Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does calories in vs calories out really matter?
Replies
-
Calories is the only thing that matters for weight loss. Eat the foods that agree with you, but pay attention to calories. Period.5
-
In some cases even with a calorie deficit you can have weight gain. It has to do with insulin response. Excesses of insulin will cause weight gain even with a calorie deficit.1
-
uwannasaysomething wrote: »In some cases even with a calorie deficit you can have weight gain. It has to do with insulin response. Excesses of insulin will cause weight gain even with a calorie deficit.
No.
You're not the first person who's brought the insulin bogeyman to bear, and it's been scientifically shot down numerous times. The Insulin Fairy doesn't really exist and she can't magically trump thermodynamics.23 -
bercyn1291 wrote: »It is agreed upon that quality of the food matters in faster weight loss but ideally calories out-calories in should determine how much weight you lose. Please share your experience.
I agree. I once splurged on this $3200 high-quality steak. After that delicious meal, I couldn't afford groceries for the next two weeks, so I lost a bunch of weight really quickly.
This is awesome!3 -
This information is not accurate. If you eat at a calorie deficit you will lose every single time.uwannasaysomething wrote: »In some cases even with a calorie deficit you can have weight gain. It has to do with insulin response. Excesses of insulin will cause weight gain even with a calorie deficit.
10 -
uwannasaysomething wrote: »In some cases even with a calorie deficit you can have weight gain. It has to do with insulin response. Excesses of insulin will cause weight gain even with a calorie deficit.
No, that can't happen.
I have found that "insulin response" is poorly understood by people making claims about fat loss related to it in my years reading dieting forums.11 -
uwannasaysomething wrote: »In some cases even with a calorie deficit you can have weight gain.
Before people completely disregard this comment I would like to say that the first portion is correct. You can gain weight in a calorie deficit. However this is not "real" weight and is likely water.
The part about insulin is complete myth though.7 -
I read a great runners World article b a metabolic researcher who said that using the Calories in -calories out approach is likely saying that investing in the stock market is easy because you just have to buy low and sell high.
It is true in theory but metabolism is different in everyone. Figuring out the calorie out us challenging and dynamic0 -
francineb4 wrote: »I read a great runners World article b a metabolic researcher who said that using the Calories in -calories out approach is likely saying that investing in the stock market is easy because you just have to buy low and sell high.
It is true in theory but metabolism is different in everyone. Figuring out the calorie out us challenging and dynamic
I know, right? It's almost like people have to pay attention to reality and use their brain when it comes to modifying for results. In a world of online calculators and predetermined programs, I know that last part is asking a lot these days.10 -
It's all right HERE.2
-
Surprised this isn't posted in here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
FTA: For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.4 -
I think it comes down to CICO but there are factors that adjust CI or CO which can make it seem like it doesn't work.
I can lose 2-3lbs per week on 1500 kcal for one way of eating but gain weight at 1800kcal if I eat another way. It doesn't appear to make sense but I have found that the foods I eat affect my CI and CO quite a bit. I have insulin resistance and some autoimmune issues that may affect those values too.1 -
francineb4 wrote: »I read a great runners World article b a metabolic researcher who said that using the Calories in -calories out approach is likely saying that investing in the stock market is easy because you just have to buy low and sell high.
It is true in theory but metabolism is different in everyone. Figuring out the calorie out us challenging and dynamic
Taking a few weeks of logging and seeing where your weight goes is not exactly challenging, and unless your activity wildly varies, you only need to find out your calories out once and only adjust as you're losing weight.3 -
uwannasaysomething wrote: »In some cases even with a calorie deficit you can have weight gain. It has to do with insulin response. Excesses of insulin will cause weight gain even with a calorie deficit.
no, insulin does not cancel out math and physics...
wow, people...wow...8 -
francineb4 wrote: »I read a great runners World article b a metabolic researcher who said that using the Calories in -calories out approach is likely saying that investing in the stock market is easy because you just have to buy low and sell high.
It is true in theory but metabolism is different in everyone. Figuring out the calorie out us challenging and dynamic
it takes about three weeks to figure out your gain, loss, and maintenance levels...
use a calculator and then adjust from there based on the scale..
8 -
My experience, which seems to be unusual based on what others have posted, is that CICO is not absolute.
For years, I meticulously logged food and exercise, but struggled to lose at even close to the rate that I would expect. As I lost so slowly that many would have given up by then, I adjusted down CI periodically to match new lower weight. Though losing about 0.2 lb. / week didn't result in very much reduction.
After more than 2 years of discouragingly slow loss, I changed macros. At the time, I did not change CI. I did not change the meticulous methods used to track every kitten gram of food and every HR beat for exercise. Nothing except macros changed. Almost immediately, I started losing weight at an expected pace. This has now continued for almost 8 months now and I've lost as much during these past 8 months as I did during the 26 prior months.
While I know everybody swears that CICO is the exclusive method for weight loss, my experience says that isn't the case. It's great for those who have figured out how to make CICO work for them, but I need a specific macro split to be capable of losing weight.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »My experience, which seems to be unusual based on what others have posted, is that CICO is not absolute.
For years, I meticulously logged food and exercise, but struggled to lose at even close to the rate that I would expect. As I lost so slowly that many would have given up by then, I adjusted down CI periodically to match new lower weight. Though losing about 0.2 lb. / week didn't result in very much reduction.
After more than 2 years of discouragingly slow loss, I changed macros. At the time, I did not change CI. I did not change the meticulous methods used to track every kitten gram of food and every HR beat for exercise. Nothing except macros changed. Almost immediately, I started losing weight at an expected pace. This has now continued for almost 8 months now and I've lost as much during these past 8 months as I did during the 26 prior months.
While I know everybody swears that CICO is the exclusive method for weight loss, my experience says that isn't the case. It's great for those who have figured out how to make CICO work for them, but I need a specific macro split to be capable of losing weight.
Yes, medical conditions change things. That's a given.5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »My experience, which seems to be unusual based on what others have posted, is that CICO is not absolute.
For years, I meticulously logged food and exercise, but struggled to lose at even close to the rate that I would expect. As I lost so slowly that many would have given up by then, I adjusted down CI periodically to match new lower weight. Though losing about 0.2 lb. / week didn't result in very much reduction.
After more than 2 years of discouragingly slow loss, I changed macros. At the time, I did not change CI. I did not change the meticulous methods used to track every kitten gram of food and every HR beat for exercise. Nothing except macros changed. Almost immediately, I started losing weight at an expected pace. This has now continued for almost 8 months now and I've lost as much during these past 8 months as I did during the 26 prior months.
While I know everybody swears that CICO is the exclusive method for weight loss, my experience says that isn't the case. It's great for those who have figured out how to make CICO work for them, but I need a specific macro split to be capable of losing weight.
Likely culprit?
Improved adherence/accuracy.
Because the laws of physics don't care about macros splits or anecdotes.
If you're losing faster now than then, it's due to an increased deficit whether you can identify how the deficit increase occurred or not.10 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »My experience, which seems to be unusual based on what others have posted, is that CICO is not absolute.
For years, I meticulously logged food and exercise, but struggled to lose at even close to the rate that I would expect. As I lost so slowly that many would have given up by then, I adjusted down CI periodically to match new lower weight. Though losing about 0.2 lb. / week didn't result in very much reduction.
After more than 2 years of discouragingly slow loss, I changed macros. At the time, I did not change CI. I did not change the meticulous methods used to track every kitten gram of food and every HR beat for exercise. Nothing except macros changed. Almost immediately, I started losing weight at an expected pace. This has now continued for almost 8 months now and I've lost as much during these past 8 months as I did during the 26 prior months.
While I know everybody swears that CICO is the exclusive method for weight loss, my experience says that isn't the case. It's great for those who have figured out how to make CICO work for them, but I need a specific macro split to be capable of losing weight.
Likely culprit?
Improved adherence/accuracy.
Because the laws of physics don't care about macros splits or anecdotes.
If you're losing faster now than then, it's due to an increased deficit whether you can identify how the deficit increase occurred or not.
this...so much this...2 -
I think it comes down to CICO but there are factors that adjust CI or CO which can make it seem like it doesn't work.
I can lose 2-3lbs per week on 1500 kcal for one way of eating but gain weight at 1800kcal if I eat another way. It doesn't appear to make sense but I have found that the foods I eat affect my CI and CO quite a bit. I have insulin resistance and some autoimmune issues that may affect those values too.
different ways of eating don't change math and physics....you are either in a deficit or not ..
and yes a medical condition would affect CICO; however, one would need medication to regulate the out side, and it still boils down to CICO..4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »My experience, which seems to be unusual based on what others have posted, is that CICO is not absolute.
For years, I meticulously logged food and exercise, but struggled to lose at even close to the rate that I would expect. As I lost so slowly that many would have given up by then, I adjusted down CI periodically to match new lower weight. Though losing about 0.2 lb. / week didn't result in very much reduction.
After more than 2 years of discouragingly slow loss, I changed macros. At the time, I did not change CI. I did not change the meticulous methods used to track every kitten gram of food and every HR beat for exercise. Nothing except macros changed. Almost immediately, I started losing weight at an expected pace. This has now continued for almost 8 months now and I've lost as much during these past 8 months as I did during the 26 prior months.
While I know everybody swears that CICO is the exclusive method for weight loss, my experience says that isn't the case. It's great for those who have figured out how to make CICO work for them, but I need a specific macro split to be capable of losing weight.
Likely culprit?
Improved adherence/accuracy.
Because the laws of physics don't care about macros splits or anecdotes.
If you're losing faster now than then, it's due to an increased deficit whether you can identify how the deficit increase occurred or not.
Once again: I logged with incredible accuracy and didn't change that. In fact, I still use the same food scale to this day as I used when I lost slowly.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »My experience, which seems to be unusual based on what others have posted, is that CICO is not absolute.
For years, I meticulously logged food and exercise, but struggled to lose at even close to the rate that I would expect. As I lost so slowly that many would have given up by then, I adjusted down CI periodically to match new lower weight. Though losing about 0.2 lb. / week didn't result in very much reduction.
After more than 2 years of discouragingly slow loss, I changed macros. At the time, I did not change CI. I did not change the meticulous methods used to track every kitten gram of food and every HR beat for exercise. Nothing except macros changed. Almost immediately, I started losing weight at an expected pace. This has now continued for almost 8 months now and I've lost as much during these past 8 months as I did during the 26 prior months.
While I know everybody swears that CICO is the exclusive method for weight loss, my experience says that isn't the case. It's great for those who have figured out how to make CICO work for them, but I need a specific macro split to be capable of losing weight.
Yes, medical conditions change things. That's a given.
I hear that often, but haven't heard any explanation of how that is supposed to be the case. I have an incredible amount of knowledge about my medical condition that people usually blame (without understanding it at all) because they really don't have any other explanation. But then for those of us who understand it, the prior macro split would have resulted in greater CO for someone with my condition than for those without. With that being the known difference, my results actually make less sense than for a healthy person.0 -
bercyn1291 wrote: »It is agreed upon that quality of the food matters in faster weight loss but ideally calories out-calories in should determine how much weight you lose. Please share your experience.
Calories in vs. calories out are ALL that matters for weight loss.
Quality of food matters for health.
Faster weight loss is usually unhealthy weight loss. Obese people can lose quickly, but the rest of us risk lean muscle mass. When our bodies don't have fuel.....they will catobolize existing lean muscle. High quality food does not make us immune.
Calories in vs. calories out are ALL that matters for FAT loss. Weight loss can differ based on diet content because weight loss is not all about fat.2 -
Calories in vs calories out (CICO) is a gross simplification. Not all calories are equal, especially for people with insulin resistance (which is mostly any person with a lot of excess fat.) The Framingham Nurses Study showed that fewer calories over a long time did not produce predicted weight loss. Of course extreme calorie deficits are likely to cause temporary weight loss.
Some calories slow down a metabolism (sugar and starch) and some calories speed it up (caffeine). Some calories need to be processed in the liver exclusively (fructose) and some calories are immediately available to the cells (medium chain triglycerides). Different calories have different effects on hormones and the hormonal effects are greater than the effect of the quantity of calories. For instance, carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than do proteins. Fats cause very little insulin response. Insulin is the fat-storing hormone.
The timing of calories matters also. If you are looking to lose a lot of weight then you probably have some insulin resistance. This then would suggest that eating more frequently will always keep insulin at higher levels, slowing the metabolism and staying in fat-storing mode. Eating less frequently allows insulin levels to drop allowing the body to let fat-burning pathways kick in.
CICO ignores the effect of specific foods on gut bacteria, how much is used/stored versus eliminated, the effects on water retention, the effects on metabolism, and the specific biochemistry of how different foods are handled differently.
Dr Jason Fung has some excellent videos that explain this very well.2 -
Calories in vs calories out (CICO) is a gross simplification. Not all calories are equal, especially for people with insulin resistance (which is mostly any person with a lot of excess fat.) The Framingham Nurses Study showed that fewer calories over a long time did not produce predicted weight loss. Of course extreme calorie deficits are likely to cause temporary weight loss.
Some calories slow down a metabolism (sugar and starch) and some calories speed it up (caffeine). Some calories need to be processed in the liver exclusively (fructose) and some calories are immediately available to the cells (medium chain triglycerides). Different calories have different effects on hormones and the hormonal effects are greater than the effect of the quantity of calories. For instance, carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than do proteins. Fats cause very little insulin response. Insulin is the fat-storing hormone.
The timing of calories matters also. If you are looking to lose a lot of weight then you probably have some insulin resistance. This then would suggest that eating more frequently will always keep insulin at higher levels, slowing the metabolism and staying in fat-storing mode. Eating less frequently allows insulin levels to drop allowing the body to let fat-burning pathways kick in.
CICO ignores the effect of specific foods on gut bacteria, how much is used/stored versus eliminated, the effects on water retention, the effects on metabolism, and the specific biochemistry of how different foods are handled differently.
Dr Jason Fung has some excellent videos that explain this very well.
It's my understanding that caffeine is calorie-free.5 -
Calories in vs calories out (CICO) is a gross simplification. Not all calories are equal, especially for people with insulin resistance (which is mostly any person with a lot of excess fat.) The Framingham Nurses Study showed that fewer calories over a long time did not produce predicted weight loss. Of course extreme calorie deficits are likely to cause temporary weight loss.
Some calories slow down a metabolism (sugar and starch) and some calories speed it up (caffeine). Some calories need to be processed in the liver exclusively (fructose) and some calories are immediately available to the cells (medium chain triglycerides). Different calories have different effects on hormones and the hormonal effects are greater than the effect of the quantity of calories. For instance, carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than do proteins. Fats cause very little insulin response. Insulin is the fat-storing hormone.
The timing of calories matters also. If you are looking to lose a lot of weight then you probably have some insulin resistance. This then would suggest that eating more frequently will always keep insulin at higher levels, slowing the metabolism and staying in fat-storing mode. Eating less frequently allows insulin levels to drop allowing the body to let fat-burning pathways kick in.
CICO ignores the effect of specific foods on gut bacteria, how much is used/stored versus eliminated, the effects on water retention, the effects on metabolism, and the specific biochemistry of how different foods are handled differently.
Dr Jason Fung has some excellent videos that explain this very well.
Caffine is not a calorie or macro, it is a stimulant, and like all stimulants is has an effect on metabolism. None of what you are writing changes the fact that a person needs to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. It may, and I emphasize may confound things, but it doesn't change the need for a calorie deficit. Frankly, stating that most people who are overweight are insulin resistant needs some actual studies to be proved. From my experience most people (note not all but most) who have weight issues and struggle to lose weight here at Myfitnesspal and think they are some special snowflake that doesn't lose at a calorie deficit are under reporting calories in and over reporting calories out. Once their logging and activity tracking is brought in line, usually by getting much tighter in logging going from generic entries to specific ones and from estimation or use of volume measures for solids to using a kitchen scale and good volume measures.6 -
If you are looking to lose a lot of weight then you probably have some insulin resistance.
There are plenty of road cyclists with pot bellies, because they like to eat. Exercise improves insulin sensitivity; I don't buy for a second that people who will ride 50 miles in a 3 hour period are insulin resistant.1 -
Calories in vs calories out (CICO) is a gross simplification. Not all calories are equal, especially for people with insulin resistance (which is mostly any person with a lot of excess fat.) The Framingham Nurses Study showed that fewer calories over a long time did not produce predicted weight loss. Of course extreme calorie deficits are likely to cause temporary weight loss.
Some calories slow down a metabolism (sugar and starch) and some calories speed it up (caffeine). Some calories need to be processed in the liver exclusively (fructose) and some calories are immediately available to the cells (medium chain triglycerides). Different calories have different effects on hormones and the hormonal effects are greater than the effect of the quantity of calories. For instance, carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than do proteins. Fats cause very little insulin response. Insulin is the fat-storing hormone.
The timing of calories matters also. If you are looking to lose a lot of weight then you probably have some insulin resistance. This then would suggest that eating more frequently will always keep insulin at higher levels, slowing the metabolism and staying in fat-storing mode. Eating less frequently allows insulin levels to drop allowing the body to let fat-burning pathways kick in.
CICO ignores the effect of specific foods on gut bacteria, how much is used/stored versus eliminated, the effects on water retention, the effects on metabolism, and the specific biochemistry of how different foods are handled differently.
Dr Jason Fung has some excellent videos that explain this very well.
the amount of wrong in this post is stunning and alarming at the same time...
the only way that you would gain weight after an 'extreme' deficit would be if you starting eating in a surplus of calories.
timing of caloris does not matter unless one is prepping for a body buidling contest, trying to get super lean i.e. under 10% body fat for a male, or an athlete....for the other 99% of us, it makes no difference when you eat your calories.10 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »My experience, which seems to be unusual based on what others have posted, is that CICO is not absolute.
For years, I meticulously logged food and exercise, but struggled to lose at even close to the rate that I would expect. As I lost so slowly that many would have given up by then, I adjusted down CI periodically to match new lower weight. Though losing about 0.2 lb. / week didn't result in very much reduction.
After more than 2 years of discouragingly slow loss, I changed macros. At the time, I did not change CI. I did not change the meticulous methods used to track every kitten gram of food and every HR beat for exercise. Nothing except macros changed. Almost immediately, I started losing weight at an expected pace. This has now continued for almost 8 months now and I've lost as much during these past 8 months as I did during the 26 prior months.
While I know everybody swears that CICO is the exclusive method for weight loss, my experience says that isn't the case. It's great for those who have figured out how to make CICO work for them, but I need a specific macro split to be capable of losing weight.
Yes, medical conditions change things. That's a given.
I hear that often, but haven't heard any explanation of how that is supposed to be the case. I have an incredible amount of knowledge about my medical condition that people usually blame (without understanding it at all) because they really don't have any other explanation. But then for those of us who understand it, the prior macro split would have resulted in greater CO for someone with my condition than for those without. With that being the known difference, my results actually make less sense than for a healthy person.
In my experience, high fat:carb ratio dietary intake can make it more difficult to accurately measure CI because of some of the amplified errors associated with high fat diet (how much oil is left in the pan, how much oil is left on your plate, etc.). But if your numbers are accurate, it could be indicative of another disorder beyond the the medical condition you are already aware of.0 -
Calories in vs calories out (CICO) is a gross simplification. Not all calories are equal, especially for people with insulin resistance (which is mostly any person with a lot of excess fat.) The Framingham Nurses Study showed that fewer calories over a long time did not produce predicted weight loss. Of course extreme calorie deficits are likely to cause temporary weight loss.
Some calories slow down a metabolism (sugar and starch) and some calories speed it up (caffeine). Some calories need to be processed in the liver exclusively (fructose) and some calories are immediately available to the cells (medium chain triglycerides). Different calories have different effects on hormones and the hormonal effects are greater than the effect of the quantity of calories. For instance, carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than do proteins. Fats cause very little insulin response. Insulin is the fat-storing hormone.
The timing of calories matters also. If you are looking to lose a lot of weight then you probably have some insulin resistance. This then would suggest that eating more frequently will always keep insulin at higher levels, slowing the metabolism and staying in fat-storing mode. Eating less frequently allows insulin levels to drop allowing the body to let fat-burning pathways kick in.
CICO ignores the effect of specific foods on gut bacteria, how much is used/stored versus eliminated, the effects on water retention, the effects on metabolism, and the specific biochemistry of how different foods are handled differently.
Dr Jason Fung has some excellent videos that explain this very well.
Please stop the BS (Bro Science)!!!!7
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
- 96.4K 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