Why Calories In and Calories Out... It really ISN'T that simple.....

1910111214

Replies

  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    ames105 wrote: »
    It IS NOT as easy as calories in/calories out for SOME people (for others, that truly does work). I wish people would put that caveat on their statement because it can confuse a lot of people. Many women here suffer from underactive thyroids and hormone conditions like PCOS or menopause. In those cases, its a lot about what you eat. The hormone condition I have responds very well to low carb, which is ironic because I always considered low carb to be a fad type of diet, not sustainable in the long term. But I no longer have a gall bladder, I have NAFLD and a sluggish digestive system. Sugar and high glycemic carbs, even if I remain exactly at 1200 calories (measured, weighed food), will cause a weight gain for me, not to mention a bloated belly and some digestive issues. But, as soon as I go to a high protein food plan, the weight starts melting off very quickly, my stomach flattens again and I feel so much better.

    I know someone is going to say CICO is a proven formula and I understand the mathematics behind it. I am just pointing out that for some people (especially woman and there are more than a few), certain combinations of foods work better than others. I don't want someone to get stuck on CICO when changing a few items might help them out even more.

    I do have PCOS and borderline low thyroid (not low enough to be medicated but low enough to create a difference). I consume quite a bit of sugars in form of fruits and my diet is generally moderate-high in carbs. It's still calories in and calories out for us, but what's tricky is finding our personal individual calorie out which could be lower than usual formulas. According to MFP formula I should be maintaining at 2280 calories but I find myself maintaining at around 2050 - 2100. No problem, I reassessed and recalculated accordingly and everything smoothed out. Knowing that my condition is highly hormonal, which means severe weight fluctuations, I weigh myself daily to establish a trend and a range, and I give myself more time than any other healthy person would before I judge any changes. I could end up gaining for a week, two, or even three, but as long as my lowest low keeps getting lower and my highest high doesn't go higher I know I'm losing. And here I am, 70 pounds down and counting without any special food considerations.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Naive as I am, I can't believe that the OP contains a url that literally states "calories don't matter" and people are supporting it because "but nutrition!" and "gasoline is bad for you!"

    Oh, my sweet summer child...
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    Naive as I am, I can't believe that the OP contains a url that literally states "calories don't matter" and people are supporting it because "but nutrition!" and "gasoline is bad for you!"

    ahh... you take me back....
  • sbermud
    sbermud Posts: 58 Member
    Nutrition wise it's not the same but for weight loss it is the same...
    100 calories is energy and weight loss is a deficit and that's all that matters to lose weight.
    Doesn't matter what the macros are in that 100 calories...
    My weight loss proves it .
    I don't care about macros and I still lose weight.


    Dr. Mark Hyman... maker of the movie Fed Up (you need to see it if you haven't) addresses the real reason that NOT ALL CALORIES ARE THE SAME....

    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.......

    drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/

  • AigreDoux
    AigreDoux Posts: 594 Member
    That's a sensationalist article and I wouldn't trust that guy.

    And CICO is true. Problem is that we suck at measuring both CI and CO, which makes the math not at all simple. I like this NOVA article http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

    It's not an excuse not to lose weight and calorie counting works for me, but there is evidence that the amount of energy absorbed from different foods varies based on how it is processed, the individual's gut bacteria, and other factors that we probably don't even know about yet.
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    That's a sensationalist article and I wouldn't trust that guy.

    And CICO is true. Problem is that we suck at measuring both CI and CO, which makes the math not at all simple. I like this NOVA article http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

    It's not an excuse not to lose weight and calorie counting works for me, but there is evidence that the amount of energy absorbed from different foods varies based on how it is processed, the individual's gut bacteria, and other factors that we probably don't even know about yet.

    Well, there is correlation to the things you're referring to, I wouldn't necessarily call it evidence this early. And in any case, those are such limited differences, they aren't significant enough to affect CICO overall, for the vast majority of people. Ten gallons of water is a lot of water. Until you're measuring its effect on the depth of a lake...
  • ClosetBayesian
    ClosetBayesian Posts: 836 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    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.

    That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.

    That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!

    ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).

    That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.

    The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).

    Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.

    I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!

    Feelings don't change science.

    That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."


    PS: as a scientist, i'd like to remind you that "science" is not a thing, it's a method and a process. Do you mean to say "feelings don't change scientifically derived facts"?

    Methods and processes are things.

    Actually...they are different! Here, @Carlos_421 let me explain it to you so you'll know :)

    I can say "e=mc(squared)" and that is not "science." It's a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact". The science are the methods by which Einstein figured that out. That is the difference. And it's the same with CICO. It's not "science" it is a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact." Science is the method and process by which people found it to be true to the extent that it has never been proven otherwise.

    You're speaking to a PhD in the history of science, who is getting married to a PhD in Chemistry. I love my science!

    Hey, you learned something today!

    If you're going to be picking nits over the meaning of the word 'science', you ought to be more precise. Science is defined as 1) the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment 2) a particular field of this type of study, and 3) a systematic body of knowledge on a particular subject.

    Science is not actually the method or the process. That would be the 'scientific method' which is interchangeable with the less frequently used 'scientific process'.

    And the word science is still a noun, and therefore a thing, regardless, as Carlos already mentioned (as is the scientific method).

    I get that if the history of science is your field of study you're going to have a knee-jerk reaction to such things, but restraint would serve you better, especially if it is not really relevant to and doesn't clarify the main discussion.

    There are several types of scientific method; it is not just limited to one.
  • AigreDoux
    AigreDoux Posts: 594 Member
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    That's a sensationalist article and I wouldn't trust that guy.

    And CICO is true. Problem is that we suck at measuring both CI and CO, which makes the math not at all simple. I like this NOVA article http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

    It's not an excuse not to lose weight and calorie counting works for me, but there is evidence that the amount of energy absorbed from different foods varies based on how it is processed, the individual's gut bacteria, and other factors that we probably don't even know about yet.

    Well, there is correlation to the things you're referring to, I wouldn't necessarily call it evidence this early. And in any case, those are such limited differences, they aren't significant enough to affect CICO overall, for the vast majority of people. Ten gallons of water is a lot of water. Until you're measuring its effect on the depth of a lake...

    Yeah, but the general message of this website is to measure everything out by the gram :) So we all agree that small inaccuracies can make a real difference over time. I'm just saying there is a lot that medicine doesn't understand about how the calorie measured in the calorimeter is REALLY what we absorb. "In a 2012 study, USDA scientist Janet Novotny and her colleagues found that the measured energy content of a 28-gram serving of almonds was actually 32 percent less than the Atwater values estimate."

    Heck, I'm counting calories and I think it's the best way to go for weight loss, but I also think/hope over the next 10 years we can refine the equation with even more precision. So I don't think it's all so simple as people are fond of saying here.
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    edited February 2016
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    That's a sensationalist article and I wouldn't trust that guy.

    And CICO is true. Problem is that we suck at measuring both CI and CO, which makes the math not at all simple. I like this NOVA article http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

    It's not an excuse not to lose weight and calorie counting works for me, but there is evidence that the amount of energy absorbed from different foods varies based on how it is processed, the individual's gut bacteria, and other factors that we probably don't even know about yet.

    Well, there is correlation to the things you're referring to, I wouldn't necessarily call it evidence this early. And in any case, those are such limited differences, they aren't significant enough to affect CICO overall, for the vast majority of people. Ten gallons of water is a lot of water. Until you're measuring its effect on the depth of a lake...

    Yeah, but the general message of this website is to measure everything out by the gram :) So we all agree that small inaccuracies can make a real difference over time. I'm just saying there is a lot that medicine doesn't understand about how the calorie measured in the calorimeter is REALLY what we absorb. "In a 2012 study, USDA scientist Janet Novotny and her colleagues found that the measured energy content of a 28-gram serving of almonds was actually 32 percent less than the Atwater values estimate."

    Heck, I'm counting calories and I think it's the best way to go for weight loss, but I also think/hope over the next 10 years we can refine the equation with even more precision. So I don't think it's all so simple as people are fond of saying here.

    Well I can't say I'm surprised they found inaccuracies in an equation that was designed in the later part of the 19th century. But even so. It's not a significant enough difference to matter. It would be significant if it made it impossible to lose weight on CICO, but I think the very existence of this website is evidence enough that it's not. For people without extra-biological factors like medical conditions, it really is that simple.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    That's a sensationalist article and I wouldn't trust that guy.

    And CICO is true. Problem is that we suck at measuring both CI and CO, which makes the math not at all simple. I like this NOVA article http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

    It's not an excuse not to lose weight and calorie counting works for me, but there is evidence that the amount of energy absorbed from different foods varies based on how it is processed, the individual's gut bacteria, and other factors that we probably don't even know about yet.

    Well, there is correlation to the things you're referring to, I wouldn't necessarily call it evidence this early. And in any case, those are such limited differences, they aren't significant enough to affect CICO overall, for the vast majority of people. Ten gallons of water is a lot of water. Until you're measuring its effect on the depth of a lake...

    Yeah, but the general message of this website is to measure everything out by the gram :) So we all agree that small inaccuracies can make a real difference over time. I'm just saying there is a lot that medicine doesn't understand about how the calorie measured in the calorimeter is REALLY what we absorb. "In a 2012 study, USDA scientist Janet Novotny and her colleagues found that the measured energy content of a 28-gram serving of almonds was actually 32 percent less than the Atwater values estimate."

    Heck, I'm counting calories and I think it's the best way to go for weight loss, but I also think/hope over the next 10 years we can refine the equation with even more precision. So I don't think it's all so simple as people are fond of saying here.

    Well I can't say I'm surprised they found inaccuracies in an equation that was designed in the later part of the 19th century. But even so. It's not a significant enough difference to matter. It would be significant if it made it impossible to lose weight on CICO, but I think the very existence of this website is evidence enough that it's not. For people without extra-biological factors like medical conditions, it really is that simple.

    Everyone admits that it is all a best estimate and that you need to work with your own collated data over time to tweak the results desired. Minor flaws in the numbers doesn't negate the facts and premise of CICO.
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    That's a sensationalist article and I wouldn't trust that guy.

    And CICO is true. Problem is that we suck at measuring both CI and CO, which makes the math not at all simple. I like this NOVA article http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

    It's not an excuse not to lose weight and calorie counting works for me, but there is evidence that the amount of energy absorbed from different foods varies based on how it is processed, the individual's gut bacteria, and other factors that we probably don't even know about yet.

    Well, there is correlation to the things you're referring to, I wouldn't necessarily call it evidence this early. And in any case, those are such limited differences, they aren't significant enough to affect CICO overall, for the vast majority of people. Ten gallons of water is a lot of water. Until you're measuring its effect on the depth of a lake...

    Yeah, but the general message of this website is to measure everything out by the gram :) So we all agree that small inaccuracies can make a real difference over time. I'm just saying there is a lot that medicine doesn't understand about how the calorie measured in the calorimeter is REALLY what we absorb. "In a 2012 study, USDA scientist Janet Novotny and her colleagues found that the measured energy content of a 28-gram serving of almonds was actually 32 percent less than the Atwater values estimate."

    Heck, I'm counting calories and I think it's the best way to go for weight loss, but I also think/hope over the next 10 years we can refine the equation with even more precision. So I don't think it's all so simple as people are fond of saying here.

    Well I can't say I'm surprised they found inaccuracies in an equation that was designed in the later part of the 19th century. But even so. It's not a significant enough difference to matter. It would be significant if it made it impossible to lose weight on CICO, but I think the very existence of this website is evidence enough that it's not. For people without extra-biological factors like medical conditions, it really is that simple.

    Everyone admits that it is all a best estimate and that you need to work with your own collated data over time to tweak the results desired. Minor flaws in the numbers doesn't negate the facts and premise of CICO.

    I was referring to the Atwater values estimate. I'm on CICO's side here.
  • AigreDoux
    AigreDoux Posts: 594 Member

    Well I can't say I'm surprised they found inaccuracies in an equation that was designed in the later part of the 19th century. But even so. It's not a significant enough difference to matter. It would be significant if it made it impossible to lose weight on CICO, but I think the very existence of this website is evidence enough that it's not. For people without extra-biological factors like medical conditions, it really is that simple.

    A 27 gram serving of Almonds is about 160 calories. So 32% less is a difference of ~50 calories. That's actually a lot, IMO.

    I'm not so sure why you're trying to convince me that CICO leads to weight loss since I already said I agree with that. I just happen to think that our data could be improved, quite vastly. I think the science of it is very interesting.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    edited February 2016
    stealthq wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    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.

    That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.

    That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!

    ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).

    That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.

    The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).

    Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.

    I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!

    Feelings don't change science.

    That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."


    PS: as a scientist, i'd like to remind you that "science" is not a thing, it's a method and a process. Do you mean to say "feelings don't change scientifically derived facts"?

    Methods and processes are things.

    Actually...they are different! Here, @Carlos_421 let me explain it to you so you'll know :)

    I can say "e=mc(squared)" and that is not "science." It's a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact". The science are the methods by which Einstein figured that out. That is the difference. And it's the same with CICO. It's not "science" it is a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact." Science is the method and process by which people found it to be true to the extent that it has never been proven otherwise.

    You're speaking to a PhD in the history of science, who is getting married to a PhD in Chemistry. I love my science!

    Hey, you learned something today!

    If you're going to be picking nits over the meaning of the word 'science', you ought to be more precise. Science is defined as 1) the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment 2) a particular field of this type of study, and 3) a systematic body of knowledge on a particular subject.

    Science is not actually the method or the process. That would be the 'scientific method' which is interchangeable with the less frequently used 'scientific process'.

    And the word science is still a noun, and therefore a thing, regardless, as Carlos already mentioned (as is the scientific method).

    I get that if the history of science is your field of study you're going to have a knee-jerk reaction to such things, but restraint would serve you better, especially if it is not really relevant to and doesn't clarify the main discussion.

    There are several types of scientific method; it is not just limited to one.

    The 'scientific method' as defined is the process by which scientific inquiry is carried out. There is no implication in the modern definition that there is only one specific way to do it. Perhaps you were thinking I was referring to the older definition many were taught in high school that had laid out steps of hypothesis generation, etc? The older definition falls under the heading of the modern, less constrained, definition.

    ETA: more generic -> less constrained
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    AigreDoux wrote: »
    That's a sensationalist article and I wouldn't trust that guy.

    And CICO is true. Problem is that we suck at measuring both CI and CO, which makes the math not at all simple. I like this NOVA article http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

    It's not an excuse not to lose weight and calorie counting works for me, but there is evidence that the amount of energy absorbed from different foods varies based on how it is processed, the individual's gut bacteria, and other factors that we probably don't even know about yet.

    Well, there is correlation to the things you're referring to, I wouldn't necessarily call it evidence this early. And in any case, those are such limited differences, they aren't significant enough to affect CICO overall, for the vast majority of people. Ten gallons of water is a lot of water. Until you're measuring its effect on the depth of a lake...

    Yeah, but the general message of this website is to measure everything out by the gram :) So we all agree that small inaccuracies can make a real difference over time. I'm just saying there is a lot that medicine doesn't understand about how the calorie measured in the calorimeter is REALLY what we absorb. "In a 2012 study, USDA scientist Janet Novotny and her colleagues found that the measured energy content of a 28-gram serving of almonds was actually 32 percent less than the Atwater values estimate."

    Heck, I'm counting calories and I think it's the best way to go for weight loss, but I also think/hope over the next 10 years we can refine the equation with even more precision. So I don't think it's all so simple as people are fond of saying here.

    Without looking up Novotny's work and how it differed from Atwater's, something to think about. The Atwater values are not just calories measured in the bomb calorimeter. There have been corrections made for absorption already.

    It would not surprise me in the least that those corrections are not 100% accurate. However, they are not nearly as inaccurate as some like to promote (not meaning to include you in that group).
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,379 Member
    Naive as I am, I can't believe that the OP contains a url that literally states "calories don't matter" and people are supporting it because "but nutrition!" and "gasoline is bad for you!"

    Well you would be correct. The link does have both some valid information and some woo IMO. But if people completely ignore the context of the link they can just chant "CICO, CICO, CICO!"

    While I agree that energy balance can't ever be denied, the complexities of it are fairly intense, and the simple CICO equations are the tip of the iceberg. If they weren't we would have complete models proven in labs that could dictate the weight of any person at any time in a lab testing environment that measures all intake and caloric expenditure. But we don't, due to the complexities.

    There are quite a few sources that prove that both energy in and energy out can be influenced by a great number of factors. And though usually not large, in the edges of the norm they could account for a decent percentage of differences.


    General vs specific vs NME Atwater alone leaves a fairly good chunk of error on the table, especially when factored in with NME of a total diet and how one thing might affect the absorbtion of the other.

    But the CICO chant will drown out most of that science. ;)
  • Vortex88
    Vortex88 Posts: 60 Member
    Dr. Mark Hyman... maker of the movie Fed Up (you need to see it if you haven't) addresses the real reason that NOT ALL CALORIES ARE THE SAME....

    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.......

    drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/

    Without reading this, I've been saying this for years because your body has hormonal responses to food and there are no studies on this. Anytime I say anything I always get yelled at by the IIFYM crowd here, I hardly ever post anymore... because you know, I know nothing and IIFYM = life. Hopefully there is some decent info here!

    Hormonal responses do NOT overrule the laws of nature.
    Hormonal responses do NOT overrule the laws of nature.
    Hormonal responses do NOT overrule the laws of nature.
    Hormonal responses do NOT overrule the laws of nature.
    Hormonal responses do NOT overrule the laws of nature.

    If I say it often enough it is bound to get through to those people, right?

    Do you mean the laws of physics? What is a law of nature?

    Hormonal responses are PART of our nature aren't they?
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,452 Member
    pucenavel wrote: »
    A cup of gasoline has around 2000 calories.

    A calorie is not a calorie. Nutrition counts too. Ever heard of vitamins? Minerals?
    Lol, of course people are consuming gasoline on a daily basis.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • ClosetBayesian
    ClosetBayesian Posts: 836 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    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.

    That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.

    That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!

    ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).

    That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.

    The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).

    Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.

    I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!

    Feelings don't change science.

    That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."


    PS: as a scientist, i'd like to remind you that "science" is not a thing, it's a method and a process. Do you mean to say "feelings don't change scientifically derived facts"?

    Methods and processes are things.

    Actually...they are different! Here, @Carlos_421 let me explain it to you so you'll know :)

    I can say "e=mc(squared)" and that is not "science." It's a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact". The science are the methods by which Einstein figured that out. That is the difference. And it's the same with CICO. It's not "science" it is a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact." Science is the method and process by which people found it to be true to the extent that it has never been proven otherwise.

    You're speaking to a PhD in the history of science, who is getting married to a PhD in Chemistry. I love my science!

    Hey, you learned something today!

    If you're going to be picking nits over the meaning of the word 'science', you ought to be more precise. Science is defined as 1) the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment 2) a particular field of this type of study, and 3) a systematic body of knowledge on a particular subject.

    Science is not actually the method or the process. That would be the 'scientific method' which is interchangeable with the less frequently used 'scientific process'.

    And the word science is still a noun, and therefore a thing, regardless, as Carlos already mentioned (as is the scientific method).

    I get that if the history of science is your field of study you're going to have a knee-jerk reaction to such things, but restraint would serve you better, especially if it is not really relevant to and doesn't clarify the main discussion.

    There are several types of scientific method; it is not just limited to one.

    The 'scientific method' as defined is the process by which scientific inquiry is carried out. There is no implication in the modern definition that there is only one specific way to do it. Perhaps you were thinking I was referring to the older definition many were taught in high school that had laid out steps of hypothesis generation, etc? The older definition falls under the heading of the modern, less constrained, definition.

    ETA: more generic -> less constrained

    It's the "the" part that makes me twitch. Scientific method, not the scientific method.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    robertw486 wrote: »
    Naive as I am, I can't believe that the OP contains a url that literally states "calories don't matter" and people are supporting it because "but nutrition!" and "gasoline is bad for you!"

    Well you would be correct. The link does have both some valid information and some woo IMO. But if people completely ignore the context of the link they can just chant "CICO, CICO, CICO!"

    While I agree that energy balance can't ever be denied, the complexities of it are fairly intense, and the simple CICO equations are the tip of the iceberg. If they weren't we would have complete models proven in labs that could dictate the weight of any person at any time in a lab testing environment that measures all intake and caloric expenditure. But we don't, due to the complexities.

    There are quite a few sources that prove that both energy in and energy out can be influenced by a great number of factors. And though usually not large, in the edges of the norm they could account for a decent percentage of differences.


    General vs specific vs NME Atwater alone leaves a fairly good chunk of error on the table, especially when factored in with NME of a total diet and how one thing might affect the absorbtion of the other.

    But the CICO chant will drown out most of that science. ;)

    The CICO argument as presented will also drown out most of the variances and other minor factors you referenced too. And with those minor individual adjustments to our tracking (which are as simple as tweaking TDEE up or down to cover these minor factors), I believe we end up with a fairly predictive model.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,469 Member
    edited February 2016
    So far from reading all the posts I figurd out I can just drink the cup of gasoline and not worry about eating for the rest of the day.