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.
Calorie in calorie out method is outdated
Replies
-
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.
The thing is, there are no absolute to the chemistry of this.
The hormones at play are leptin and ghrelin, which are the hunger and satiety hormones.
You don't need to worry about insulin unless you are prediabetic or diabetic.
Anyway, back to leptin and ghrelin. The thing with those? Well, what satiates one person and keeps them from feeling hungry is different from one person to the next. Most people find protein satiating. Most people need protein AND something. That AND is the big question mark... for some it's fat. For others it's fiber. For others it's starch. Finding the right combination of foods that keep you feeling satiated is an individual endeavor.
A lot of dieting gurus would have you believe there's a universal answer to this, but that's not true.18 -
This content has been removed.
-
While the author has a Bsc and I don't, he took a hell of a long time to get around to saying that fructose tastes sweet and protein has a TEF of 30%.
Since sweet makes the vast majority of us, who are undisciplined, want to eat more, the calories in fructose are therefore nefariously different from the calories in, say, sucrose.
For all the blather he dressed that in, I'd expect borders of rainbow unicorns.
9 -
6
-
It's physics.3
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »While the author has a Bsc and I don't, he took a hell of a long time to get around to saying that fructose tastes sweet and protein has a TEF of 30%.
Since sweet makes the vast majority of us, who are undisciplined, want to eat more, the calories in fructose are therefore nefariously different from the calories in, say, sucrose.
For all the blather he dressed that in, I'd expect borders of rainbow unicorns.
Hard to believe he thought he was making some major discovery/revelation by discussing TEF. That's a pretty well-known thing. Also pretty much irrelevant unless you're eating protein in a fasted state and in isolation from any other macronutrients, which is hardly a usual eating pattern. IIRC, the generally accepted TEF of a mixed macro meal is around 10%. And it's majoring in the minors in a big way anyway. Classic example of the charlatans in the weight loss industry convincing people to stare at the trees and ignore the forest.10 -
TEF is a real thing. Does not change the fact that you need to consume less energy than you burn to lose weight.4
-
Just as we could discuss how lift and velocity allow airplanes to seemingly defy gravity - but if you jump out of a tree you're still going to hit the ground. The fact that planes can fly is irrelevant to the fact that the law of gravity exists.TEF is a real thing. Does not change the fact that you need to consume less energy than you burn to lose weight.25 -
Just as we could discuss how lift and velocity allow airplanes to seemingly defy gravity - but if you jump out of a tree you're still going to hit the ground. The fact that planes can fly is irrelevant to the fact that the law of gravity exists.TEF is a real thing. Does not change the fact that you need to consume less energy than you burn to lose weight.
Thumbs up4 -
-
9
-
-
Silentpadna wrote: »
Instead of the "laws" of gravity, energy balance, etc., they're going to start calling them the "suggestions". "Laws" just sounds so authoritative and triggering and stuff.
20 -
There are a huge number of factors which affect how food is processed and turned into energy, making it hard to precisely calculate CICO. That's part 1 of a two part statement. The second part is that in almost all cases, those factors have an effect so small compared to the simple act of counting calories and estimating exercise as to be easily ignored with no change to results.
You will lose weight if you eat protein instead of carbs or vice versa, if you limit your calories to a reasonable number for the amount of activity you do. You will lose weight if you eat late at night, skip breakfast, eat six small meals a day, eat only one meal a day, or dance widdershins around a fire during the solstice, if you eat more or less an appropriate amount of calories over an extended period of time. It works. 120 lbs off my belly says it works. I don't blame people for wanting a magic solution, because limiting yourself to just what you should be eating and working out is kind of a pain in the rear. But it is considerably less of a pain in the rear than doing stupid fad diets and not losing any weight.24 -
@AnvilHead I can honestly say I have not laughed this hard in a good while. Your responses tickled me to my core! I find it mildly entertaining any and every time someone tries to argue with me that there is something else at play outside of CICO. Who makes up this crap and more importantly how do they get people to believe it!9
-
15
-
fitd4liphe wrote: »@AnvilHead I can honestly say I have not laughed this hard in a good while. Your responses tickled me to my core! I find it mildly entertaining any and every time someone tries to argue with me that there is something else at play outside of CICO. Who makes up this crap and more importantly how do they get people to believe it!
Go read the Debate thread I linked in my first post. You'll alternately laugh and roll your eyes hard enough to give yourself a brain scan from the inside. It's the physiological equivalent of the Flat Earth Society.10 -
8
-
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
POOPY!
How was that?14 -
Could this concept be leaning towards a Ketogenic diet? From what I have learned about Keto is that it consists of low carbs, high fat and moderate protein. Obviously the quote is not precise but.....this may not restrict calories but may put you in ketosis which in return burns fat. I may be wrong but thats what it sounds like.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.
23 -
iwishiwasskinny2 wrote: »Could this concept be leaning towards a Ketogenic diet? From what I have learned about Keto is that it consists of low carbs, high fat and moderate protein. Obviously the quote is not precise but.....this may not restrict calories but may put you in ketosis which in return burns fat. I may be wrong but thats what it sounds like.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.
Yes, they're referring to keto, but it does not lead to automatic calorie reduction and therefore weight loss for everyone, not does it negate CICO. The increased fat burn on keto is the dietary fat being ingested, you'll only burn body fat if you're at a calorie deficit, and at the same rate as you would with any other way of eating at a deficit.11 -
iwishiwasskinny2 wrote: »Could this concept be leaning towards a Ketogenic diet? From what I have learned about Keto is that it consists of low carbs, high fat and moderate protein. Obviously the quote is not precise but.....this may not restrict calories but may put you in ketosis which in return burns fat. I may be wrong but thats what it sounds like.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.
Don't drink the keto kool-aid. A ketogenic diet doesn't make you lose weight/fat any faster or more efficiently than any other diet of equivalent calories. There's plenty of science showing that there is no 'metabolic advantage' to a keto diet. You lose weight/fat by eating less calories, not less carbs.
And if you think about it, it makes no sense to claim that "cutting carbs and increasing fat is proven to lead to automatic calorie restriction and weight loss." Carbs have 4 calories per gram, fat has 9 calories per gram. So if you cut 100g of carbs and add 100g of fat in its place, you've just increased your calorie intake by 500 calories (-400 cal in carbs, +900 cal in fats).19 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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?
He'll probably say it was water weight and you were in a calorie deficit all along
2 -
CICO is not a method, it's the process behind weight loss, gain and maintenance.
Are you disputing the effectiveness of calorie counting? It might not be 100% precise. But it's precise enough for the purpose of weightloss. It has to be done correctly in order to work. But then no methods work unless they are done right.12 -
Triggered! Sigh *slaps forehead* Brace yourself OP...9
-
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.
It sounds like you are conflating a few different things -- curious what specific question you were trying to understand. That some foods break down and get converted into energy faster than others (which is of course true) has nothing to do with CICO. If one ate only one or the other it might relate to satiety, but that's going to differ and most eat a mix. To be clear, we AREN'T talking about a difference between "healthy foods" and "unhealthy foods," even if one believes food can be properly characterized that way. A good example is a banana vs. some oats with full fat greek yogurt. Both are, IMO, healthy in that both provide nutrients. The banana is a classic example of something you might eat right before or after exercise, since it is not especially high fiber and gets broken down very quickly by your body (plain sugar gets broken down even quicker, which is why people use things like gels during races sometimes). The oats are usually something you'd have a few hours before running (or you could have similar higher fiber starchy carbs the night before), as they tend to be broken down slower, and adding protein and fat slows down the use of the energy still. This is why post exercise drinks often don't contain fat (as it slows down glycogen replacement) and some wouldn't recommend fat immediately pre race (although for the amateur it doesn't matter much).
Similarly, protein powder is created to be accessed quickly (that's supposed to be one of the benefits of whey) and wouldn't be considered unhealthy as a result. Roasted chicken would be accessed less quickly, but again that has nothing to do with healthy or not. Slow accessed foods are mixed in their nutrient properties too -- if your sources are assuming this makes something "healthy," that seems a weird definition.
For satiety it probably makes sense to have all three macros plus fiber in a meal, but most normal meals IME have that, so again, so? Something like candy wouldn't (and something mostly just fast carbs and fat, like most treats, for lots of people aren't satiating, but because they are high fat and some find fat satiating, some will find them so, and as you can see they have a lot of fat and yet that doesn't slow down access to the energy that much (I find it weird that people call things like cookies and donuts carbs when they are as much fat normally). Anyway, I don't think people eat treat foods expecting satiety, and if you eat other satiating foods (as you do) it doesn't matter, but again that's about satiety, and not contrary to CICO, of course.
Usually when people talk about differences between foods affecting CICO, they don't mean how fast the energy is accessed, but (as others have mentioned) the thermic effect of foods (TEF), but again that has zero to do with how healthy something is, and with any normal diet it won't make a difference. Basically, protein has the highest TEF (takes more calories to digest), fat has the lowest, and carbs are between the two with higher fiber carbs taking more energy to digest than lower fiber carbs. But again a diet that is mostly protein would have a higher TEF but not necessarily be more satisfying and certainly not healthier -- normally anyone eats a mix. IMO having a diet that includes a decent amount of fiber and protein is, of course, healthier, but NOT because of TEF or because it is somehow counter to CICO.
Does that all make sense?7 -
You've got to create a calorie deficit to lose weight. But... purely anecdotally... I seem to lose weight more quickly eating fresh, homemade foods than when I eat the exact same number of calories but it's processed.
To my mind, it's not that CICO doesn't work, it definitely does - but that it's part of a much broader picture that includes drinking more water, getting enough sleep, exercising and reducing your stress levels.
I *think* that's what a lot of people mean when they say looking at CICO alone is outdated.32 -
You've got to create a calorie deficit to lose weight. But... purely anecdotally... I seem to lose weight more quickly eating fresh, homemade foods than when I eat the exact same number of calories but it's processed.
To my mind, it's not that CICO doesn't work, it definitely does - but that it's part of a much broader picture that includes drinking more water, getting enough sleep, exercising and reducing your stress levels.
I *think* that's what a lot of people mean when they say looking at CICO alone is outdated.
Your "fresh homemade" foods are likely lower sodium, and potentially less carby than the "processed" foods you eat - this will lead to less fluid retention.17 -
Well . . . I heard that eating celery actually BURNS more calories because you have to either chew the strings or expend energy taking them off the stalk
) Seriously, this went around back in my younger days 8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions