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Calorie in calorie out method is outdated
Options
Replies
-
I would say weight gain is sometimes, not always, the byproduct of the cause. If one is gaining weight on medication, or so health issue, or some emotional/psychological issue, then that is the cause of eating too many calories. If they did not have that issue then CI would be lower or CO would be higher.
Although I am sure that there are people out there that choose to eat too much.
Weight gain does come down to eating to much, but there may be a reason behind that why that can be addressed or treated with food choices and quality... For some. Not all.
JMO
This statement seems to me to be confusing the result with the formula - there is a vast difference between the physical mechanism involved in the biological functioning of the energy processes of the body and the mental reasoning behind the actions of the person in question as to why they get the result they do from the formula. The reason WHY someone is eating more calories than their bodies burn is a completely separate concept from the fact that they are intaking too many calories. Weight gain is always because of taking in too many calories - the only place where I might concede is when its actually just water weight gain such as can be caused by some medications. But in those cases, its not really a true fat gain but a mask caused by the water retention and the formula's factors themselves have not changed.
A person may be depressed and gaining weight - usually because either their activity levels have dropped due to their condition, or because the medication they are taking has increased their appetite. Or they are having thyroid issues. Or they have fibermyalgia or severe arthritis or joint problems and they can't move like they did. Or whatever. None of this changes the function of the basic equation; in each of those cases, the balance was still CICO; every single case was a change in one side of the formula or the other. If a person gains weight due to a medical condition, it isn't because CICO isn't at play any more; its because their CI didn't change while their CO decreased, or their CI increased when CO didn't change or decreased and so they are now taking in more calories than their bodies need. And just because they could eat x amount of calories when they were 25 years old or before they developed xyz condition, doesn't mean they can still eat the same amount of calories when they are 35 years old or after they have xyz condition. the body is a very adaptive, dynamic machine!
I get the impression from part of the statement above, that somehow the idea that admitting that weight gain comes from eating too much has to be a conscious choice of the person in question, which I don't think is true at all - its doesn't have to boil down to a blame game but in order to gain control it does require honest evaluation of ones habits, motives, and triggers and may require therapy or additional help in order to overcome them and to win the battle.
14 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »When I went looking I was surprised to find that Whey Protein gets metabolised fast. Like really fast. Like faster than sugar. Does that make Whey Protein bad or just different?
I think I mentioned that upthread. That's supposed to be a benefit of whey vs. other forms of protein, based on the (outdated) idea that it's important to feed your muscles protein really soon after a workout because the window where it allows for max muscle growth is closing fast. (Again, this is not actually true, it's bro science, but was believed to be a big deal and still is by some.)
Good read about all that (and more) here by Jorn Trommelen: http://www.nutritiontactics.com/measure-muscle-protein-synthesis/#78_Protein_distribution
All interesting info, but particular relevance to this discussion in sections 7.2, 7.5, 7.7, 7.8, 7.10, and 8 (Summary).4 -
So after reading all of these CICO threads, I've wrapped my head around this:
- The reason for weight loss is a calorie deficit.
- The reason you are not in or find it difficult to get into a calorie deficit are personal and varied.
- A lot of people think that the truth of point #2 invalidates point #1.
- It doesn't. It just makes it more work for some people than for others.
- It seems many people also think that because their TDEE isn't what the TDEE calculator told them it would be, this means the whole idea is suspect and should be thrown out. I guess because playing with numbers is hard???
That's all I've got :drinker:
38 -
So after reading all of these CICO threads, I've wrapped my head around this:
- The reason for weight loss is a calorie deficit.
- The reason you are not in or find it difficult to get into a calorie deficit are personal and varied.
- A lot of people think that the truth of point #2 invalidates point #1.
- It doesn't. It just makes it more work for some people than for others.
- It seems many people also think that because their TDEE isn't what the TDEE calculator told them it would be, this means the whole idea is suspect and should be thrown out. I guess because playing with numbers is hard???
That's all I've got :drinker:
Just to add one more:
6. Some people are resistant to the concept of CICO because it imposes personal responsibility upon them. It's much easier to revel in victimhood and blame metabolism, hormones, carbs, societal factors and/or <insert other complex cause beyond their control>, than to admit to themselves that they're fat because they're eating too much.
It isn't really "failure" if you're simply an innocent victim, amirite?26 -
When I went looking I was surprised to find that Whey Protein gets metabolised fast. Like really fast. Like faster than sugar. Does that make Whey Protein bad or just different?
@jgnatca
That sounds unlikely. Could you share please?
Would have thought glucose was the fastest to be metabolised as the amino acids from protein have to reach the intestines to be taken up (I believe).
I've had to help a couple of diabetics (and a diabetic cat!) having a hypo and it's incredibly fast from ingesting some sugar to "back in the room".4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think the point of the article is that just relying how many calories you eat to make weight loss easier can be a mistake for your weight and health depending on your circumstances.
"BOTTOM LINE:
Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause."
I would say that this is exactly wrong (the claim, not your post).
That weight gain is caused by excess calories is important to understand, that IS the cause.
The next question is how come you were eating excess calories and how to stop, and OF COURSE everyone should do that too, it's necessary to do it to create a calorie deficit. For some it might mean planning meals and logging, for others it might mean cutting out trigger foods or changing the macros or just not snacking (or even just cutting out sugary pop). For others it is looking honestly at your diet and seeing where the excess calories were from.
But the basic understanding behind all these is that you were eating too much, and IMO any rational human should be able to take the step from that to figuring out how to stop. (It may involve some emotional or coping issues that therapy helps with or experiment and error or ways to keep mindful, of course, NOT saying it's always easy, but the understanding of why the excess calories isn't hard if you look at the diet.)
IMO pretending there's more to it is just a scam to tell you you need help from someone else, usually.
And I also think that's why there's this desire to pretend like CICO is not just energy balance, but a special diet that is just one of a million. Don't realize you can and should figure it out yourself, rely on special diet I'm selling or me, the diet guru or even think you need some nutritionist to tell you how to eat, as if it weren't really a pretty simple basic human skill.
I would say weight gain is sometimes, not always, the byproduct of the cause. If one is gaining weight on medication, or so health issue, or some emotional/psychological issue, then that is the cause of eating too many calories. If they did not have that issue then CI would be lower or CO would be higher.
Although I am sure that there are people out there that choose to eat too much.
Weight gain does come down to eating to much, but there may be a reason behind that why that can be addressed or treated with food choices and quality... For some. Not all.
JMO
I didn't have any deep down reasons for gaining weight. I gained 40 Lbs over the course of about 8 years which would indicate that on average I had a very tiny surplus and wasn't drastically overeating with some kind of psychological or emotional issue. I was eating like a "normal" person, but I had taken a job as an auditor with an accounting firm so I was a bit less active.9 -
When I went looking I was surprised to find that Whey Protein gets metabolised fast. Like really fast. Like faster than sugar. Does that make Whey Protein bad or just different?
@jgnatca
That sounds unlikely. Could you share please?
Would have thought glucose was the fastest to be metabolised as the amino acids from protein have to reach the intestines to be taken up (I believe).
I've had to help a couple of diabetics (and a diabetic cat!) having a hypo and it's incredibly fast from ingesting some sugar to "back in the room".
I'm not familiar with whatever research @jgnatca is talking about, but as a diabetic I do know whey protein is unusual - not everyone knows this, but both protein and carbs require insulin to be digested, and protein provokes an insulin response in the body, just as carbs do. It's just that protein generally requires much less insulin than what the body makes in response to it, so type 2 diabetics never become aware of it because it doesn't cause a rise in blood sugar. Whey protein in particular causes a large insulin response, which means that eating it can actually cause a drop in blood sugar. I love eating it for this reason - it's like a magic food which allows me to eat more carbs with it.2 -
For sure take sugar to bounce back from a diabetic low. I agree it’s like magic.
0 -
Pro tip: don’t google “flat earth”. It may make you afraid to walk out the door.8
-
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?
Well yeah, certain foods metabolize faster than others....I don't understand how that negates the concept of calories in/calories out. The "speed" at which something metabolizes will have an affect on blood sugar and therefore satiety and likely that will have an affect on how many calories you end up needing to consume in order to feel full, but that doesn't somehow negate the concept of energy or conservation of mass.
CICO doesn't state anything about how satisfied or full you will feel. If you think what CICO means is that 100 calories of broccoli is exactly the same in terms of your ability to lose weight on a diet to 100 calories of pasta then you are just misunderstanding what people mean when they say that weight loss is a measure of calories expended compared to calorie intake.
Saying that CICO is wrong because certain foods metabolize faster is like saying that the idea that a pound of gold weighs the same as a pound of feathers is clearly flawed because gold is more valuable. It is taking two completely separate concepts and trying to equate them for some reason.14 -
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?
Meh, calorie tracking worked for me (down 103lbs since my pic.) More important than anything, IMO, is to take simple sugars out of your diet, and that also helps keep calories down. And yes, simple sugars metabolize super fast, even to the point of storing directly as fat (hence soda and fruit juice will make you fat, even though it's all liquid.) Counting calories also helps you reduce portions and/or stick to low calorie density stuff, and it is proven to work provided you don't have too big of a calorie deficit. But sugar has a very strong flavor that people tend to crave, so they often just want to eat more sugar, regardless of whether they are hungry, and therefore find it hard to resist larger portions, and the more simple sugars there is in a given food, the faster it will metabolize.
And because I hear this a lot from people who insist "natural" sugar is just fine to eat: No matter what anybody says, natural is NOT better, a fact well supported by science, so the sugar in fruit counts, as do other "natural" sugars. Simple sugars are simple sugars. Even if you believe "natural is better", there's very high odds that you have never eaten the REAL natural food, especially natural fruit. Most fruit doesn't want to be eaten, so they evolved to be dark colored to avoid attracting animals, and bitter and toxic to pests. Usually mildly toxic, but sometimes very toxic, i.e. producing their own hydrogen cyanide, which will kill insects, animals, and humans alike. Fruit also evolved for just enough sugar to nourish seeds. More sugar needs more energy, so more than needed is harder to survive. Fruit you're used to is bred to be obese: Very sugary, very big, and the bitter stuff (mostly) bred out, though some (including carcinogens) remain. Ditto for vegetables. Example: Sweet corn was bred from wheat, wheat was bred from a type of grass similar to the foxtails that grow in your back yard and stick to your dog.32 -
snowflake954 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
^I don't know who woo'd this, but I'd like to know if I have something wrong.
Diane--there's a woo thread running right now, and it's incredible how many people think it means they're "cheering you on". I'd take it in that spirit--you know your stuff.
So Woo does = Awesome in some cases and not in others!25 -
I think the point of the article is that just relying how many calories you eat to make weight loss easier can be a mistake for your weight and health depending on your circumstances.BOTTOM LINE:
Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause.
There is no one diet for all. Someone saying that they "lost weight while eating healthy/low carb/vegan/whatever so anyone can" is not always true. Denying that others can lose weight easier and faster if they take into account the foods they are eating, or even why they are eating, because it didn't work that way for them is pretty egocentric and not very helpful to the others.
For some people, what foods you eat will affect their weight whether it is from hormones, health insulin and BG levels, greater protein or fibre, or simply because they are more satiated. It isn't huge number differences, but it's there.
JMO YMMV
On a different note, I am seeing a LOT of articles along the same lines lately and MFP forums often responds that CICO is just an energy balance. I don't disagree, but I am starting to think that definition is outdated and NOT what the vast majority of the public, outside of MFP, thinks of it as.
Sort of like when my kids started calling good things sick. That word's definition has really grown. Perhaps it's time to consider CICO as coming with a broader definition?
In my view, one of the problems with this strategy in this case is that it's really tough to explain what's actually going on (the influence of energy balance) without using any of the terms that have now been redefined to mean something different. Can it be done? Yes. But it's more confusing.
The terminology (or at least the concept) being central to any sensible discussion is part of what makes "CICO" redefinition more challenging than redefinition of "sick" or "literally".
That's without even getting into considering whether "new CICO" has any kind of clearer definition than does (say) "clean eating".
That's exactly how I feel. I'm all for language changing, more so than many, and there are words and expressions that I wouldn't use in my own interactions but don't mind one bit when others use them. I just find this particular case challenging: sure, I don't mind CICO morphing into "counting calories" or whatever else it wants to morph into, but how can I express regarding energy balance as a separate entity from the way it is achieved without writing a wall of text?
What's sad is that we feel the need to state and explain the fact of energy balance when it should be intrinsically understood so that we could focus on the actual strategies involved in managing calories. If this "calories don't matter" kind of trend didn't exist things would have been entirely different, at least in my own discussions and posts.5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
^I don't know who woo'd this, but I'd like to know if I have something wrong.
Diane--there's a woo thread running right now, and it's incredible how many people think it means they're "cheering you on". I'd take it in that spirit--you know your stuff.
So Woo does = Awesome in some cases and not in others!
Not quite--she has one woo on a thoughtful post. If you have more than five....well, I'd start to question my mindset.11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
^I don't know who woo'd this, but I'd like to know if I have something wrong.
Diane--there's a woo thread running right now, and it's incredible how many people think it means they're "cheering you on". I'd take it in that spirit--you know your stuff.
So Woo does = Awesome in some cases and not in others!
I can't find the version with the correction at the bottom so I'll write it up off the top of my head:
"No, someone wrote that thing down on the ground and had an intention behind it. That is the correct thing, just because you see it differently doesn't make you correct."12 -
snowflake954 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
^I don't know who woo'd this, but I'd like to know if I have something wrong.
Diane--there's a woo thread running right now, and it's incredible how many people think it means they're "cheering you on". I'd take it in that spirit--you know your stuff.
So Woo does = Awesome in some cases and not in others!
Not quite--she has one woo on a thoughtful post. If you have more than five....well, I'd start to question my mindset.
But he keeps trying.....8 -
snowflake954 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
^I don't know who woo'd this, but I'd like to know if I have something wrong.
Diane--there's a woo thread running right now, and it's incredible how many people think it means they're "cheering you on". I'd take it in that spirit--you know your stuff.
This is VERY TRUE ... some people think woo as in whoo hoo!
I have been to weight loss picture forums where people have only pics of their 20 50 100 lb weigh loss and they will have like 20 woo's ... so I assume good intent otherwise why join a fitness app to boo people losing weight?
Then again, why join a calorie counting app if you don't think you need to track calories to maintain CICO; so there's that.
4 -
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.15 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Use the search feature and type in CICO. We've had a plethora of these lately, and the people who seem to be disputing CICO, either fundamentally don't understand the concept, or they are conflating multiple factors which contributes to their misunderstanding.
It's growing a bit tiresome, but many people are still trying to patiently help those with that misunderstanding gain clarity.
Why don't you just try and ignore the forum posts that are disputing the relevance of CICO?
26
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions