Why Calories In and Calories Out... It really ISN'T that simple.....
Options
Replies
-
brianpperkins wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »I asked for proof as soon as he posted that. I guess he hasn't found any yet.
Those claiming that an identical chemical is different based on source never provide proof.
I have a fairly certain idea of why that is the case.0 -
LOL....maybe they ran away in a fit of rage, unable to prove their BS claim?TheBeachgod wrote: »I asked for proof as soon as he posted that. I guess he hasn't found any yet.
Body: "Oooooh look! Candy calories! I like these better than those broccoli calories!!"
0 -
A guy did an experiment where he only ate ~800 calories a day. In one trial, he ate real food with good nutrition, and he lost weight. In the second trial, he ate nothing but twinkies. He STILL lost weight, although he was hungrier and experienced the side effects of poor nutrition (such as loss of concentration, moodiness, etc).
The point still stands that you will lose weight with a calorie deficit no matter what you are eating exactly. However, as others have pointed out, you are going to feel less full on something like ice cream than the caloric equivalent of veggies.0 -
mrs_justice wrote: »
Why I will choose....
100 calories of almonds vs. a processed 100 calorie granola bar.......
100 calories of berries vs. 100 calories of sugar added yogurt.......
To come back to the OP:
It seems...problematic...to say that one always must make the same choice every time one wants to eat. These are false dilemmas.
If I wanted carbs for energy for a bike ride I may well choose the granola bar over the almonds. What if I've already had a lot of almonds that day? If I needed protein I may choose the yogurt over the berries. What if I can't get any berries?
And sometimes, sometimes, I may have a piece of cake (or an IIPA) instead of any of these.0 -
mrs_justice wrote: »
Why I will choose....
100 calories of almonds vs. a processed 100 calorie granola bar.......
100 calories of berries vs. 100 calories of sugar added yogurt.......
To come back to the OP:
It seems...problematic...to say that one always must make the same choice every time one wants to eat. These are false dilemmas.
If I wanted carbs for energy for a bike ride I may well choose the granola bar over the almonds. What if I've already had a lot of almonds that day? If I needed protein I may choose the yogurt over the berries. What if I can't get any berries?
And sometimes, sometimes, I may have a piece of cake (or an IIPA) instead of any of these.
This.
This idea that there is always a single correct choice to which food we should pick is bizarre. Context (what else have I had to eat, what is my activity level today, how am I feeling?) matters.0 -
50 cars, all different makes an models, on empty tanks, gas up and get 20 gallons of fuel, all the same, 87 octane. Imagine there is a VERY large track, enough to fit all vehicles. Would every vehicle run the same? Yay or nay? Now, what if you took all those cars and ran 89 octane? Would some perform better/worse?
My point is, we are all, to a point, special snowflakes. Calories are calories, just as fuel/gas is fuel/gas. How are bodies can use that energy is what actually makes a difference. People react to foods differently. To think every single person is exactly the same is as bad as that one lady who claims there is no such thing as big bones/large frames.0 -
kmbrooks15 wrote: »While I agree that CICO is a good starting place for many, we need to be cautious about saying that's it, that's all it takes. Yes, you can eat nothing but 1200 calories' worth of candy bars in a day and lose weight, but your overall health will suffer because of the lack of valuable nutrients. So yes, if you just want to lose weight, CICO is all you have to think about. But if you also want to be healthy, there's definitely more to consider.
I think this comes down to what you expect of other posters. I simply don't think there's any likelihood that anyone sensible will think "hmm, a diet of candy bars only, that's what I will do!" and so I see no need to warn against it or lie that you can't lose weight unless you eat a nutrient-rich diet. I rely on the good sense of others to eat a healthful diet, and if they don't want to that's their choice -- me lying to them would be wrong and not help them.
I also think that even if you start out just lowering calories, most people understand that the easiest way to lower calories is to focus on higher cal/lower nutrient foods and that as they go on they will also make choices that help with satiety.
To assume that others won't be able to do those things without being told by me (or you) is in my mind insulting, as it relies on a belief that they are less capable of making sensible decisions as to how to eat, which I think is really a very basic human skill. Therefore, I trust they will be able to figure it out, and find claims that you must eat a certain way to lose weight to be both false and rather insulting.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »
No joke! But it proves that if you eat in a deficit you will lose weight. Healthy food or not.robs_ready wrote: »http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
....but it really is
God I could not think of anything more ghastly
Absolutely, you've given me a great idea for a macdonalds diet, chicken nuggets anyone?
http://www.today.com/health/man-loses-56-pounds-after-eating-only-mcdonalds-six-months-2D79329158 For you, sir0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »While I agree that CICO is a good starting place for many, we need to be cautious about saying that's it, that's all it takes. Yes, you can eat nothing but 1200 calories' worth of candy bars in a day and lose weight, but your overall health will suffer because of the lack of valuable nutrients. So yes, if you just want to lose weight, CICO is all you have to think about. But if you also want to be healthy, there's definitely more to consider.
And then there are those of us with health conditions that complicate things further. I have PCOS and can't eat just anything under my calories and expect to lose. Carbs, for me, have to be strictly limited because PCOS is rooted in insulin resistance.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree that CICO works for a majority of people, and it is an excellent place to start for many. But sometimes just spouting CICO to everyone could be doing them a disservice. If they're trying that and it's not working, I often see people tell them they must not be counting right. But they may be counting perfectly and there's something else going on with them that requires a different approach.
I've seen some pretty terrible diaries (that is, diaries that make me question whether or not the owner is meeting their nutritional needs). In each instance, it's CICO advocates who are recommending changes to help the owner meet their nutritional needs (suggestions to eat more protein or try more fiber). What's more, these suggestions are virtually always more useful for meeting nutritional needs and actionable than prescriptions like "eliminate all sugar" or "don't eat processed food" (they are also more sustainable for many people, if that counts for anything).
If there was a journal where someone was eating only candy, I guarantee that someone would address that because you can't meet your nutritional needs on candy (at least, not that I know of). This idea that if you think weight loss is driven by CICO that means you're telling people to eat just candy . . . I don't know why it always, always, always comes up in threads like this. Because nobody has ever recommended that.
This is a great point, and it's what I've seen too in situations like this. I see this as distinct from assuming in advance that someone cannot make rational decisions about how to reduce calories unless told "NO added sugar" or "NO refined carbs or processed foods" or whatever people think the opposite of candy only is.
I also think it's quite common for people to be told "calories are what matter for weight loss, but obviously food choice matters for nutrition and satiety and energy."0 -
*Grabs popcorn*0
-
StencilChild wrote: »50 cars, all different makes an models, on empty tanks, gas up and get 20 gallons of fuel, all the same, 87 octane. Imagine there is a VERY large track, enough to fit all vehicles. Would every vehicle run the same? Yay or nay? Now, what if you took all those cars and ran 89 octane? Would some perform better/worse?
My point is, we are all, to a point, special snowflakes. Calories are calories, just as fuel/gas is fuel/gas. How are bodies can use that energy is what actually makes a difference. People react to foods differently. To think every single person is exactly the same is as bad as that one lady who claims there is no such thing as big bones/large frames.
^^^This is one of the very best posts I have read on this site in the almost 4 years I have been here.
Experiment, find what works for you and stick with it as best you can.
0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »MaggieAustin15 wrote: »All this back lash and negative energy is not getting anywhere, why go against what someone says everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We are on here tying to stay healthy and record our food and exercise as well as encourage others and help them meet their goals. It is only my third day using this cite and all have seen is a bunch of adults acting like Junior High Kids in regards of going against others own opinions and virtues. Let people speak their mind on their own accords. I'm only 18 and have more dignity and respect then most adults that I know.
Preventing the spread of misinformation is important, especially for people who are new to weight loss and may be easily discouraged by all the arbitrary "rules" set forth by the various diet cults.
CICO is all that is required to lose weight. Everyone should start there.
How does CICO guarantee adherence?
I agree CICO is king but it is hardly the be all, end all. If it was just "eat less, move more" would end the issues of obesity everywhere.
There are real barriers to eating less. As important as CICO is, it is also important to address personal adherence to achieve long term success. Everyone should start with CICO and methods to achieve adherence.
How does any method guarantee adherence? At least with CICO it's as simple as it gets, for me it would seem to be the easiest of methods to try and adhere to.
Psychological issues around food will always be there regardless and need to be addressed alongside everything else. I have found it easier to address my emotional relationship with food by keeping the method simple.
No single method guarantees adherence as far as I can tell but it doesn't mean it isn't important.
Let me steal something I over heard recently - consider the factors of success for weight loss, and what affects weightless. We can throw in "clean eating" "meal timing" "macros" "nutritional diversity" "meal timing" "stress" "sleep". What is important? We can probably contract our own pyramid of majors and minors. At the base is CICO, then you add maybe "sleep" and "macros" and "micros", etc...
If I had a universal formula for adherence for all, I'd be writing diet books. Unfortunately these factors that lead to long term habits tends to be very individual - we do know a few majors for those. Things like: "consistent dietary styles that are not calorie dense allow for better satiety." or "assuring minimum fat and protein macros lead to improved hormonal response, less adaptive thermogenesis and less long term cravings" or "rapid weight loss can result in a variety of biological unhealthy responses from bingeing to hairloss to disordered thinking" ...
0 -
mejaneucoconut wrote: »I have been having so much trouble even losing a pound or two. When I exercise I can burn about 600 calories according to my fitbit and my TDEE for the day can be as much as 3500 but I was trying to eat only around 1200 cal. I was told to eat more and eat more carbs. So Im trying that but still no change except for the day I didn't drink but about 33.8 oz. which I know that is only water weight. I just don't get why I can't lose weight if CICO is all it takes. By the way the reason I have such a high calories burned for the day is because I weigh about 285-290. I've been told that my deficit is too much. Could this really be the problem?
@mejaneucoconut .....your logging needs to be tightened up. You need to weigh all solid foods and measure all thin liquids. Stop using generic entries like 'home made brownies'....you dont know if those were 1"square brownies or 6"square brownies unless you made them.0 -
StencilChild wrote: »50 cars, all different makes an models, on empty tanks, gas up and get 20 gallons of fuel, all the same, 87 octane. Imagine there is a VERY large track, enough to fit all vehicles. Would every vehicle run the same? Yay or nay? Now, what if you took all those cars and ran 89 octane? Would some perform better/worse?
My point is, we are all, to a point, special snowflakes. Calories are calories, just as fuel/gas is fuel/gas. How are bodies can use that energy is what actually makes a difference. People react to foods differently. To think every single person is exactly the same is as bad as that one lady who claims there is no such thing as big bones/large frames.
The comparison you try to draw is flawed. The thing would be if each individual car would get the same amount of energy from different brands of gasoline ... not if the same amount of gas would fuel a Prius and a F150 the same distance.
0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »There are studies where a man ate nothing but hostess snacks and Doritos for 10 weeks while maintaining a calorie deficit and managed to steadily lose weight.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
Sure if he had 1800 calories of healthy nutritious food everyday rather than snack cakes I am sure it would have been better, he may have lost more weight but this does put stock in CICO being fairly simple. I think many try to over complicate it to either A) Sell something or
Find a reason why their results do not align with their expectation.
Please explain how, specifically, he would have lost more weight eating 1800 calories of something other than snack cakes. If the calories are the same, how would he have lost more weight?
Thermodynamic effect of digestion, maybe? Doesn't it take more calories to digest some foods?0 -
StencilChild wrote: »50 cars, all different makes an models, on empty tanks, gas up and get 20 gallons of fuel, all the same, 87 octane. Imagine there is a VERY large track, enough to fit all vehicles. Would every vehicle run the same? Yay or nay? Now, what if you took all those cars and ran 89 octane? Would some perform better/worse?
My point is, we are all, to a point, special snowflakes. Calories are calories, just as fuel/gas is fuel/gas. How are bodies can use that energy is what actually makes a difference. People react to foods differently. To think every single person is exactly the same is as bad as that one lady who claims there is no such thing as big bones/large frames.
Humans are all very, very similar. Especially in the "engine" department. We all work on the same fuel, the way that fuel is acquired from foods is also almost identical for everyone, as is the efficiency with which it is acquired from different substances, barring medical conditions. How much fuel is needed is often a bit different, but even that is very close to each other.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/0 -
robingmurphy wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »There are studies where a man ate nothing but hostess snacks and Doritos for 10 weeks while maintaining a calorie deficit and managed to steadily lose weight.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
Sure if he had 1800 calories of healthy nutritious food everyday rather than snack cakes I am sure it would have been better, he may have lost more weight but this does put stock in CICO being fairly simple. I think many try to over complicate it to either A) Sell something or Find a reason why their results do not align with their expectation.
Please explain how, specifically, he would have lost more weight eating 1800 calories of something other than snack cakes. If the calories are the same, how would he have lost more weight?
Thermodynamic effect of digestion, maybe? Doesn't it take more calories to digest some foods?
Minimally ... accounted for if one gets precise with their CI.0 -
robingmurphy wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »There are studies where a man ate nothing but hostess snacks and Doritos for 10 weeks while maintaining a calorie deficit and managed to steadily lose weight.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
Sure if he had 1800 calories of healthy nutritious food everyday rather than snack cakes I am sure it would have been better, he may have lost more weight but this does put stock in CICO being fairly simple. I think many try to over complicate it to either A) Sell something or Find a reason why their results do not align with their expectation.
Please explain how, specifically, he would have lost more weight eating 1800 calories of something other than snack cakes. If the calories are the same, how would he have lost more weight?
Thermodynamic effect of digestion, maybe? Doesn't it take more calories to digest some foods?
It's a relatively small factor. And the twinkie diet guy did not only eat hostess snacks and doritos. He ate principally snack/fast food but ate non-convenience food in front of his kids.0 -
The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.0 -
mejaneucoconut wrote: »I have been having so much trouble even losing a pound or two. When I exercise I can burn about 600 calories according to my fitbit and my TDEE for the day can be as much as 3500 but I was trying to eat only around 1200 cal. I was told to eat more and eat more carbs. So Im trying that but still no change except for the day I didn't drink but about 33.8 oz. which I know that is only water weight. I just don't get why I can't lose weight if CICO is all it takes. By the way the reason I have such a high calories burned for the day is because I weigh about 285-290. I've been told that my deficit is too much. Could this really be the problem?
Ok - lets talk short term vs long term.
If someone has too large a deficit - there are a few bodily responses, especially in someone at your weight that can take effect that will negatively impact weight loss. There is something called edemic response and fluid retention can occur, especially if you are not drinking enough water. This type of inflammatory response can be aggravated by issues in the cardiovascular system or peripheral vascular system. So, it masks the weight loss. Sometimes this can last as long as a month.
If you stick with it and remain in a calorie deficit the weight loss will occur. The masking effect will not hide all weight loss. To reduce the inflammatory response consider assuring enough water, getting enough sleep, and trying to be consistent with the amount of carbs you eat. Large variations in carbs will also create another effect that masks weight loss - it's called glycogen sheathing - all those carbs are stored with water. Being consistent means the effect is less noticeable.
Long term CICO will result in weight loss. The size of your deficit may influence how long you can stick to it. Try for something that doesn't exceed 1-1,5% of your bodyweight. In your case, try to set your cal deficit to no more than 3-4.5 lbs per week.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions