Why Calories In and Calories Out... It really ISN'T that simple.....
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio 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.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
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.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious 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 constrained0 -
CoffeeNCardio 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).0 -
PaulaWallaDingDong 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.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »mrs_justice wrote: »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?
0 -
Lol, of course people are consuming gasoline on a daily basis.A cup of gasoline has around 2000 calories.
A calorie is not a calorie. Nutrition counts too. Ever heard of vitamins? Minerals?
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
0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious 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.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong 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.0 -
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.0
-
It gives me hope for humanity that so many people are quick to call out a quack when they see one. Pseudoscience is becoming a serious problem. Don't fall for this crap. I know you WANT to believe bold claims about weight loss because it's hard and we could sure use a break, but the science is the science. Energy in vs. energy out. Anyone trying to sell you their supplements, special foods, "incredible" "secret" "ancient" Chinese super berry, magic beans, et cetera, are not to be trusted. If you are hungry for real info and want to be healthier there are plenty of peer reviewed studies published by people who aren't quacks. That should keep you busy for a while.0
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong 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.
We do actually have pretty complete models, proven in labs, It's called the KD Hall model.
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/LBM/integrative-physiology-section/research-behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx
In lab settings, it seems to be accurate to < a lb a year. It does have some individual constants that need to be determined along the way.0 -
As an afterthought, eating healthier foods does typically tend to work. You know why? Because usually they have less calories- as I tried to explain to my sister in law who is following a fad diet where she "doesn't have to count calories" and "all she has to do is just" follow a meal plan and recipes from a book exactly and to the letter. Um? It's still counting calories. They're just doing it for you.0
-
CoffeeNCardio 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.
But that just means that we might be overestimating the calories in some items (like nuts). The much bigger issue for most people is that they overestimate activity or underestimate foods. Also, if our results show that we are eating more or less than we need to be (based on loss or gain), then we cut back or add more. There's no need to know the actual calorie burn or calories in so long as we can estimate well enough to increase or decrease (which shouldn't be hard).0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
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.
Unless your whole diet revolves around eating almonds it's really not.0 -
It gives me hope for humanity that so many people are quick to call out a quack when they see one. Pseudoscience is becoming a serious problem. Don't fall for this crap. I know you WANT to believe bold claims about weight loss because it's hard and we could sure use a break, but the science is the science. Energy in vs. energy out. Anyone trying to sell you their supplements, special foods, "incredible" "secret" "ancient" Chinese super berry, magic beans, et cetera, are not to be trusted. If you are hungry for real info and want to be healthier there are plenty of peer reviewed studies published by people who aren't quacks. That should keep you busy for a while.
I think the hard part that many people who fall for stuff like what is in the OP struggle with is taking personal responsibility. It's a lot easier to blame the food industry for what they put in the food than it is to accept personal blame.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »nuttynanners wrote: »Ooooh, I wouldn't say a single word against CICO on MFP.....
As much as I agree that higher quality foods are going to be better for weight loss in the long run, MFP forums are not the place for that kind of thinking. They just don't want see it from that perspective.
Nutrition is incredibly important to hit goals and for overall health
If you think that the overarching truth of calories in vs calories out under which all successful losing weight ./ weight gain / weight maintenance / fitness goals fall doesn't allow for good nutrition you simply don't know what you're talking about
I swear, these threads beg the question: If you don't understand/like/believe in CICO, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
OMG! (Orgasmic) YES! My thoughts exactly.
I am not a PhD. I often don't use perfect grammar nor do I ponder or care whether one should put "the" in front of "scientific method." I hardly need to understand complicated math to make the simple principle of CI<CO work for me. I am a 48 YO perimenopausal woman with autoimmune disease, thyroid issues and depression. I've never said on MFP it was easy for me to lose 30 lbs so far. But frankly, it WAS easier for me than I ever imagined. I do understand it isn't an easy process for many people. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, in some way, for each person, on an individual basis. I did not fill a black board with daily calculations subtracting for each medical issue, food choice, behavioral problem, time and temperature. I just paid attention to how much I was eating and I exercise as much as I can. It's a process of trial and error. It takes logging for a period of time, then asking yourself, "is it working? If yes, then proceed. If no, change something. What isn't working? I don't know. Try something. You will make it work, over time, if you want to, with the CI<CO principle. No chanting required.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »
great article, thanks for sharing!0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong 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.
I don't disagree, but with a human scale and intake adjustments we can control weight. I'm simply stating that for all the food scales, spreadsheets, fitness devices, etc many are using they are still reliant on an inexact science. Since we need the feedback loop anyway, I've taken the route of not bothering to weigh any food myself, and it works fine. But with or without an understanding of the basics of energy balance, or the specifics of the smaller things, or for that matter an understanding of a calorie, I fail to see where the CICO thinking as being all that is needed has any more weight than "move more and eat less" for weight loss.lemurcat12 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio 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.
But that just means that we might be overestimating the calories in some items (like nuts). The much bigger issue for most people is that they overestimate activity or underestimate foods. Also, if our results show that we are eating more or less than we need to be (based on loss or gain), then we cut back or add more. There's no need to know the actual calorie burn or calories in so long as we can estimate well enough to increase or decrease (which shouldn't be hard).soulofgrace wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »nuttynanners wrote: »Ooooh, I wouldn't say a single word against CICO on MFP.....
