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.
We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Calorie in calorie out method is outdated
sokkache
Posts: 220 Member
in Debate Club
I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?
76
Replies
-
-
Oh really. Show us the studies, better make them good.36
-
This content has been removed.
-
I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?
You may want to head on down to the Debate forum, as these topics have been debated to exhaustion, with plenty of science to show the validity of CICO. Bring your science with you (and an article from Authority Nutrition doesn't count as science, since the only things they're an "authority" on are woo and pseudoscience.) Here's a current thread for starters: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10654872/why-do-people-deny-cico/p1
Or maybe you could start with this one (notice that the OP has 100 "woo" reactions, which may be some kind of MFP record): https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10640612/cico-is-overrated-in-my-opinion/p1
Before you head over there, here's a research review with links to 148 scientific studies proving the validity of CICO:
https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/53 -
For the purposes of weight gain/loss, what difference does how fast the energy gets made available make?32
-
WAIT!!!! My popcorn isn't done yet!!55
-
When it comes down to it it probably isn't enough of a change to matter but I just think its interesting that different molecules do take different amounts of energy to break down and it makes complete sense.39
-
-
The people who want you to believe the calories in/calories out method is outdated usually want to sell you something.
The people who blindly agree with them? Never understand what CICO actually is and confuse it with a lot of other things that are separate from it.41 -
When it comes down to it it probably isn't enough of a change to matter but I just think its interesting that different molecules do take different amounts of energy to break down and it makes complete sense.
But...if it's not enough of a change to matter...why should anyone take it into account?20 -
Suspicious that there isn’t a single peer reviewed publication cited. This is an editorial at best, not science or evidence based and disregards without commentary the mountains of verified and repeatable results.
Yawn.18 -
Please tell me which foods I can eat to help me gain weight on less calories. I'm sick of eating so much over here
39 -
gophermatt wrote: »Suspicious that there isn’t a single peer reviewed publication cited. This is an editorial at best, not science or evidence based and disregards without commentary the mountains of verified and repeatable results.
Yawn.
That's Authority Nutrition for you.14 -
When it comes down to it it probably isn't enough of a change to matter but I just think its interesting that different molecules do take different amounts of energy to break down and it makes complete sense.
That is known as the thermic effect of food and is accounted for in the calories out part of the equation. You are right, it's not a large percentage of the calories burned and doesn't really account for very wide variances.
It doesn't make sense that it says that CICO is "outmoded" because it's already part of CICO.
24 -
-
I'm not completely disagreeing I was just debating with a friend who asked: does it take longer to convert 500 calories of "unhealthy food" vs. 500 calories of "healthy" food. To be fair I was on the CICO side until we did extensive Google searches. And btw, the article does cite multiple peer reviewed studies.57
-
I have developed a personal hatred of healthline since at least 25% of the current woo on the boards come out of there.
Skimmed the article. Calories define weight gain or loss. The article doesn't disagree. Other things can affect hunger cues, health, performance, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees. It doesn't negate the first part, debunk it, or make it wrong. It just means people need to be cognizant of all the different parts of the equation.
Water is wet. The ocean is deep. That one is true doesn't negate the other.44 -
I'm not completely disagreeing I was just debating with a friend who asked: does it take longer to convert 500 calories of "unhealthy food" vs. 500 calories of "healthy" food. To be fair I was on the CICO side until we did extensive Google searches. And btw, the article does cite multiple peer reviewed studies.
I can do Google searches which "prove" the Earth is flat, Elvis is still alive and Bigfoot exists. Unless you understand how to properly vet your sources, Google can be a garbage pit.
Labeling foods "healthy" and "unhealthy" opens a whole 'nother can of worms because it completely ignores context and dosage within the diet. Nonetheless, here's some actual science regarding your body's response to fast food vs. "healthy" meals: https://bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/43 -
gophermatt wrote: »Suspicious that there isn’t a single peer reviewed publication cited. This is an editorial at best, not science or evidence based and disregards without commentary the mountains of verified and repeatable results.
Yawn.
That's Authority Nutrition for you.
Did Authority Nutrition change their name? That explains so much.7 -
diannethegeek wrote: »gophermatt wrote: »Suspicious that there isn’t a single peer reviewed publication cited. This is an editorial at best, not science or evidence based and disregards without commentary the mountains of verified and repeatable results.
Yawn.
That's Authority Nutrition for you.
Did Authority Nutrition change their name? That explains so much.
No, the Healthline link is to an article from Authority Nutrition. Healthline just shared it - which diminishes my opinion of them as well.14 -
This content has been removed.
-
Thank you all for helping my curiosity. I posted this with a question. Any thoughts? And I guess apparently I didn't do my research so thanks I will read all the articles you have posted about this because I am just genuinely curious about the chemistry of it not the weight loss.24
-
diannethegeek wrote: »I have developed a personal hatred of healthline since at least 25% of the current woo on the boards come out of there.
Skimmed the article. Calories define weight gain or loss. The article doesn't disagree. Other things can affect hunger cues, health, performance, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees. It doesn't negate the first part, debunk it, or make it wrong. It just means people need to be cognizant of all the different parts of the equation.
Water is wet. The ocean is deep. That one is true doesn't negate the other.
^Pretty much what I was getting at with the nonsense of mixing up things that are not CICO with CICO.
I'm starting to wonder if something is lacking in public education these days since it seems so many people are unable to prioritize and categorize data points into a hierarchy or some kind of index.20 -
JerSchmare wrote: »This line from the article is absolute gold, “Cutting carbs while increasing fat and protein is proven to lead to automatic calorie restriction and weight loss.”
Think about what he’s saying there. Oh, the irony.
Stephan Guyenet had something to say about that, including a discussion of Hall's meta-analysis: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/meta-analysis-impact-of-carbohydrate-vs-fat-calories-on-energy-expenditure-and-body-fatness/12 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yeah. As someone who has tried every diet under the sun, let me tell you. What every, single one of them boils down to is manipulating your diet to cause a calorie deficit. The Keto diet? Doesn't work if there's no calorie deficit. Whole 30? Doesn't work if there's no calorie deficit. Paleo diet? Doesn't work if there's no calorie deficit. Weight Watchers? Flexitarian? Mediterranean? None of them work if there's no calorie deficit.32
-
JerSchmare wrote: »This line from the article is absolute gold, “Cutting carbs while increasing fat and protein is proven to lead to automatic calorie restriction and weight loss.”
Think about what he’s saying there. Oh, the irony.
Should I write and tell him about how I gained weight while I was low carbing?24 -
Thank you all for helping my curiosity. I posted this with a question. Any thoughts? And I guess apparently I didn't do my research so thanks I will read all the articles you have posted about this because I am just genuinely curious about the chemistry of it not the weight loss.
Start here: https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html/9 -
38 -
Thank you all for helping my curiosity. I posted this with a question. Any thoughts? And I guess apparently I didn't do my research so thanks I will read all the articles you have posted about this because I am just genuinely curious about the chemistry of it not the weight loss.
CICO doesn't, to my knowledge, do anything to describe how quickly a food is broken down or absorbed. It describes weight loss or gain. That's it. Not health, energy, absorption rates, vitamin deficiencies, sleep patterns, strength gains, or anything else. Those are all governed by different equations. The existence of many different equations about health doesn't negate any particular equation. It just means we have to pick and choose which ones we prioritize. If weight management is a goal then it's best if CICO is one of them alongside any others.17
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions