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.

Cals are NOT created equal. CICO isn't the whole story.

1356

Replies

  • scarlett_k
    scarlett_k Posts: 812 Member
    [Citation needed] :D
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited August 2017
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
    A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.

    Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.

    So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?

    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

    If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.

    The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.

    As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.

    Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.

    And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.

    Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.

    As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.

    All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.

    Are you saying that each human ever to exist has a completely individual chemical process to metabolize macronutrients?

    I think she's saying that we all metabolize carbs differently than we do fat and fat differently than we do protein, etc., that the body digests and uses the components of the meal differently depending on what it is.

    For example, someone who is insulin resistent (or no longer has the ability to produce insulin) will have trouble dealing with carbs once they are broken down into sugars if the glycogen stores are full, because insulin is used to shuttle them into cells and to store them (as fat, but that's not that significant). What this means is that severe T2D can actually cause weight loss if undiagnosed (but it's dangerous).

    I don't think this has anything to do with the claim that a calorie is a calorie, but of course macros matter to some extent (and foods are not the same). As I said before, no one is claiming otherwise. You need micronutrients, a certain level of protein (made up of all the essential amino acids) and your essential fatty acids, etc.

    But yes a physical condition can mean that there are difficulties metabolising some foods (just as someone with Crohns or IBS might have issues with fiber or someone with an allergy or celiac with have issues with certain foods, a problem with the liver, gallbladder, or kidneys may affect what good food choices are. I'd say this is a separate subject, as no one says "a calorie is a calorie" means we all would do equally well on identical diets.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
    A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.

    Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.

    So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?

    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

    If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.

    The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.

    As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.

    Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.

    And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.

    Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.

    As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.

    All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.

    Are you saying that each human ever to exist has a completely individual chemical process to metabolize macronutrients?

    I think she's saying that we all metabolize carbs differently than we do fat and fat differently than we do protein, etc., that the body digests and uses the components of the meal differently depending on what it is.

    For example, someone who is insulin resistent (or no longer has the ability to produce insulin) will have trouble dealing with carbs once they are broken down into sugars if the glycogen stores are full, because insulin is used to shuttle them into cells and to store them (as fat, but that's not that significant). What this means is that severe T2D can actually cause weight loss if undiagnosed (but it's dangerous).

    I don't think this has anything to do with the claim that a calorie is a calorie, but of course macros matter to some extent (and foods are not the same). As I said before, no one is claiming otherwise. You need micronutrients, a certain level of protein (made up of all the essential amino acids) and your essential fatty acids, etc.

    But yes a physical condition can mean that there are difficulties metabolising some foods (just as someone with Crohns or IBS might have issues with fiber or someone with an allergy or celiac with have issues with certain foods, a problem with the liver, gallbladder, or kidneys may affect what good food choices are. I'd say this is a separate subject, as no one says "a calorie is a calorie" means we all would do equally well on identical diets.

    Oh, that makes much more sense. Thank you.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Another great video on when weight management/fitness information is appropriate:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYlbzuLVr5M
  • AskMorphis
    AskMorphis Posts: 155 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Another great video on when weight management/fitness information is appropriate:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYlbzuLVr5M

    I've discovered this guy a few days ago. As far as I've seen so far, he's really great.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    lucerorojo wrote: »
    For most of my adult life I've been resistant to the CICO. However, 2 months ago I started on MFP, and have been logging everyday. (I have not been weighing my food). I was also told years ago by my previous doctor that it would be nearly impossible to lose weight after age 40, so I needed to lose it before. I'd gone on diets before and lost, by eating low carb, juice fasting, or something else (not CICO) but only once did I keep it off for an extended time--for six years--because I continued to eat the same way (basically low carb with most meals being vegetables and meat). When I steered from that the weight can back. But I digress. I've lost 13.5 lbs. since I started 2 months ago, and I was hoping to lose 2 lbs. a week, but I'm happy with this so far and CICO seems to be working and none of the "impossibilities" are affecting it. I'm eating pretty well, whole foods, but not deprived and have some carbs too. I've in better shape because I increased my exercise too. In October I will get a scale and start weighing my food--as I have 100 lbs. to lose, and to lose the 2 per week, I need to be more accurate. MFP helped me to see that what I was eating was much beyond the calorie intake that I should have.

    I think the diet/weight loss/exercise industry benefits from people NOT believing in CICO because if it actually works then they don't have as many customers! I feel like what I'm doing now on MFP is easy and doable. Tracking calories was NOT easy before the internet and apps like this. If I have to log for the rest of my life to lose the weight and then maintain, I'll do it, because it is a lot easier than guessing and trying different diets that really do not get to the bottom of the problem which is eating too much.

    Fantastic! Best of luck to you as you continue to progress toward your goals!!
  • AdamAthletic
    AdamAthletic Posts: 2,985 Member
    All calories are created 'equal'. Reasoning behind my seemingly confident reply-

    A calorie is a measurement, not a nutrient - to say that all calories aren't created equal is to say that all miles aren't created equal due to terrain.

    Certain foods will have a different effect on you and can have positive or adverse effects on your health but, if (without exercise) you need 1800 calories to maintain your 'weight' - you consume 1800 calories (without complicating matters with exercise) you will neither gain nor loose 'weight'.

    The science is all there if you choose to read credible studies and physiological science - however, should you choose to read an article from somebody whom is stating their opinions or personal experience. That can't be considered credible science.

    CICO is the whole equation when it comes to weight loss/maintenance/gain. Personal physiological needs however vary dramatically from person to person.
  • lucerorojo
    lucerorojo Posts: 790 Member
    Yes, I see your point "CICO is not calorie counting." However, the way it is presented in the media is that it is the same thing. And people don't like to count calories, so the CICO is thrown out with the bath water too.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,617 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
    A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.

    Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.

    So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?

    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

    If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.

    The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.

    As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.

    Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.

    And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.

    Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.

    As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.

    All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.

    "Completely"? LOL.

    Some of us have medical conditions, and those make a difference. (Each condition makes a different difference.) Who has said otherwise?
This discussion has been closed.