As much as I agree that higher quality foods are going to be better for weight loss in the long run, MFP forums are not the place for that kind of thinking. They just don't want see it from that perspective.
Nutrition is incredibly important to hit goals and for overall health
If you think that the overarching truth of calories in vs calories out under which all successful losing weight ./ weight gain / weight maintenance / fitness goals fall doesn't allow for good nutrition you simply don't know what you're talking about
I swear, these threads beg the question: If you don't understand/like/believe in CICO, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
OMG! (Orgasmic) YES! My thoughts exactly.
I am not a PhD. I often don't use perfect grammar nor do I ponder or care whether one should put "the" in front of "scientific method." I hardly need to understand complicated math to make the simple principle of CI<CO work for me. I am a 48 YO perimenopausal woman with autoimmune disease, thyroid issues and depression. I've never said on MFP it was easy for me to lose 30 lbs so far. But frankly, it WAS easier for me than I ever imagined. I do understand it isn't an easy process for many people. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, in some way, for each person, on an individual basis. I did not fill a black board with daily calculations subtracting for each medical issue, food choice, behavioral problem, time and temperature. I just paid attention to how much I was eating and I exercise as much as I can. It's a process of trial and error. It takes logging for a period of time, then asking yourself, "is it working? If yes, then proceed. If no, change something. What isn't working? I don't know. Try something. You will make it work, over time, if you want to, with the CI<CO principle. No chanting required.
Keep in mind not everyone is on this website to lose weight. If there were errors of 30% in some foods (which was an extreme example) it could be harmful to many people for reaching their goals in nutrition, as well as proper recovery foods, sports fueling, etc.
It's not uncommon for me to exercise 2000 calories above TDEE. If I added that 30% margin of error in there, that would leave me with a 600 calorie deficit to maintenance calories. If I had a weight loss goal on top of that, increase as appropriate. I wouldn't want an 1100 calorie single day deficit at my weight.
The same margin of error could influence a lot of goals.
While the feedback loop is great for adjustments over a period of time, in some cases it could really throw a wrench in the works short term.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong 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.
I don't disagree, but with a human scale and intake adjustments we can control weight. I'm simply stating that for all the food scales, spreadsheets, fitness devices, etc many are using they are still reliant on an inexact science. Since we need the feedback loop anyway, I've taken the route of not bothering to weigh any food myself, and it works fine. But with or without an understanding of the basics of energy balance, or the specifics of the smaller things, or for that matter an understanding of a calorie, I fail to see where the CICO thinking as being all that is needed has any more weight than "move more and eat less" for weight loss.lemurcat12 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio 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.
But that just means that we might be overestimating the calories in some items (like nuts). The much bigger issue for most people is that they overestimate activity or underestimate foods. Also, if our results show that we are eating more or less than we need to be (based on loss or gain), then we cut back or add more. There's no need to know the actual calorie burn or calories in so long as we can estimate well enough to increase or decrease (which shouldn't be hard).soulofgrace wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »nuttynanners wrote: »Ooooh, I wouldn't say a single word against CICO on MFP.....
As much as I agree that higher quality foods are going to be better for weight loss in the long run, MFP forums are not the place for that kind of thinking. They just don't want see it from that perspective.
Nutrition is incredibly important to hit goals and for overall health
If you think that the overarching truth of calories in vs calories out under which all successful losing weight ./ weight gain / weight maintenance / fitness goals fall doesn't allow for good nutrition you simply don't know what you're talking about
I swear, these threads beg the question: If you don't understand/like/believe in CICO, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
OMG! (Orgasmic) YES! My thoughts exactly.
I am not a PhD. I often don't use perfect grammar nor do I ponder or care whether one should put "the" in front of "scientific method." I hardly need to understand complicated math to make the simple principle of CI<CO work for me. I am a 48 YO perimenopausal woman with autoimmune disease, thyroid issues and depression. I've never said on MFP it was easy for me to lose 30 lbs so far. But frankly, it WAS easier for me than I ever imagined. I do understand it isn't an easy process for many people. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, in some way, for each person, on an individual basis. I did not fill a black board with daily calculations subtracting for each medical issue, food choice, behavioral problem, time and temperature. I just paid attention to how much I was eating and I exercise as much as I can. It's a process of trial and error. It takes logging for a period of time, then asking yourself, "is it working? If yes, then proceed. If no, change something. What isn't working? I don't know. Try something. You will make it work, over time, if you want to, with the CI<CO principle. No chanting required.
Keep in mind not everyone is on this website to lose weight. If there were errors of 30% in some foods (which was an extreme example) it could be harmful to many people for reaching their goals in nutrition, as well as proper recovery foods, sports fueling, etc.
It's not uncommon for me to exercise 2000 calories above TDEE. If I added that 30% margin of error in there, that would leave me with a 600 calorie deficit to maintenance calories. If I had a weight loss goal on top of that, increase as appropriate. I wouldn't want an 1100 calorie single day deficit at my weight.
The same margin of error could influence a lot of goals.
While the feedback loop is great for adjustments over a period of time, in some cases it could really throw a wrench in the works short term.
I'm currently maintaining and focusing on fueling for cardio (I am training for a marathon and about to transition to training for an ironman). I don't see how what I said doesn't still apply. Obviously no one sensible would rely only on calculators and CI estimates. You look at results and adjust. I did that when fat, as I was losing more than MFP predicted.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions