular vigorous exercise routine, I will be able to eat just about anything.0 -
I would go with the unpopular notion that it is Calories in/Calories out.
The problem that on the Calories out side, your allocated daily calories equation would look like something like this:
Calories out = your BMR calories + exercise calories +/- hormonal changes +/- thyroid condition +/- muscle gained/loss +/- certain medications - stress - lack of sleep, etc, etc, etc...
There is no way to determine the value of any one of those components other than trial and error. Also, the Calories in is not a slam dunk either. Processed foods have an up to 20% error on reported calories, if one eats out at all, good luck in computed the calories at a mom/pop hamburger place, etc. Of course, you can control this part of the equation more so than the output side.
In the end for me, I do the best I can to monitor food and exercise (within reason) and trust that the Calories out was computed right in MFP and monitor my weight each day looking for weight trends and act on it if I get outside of a predetermined weight range.
That is my two cent on all this; I am probably just wrong and just got lucky!! ;-)
JB
I think this is exactly right personally. The variables can be overwhelming in some ways but if we track our weight and measurements we can experiment until we get the right combination for both health/fitness and weight loss.
0 -
^^^ right on!0
-
CICO works for me and I am a 62 year old woman who tends to be sedetary unless I make myself get up and move. ( Hence the treadmill in the next room.) However, I have found that in order to lose 1- 1 1/2 pounds a week I have to stay within 100 calories of my 1200 base calories and walk at least 10,000 steps a day. Right now that is working for me, so I will stick with it. I only eat back less than 100 calories of my exercise calories unless it is a special occasion, and then I have come to expect not to see a weight loss. 104 pounds gone and 56 pounds to go. I know I may have to adjust again as I progress toward my goal. My weight loss expectations will be dropping the closer I get to goal, but as long as I can maintain 0.5 - 1 pound loss over a period of time I will be happy for now.
0 -
I am new to this thread and I found it very interesting. The video gave a lot of "food for thought". I really agree with his revised plate. That approach is the only way for sustained weight loss. Now re CICO. I agree for the most part but not totally. Say 1200 calories of only cake. First it would be hard to sustain because the insulin bump would create hunger but assuming that was the only intake the insulin bump would increase the lay down of fat so the type of calories do matter. Also it takes more energy expenditure to metabolize protein and fat than carbs especially simple carbs so there is a slight metabolism bump with less simple carbs. Now that said I think calories in calories out is the best way for me to approach this. What I need to do is focus on the rest of the holistic plate so that I put what I know into practice.0
-
TravelinGal7147 wrote: »I am new to this thread and I found it very interesting. The video gave a lot of "food for thought". I really agree with his revised plate. That approach is the only way for sustained weight loss. Now re CICO. I agree for the most part but not totally. Say 1200 calories of only cake. First it would be hard to sustain because the insulin bump would create hunger but assuming that was the only intake the insulin bump would increase the lay down of fat so the type of calories do matter. Also it takes more energy expenditure to metabolize protein and fat than carbs especially simple carbs so there is a slight metabolism bump with less simple carbs. Now that said I think calories in calories out is the best way for me to approach this. What I need to do is focus on the rest of the holistic plate so that I put what I know into practice.
CICO works for me, but I agree that I really don't think it is really all that simple in the end. I do think that keeping the simple carbs under control is important, so I am now working at lowering my carb intake and making the carbs I do eat to be of the more complex variety. It is hard, though as I am a carb lover! We are going to be gone on a three week vacation (including a 15 night cruise) soon. When I get home I plan to immediately begin to eat very low carb for two weeks to "detox" (think South Beach Diet induction). Even though I do not plan to go hog wild on vacation, I do know that when I am not in control of the cooking I will be bombarded with choices I would not be making at home. I have lost 107 pounds with CICO, but as I get closer to goal (53 pounds to go) the pounds are getting a bit more stubborn coming off and I may have to tweak my program a bit to keep up my momentum.0 -
I would go with the unpopular notion that it is Calories in/Calories out.
The problem that on the Calories out side, your allocated daily calories equation would look like something like this:
Calories out = your BMR calories + exercise calories +/- hormonal changes +/- thyroid condition +/- muscle gained/loss +/- certain medications - stress - lack of sleep, etc, etc, etc...
There is no way to determine the value of any one of those components other than trial and error. Also, the Calories in is not a slam dunk either. Processed foods have an up to 20% error on reported calories, if one eats out at all, good luck in computed the calories at a mom/pop hamburger place, etc. Of course, you can control this part of the equation more so than the output side.
In the end for me, I do the best I can to monitor food and exercise (within reason) and trust that the Calories out was computed right in MFP and monitor my weight each day looking for weight trends and act on it if I get outside of a predetermined weight range.
That is my two cent on all this; I am probably just wrong and just got lucky!! ;-)
JB
I think you said it well. CICO is really different for each person. What goes in can be different and gets different results and how much you work at it will determine the calories out. Eventually we find our own blend that works so you know the consequences of the extra beers or shots and even if you behave diet wise that one extra day of rest can mean that one more pound stays put that much longer.
0 -
Yes, each of us is very different and unique. Just like everyone else!0
-
0
-
Dude... way to kill a thread!!
0 -
Dude... way to kill a thread!!
LOL. but it's the sad and bitter truth!0 -
TravelinGal7147 wrote: »I am new to this thread and I found it very interesting. The video gave a lot of "food for thought". I really agree with his revised plate. That approach is the only way for sustained weight loss. Now re CICO. I agree for the most part but not totally. Say 1200 calories of only cake. First it would be hard to sustain because the insulin bump would create hunger but assuming that was the only intake the insulin bump would increase the lay down of fat so the type of calories do matter. Also it takes more energy expenditure to metabolize protein and fat than carbs especially simple carbs so there is a slight metabolism bump with less simple carbs. Now that said I think calories in calories out is the best way for me to approach this. What I need to do is focus on the rest of the holistic plate so that I put what I know into practice.
@TravelinGal7147
Putting the adherence factor aside....
But why would it matter it you ate 1200 calories of cake in one sitting and you stored some of that excess energy temporarily as fat?
Assuming 1200 is a calorie deficit you would still have a net loss of fat over the course of the day.
Shuttling excess calories into fat storage and subsequently using those fat stores when needed is a perfectly normal part of life. It's the overall balance over an extended peiod of time - not what happens following one meal.
There's no special tricks required to access the energy stored as fat - just a deficit.
0 -
I agree with all that; I think most people do not have a clue on how much one really eats. I know from personal experience that I have eaten at least 3,000 calories a day days on end when I was gaining weight. Using a food scale and tracking made me realize (and correct) the number of calories taken in on a daily basic and allowed me to properly lose weight (approximately 60 pounds).
I have been in maintenance mode for about a year and track my body weight daily. If I get outside a -/+ 5 pound range, then I take action otherwise I record my food and enjoy my life!
YMMV.
JB0 -
It's a good discussion, though.0
-
I just want to point out that there have been several MFP blogs lately on this subject, most saying that the type of calories do matter. I am also beginning to think that for some reason that strict CICO works a bit better for a man than a woman. My DH lost 50 pounds doing CICO only on MFP and without breaking a sweat and has been on maintenance for two years. Like golfmonk he just simply adjusts his calories and can easily maintain his target weight. For me it has not been that simple. I have to fight for every pound after I lost my first 90 pounds using just CICO. And yes, I weigh everything in grams and record diligently. As I mentioned above, I am going to try a lower carb diet when we return from vacation. It will be interesting to see if that changes anything with my weight loss.0
-
I think women's mileage does vary. When we are young, our cycles cause flux. When we are mature, our lack of cycles cause flux. Of course, it isn't the only contributor. Having children can do a number on one's body. And, apparently, so can not having children. We just have more complicated physiologies and are not just smaller men who should get results from the same methods men use.. It can all ne overcome, in regards to weight, but it does take more effort and is a right pain in the *kitten*.0
-
HA. I typed in a r s e and it put little stars in its place. And I used that word cause I figured it was more acceptable!0
-
I wish we had a universally easy and accurate way of measuring body fat. I think that is the one missing component in determining both CI and CO....after all, fat doesn't need or burn calories, but lean matter does. Yet it seems that all programs start with just weight in determining CICO. A woman my age, height, and weight should have different calorie requirements at 30% fat than at 40% yet that doesn't seem to get taken into account.0
-
I love the video. I live by his 'study of 1' theory. A good lawyer won't ask a question without knowing the answer. A person losing weight can use the same approach. If I am going to lose weight and keep it off, I am doing something forever. This is not a temporary thing. Forever provides ample time for experiments. If I have a question and can conceive of a way to answer that question, I would much rather answer my question by experience. My agenda is to do what's best for me. No one else has this agenda.0
-
I wish we had a universally easy and accurate way of measuring body fat. I think that is the one missing component in determining both CI and CO....after all, fat doesn't need or burn calories, but lean matter does. Yet it seems that all programs start with just weight in determining CICO. A woman my age, height, and weight should have different calorie requirements at 30% fat than at 40% yet that doesn't seem to get taken into account.
@KerryITD
Ref the bolded part - that's not actually true.
Fat cells do require energy to maintain themselves, about 2 cals / pound / day.
Compared to about 6 cals / pound / day for muscle.
Not a great difference really, nothing like as significant as the bro science merchants in the gym would tell you!
Now if you could add a few pounds of kidney or heart at 400 cals/lb/day that would be handy.
There are TDEE formulas that take body fat percentage into account but as you say it's hard and/or expensive to get accurate BF% estimates.
0 -
This article is obnoxious0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHQbg4xH9lw
This discussion has been closed.