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Calorie in calorie out method is outdated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
-
skinnyjingbb wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinnyjingbb wrote: »CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by how we're measuring CICO incorrectly? How can a method to achieve a calorie deficit be outdated?
One example I can think about is type of food. 100 calorie of broccoli vs 100 calorie of sugar, both have same CI, but the type of food can affect CO which is much harder to calculate, that's why it is recommended to not only focus on total calorie intake but also the type of food you eat. What I mean out-dated is some weight loss program is still pushing for LFHC diet, I don't mean to say everyone should eat keto, but eating high processed food with loads of sugar to replace fat can negatively affect weight loss.
Know how we know you didn't read the whole thread?29 -
skinnyjingbb wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinnyjingbb wrote: »CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by how we're measuring CICO incorrectly? How can a method to achieve a calorie deficit be outdated?
One example I can think about is type of food. 100 calorie of broccoli vs 100 calorie of sugar, both have same CI, but the type of food can affect CO which is much harder to calculate, that's why it is recommended to not only focus on total calorie intake but also the type of food you eat. What I mean out-dated is some weight loss program is still pushing for LFHC diet, I don't mean to say everyone should eat keto, but eating high processed food with loads of sugar to replace fat can negatively affect weight loss.
Read the whole thread in it’s entirety please.18 -
Everyone gets extremely passionate and defensive on these forums when the question of calorie in calorie out is dissected and told its "wrong" when there are 1000's of amazing people here who have learned and lost weight using this exact method. Article or not, we have proven CICO works through physical evidence. Lost weight mind you, im not talking counting macros or nutrients, purely CICO for weight loss. Peer based mockery is not what 'most' people strive to do but there is no context in 'text' so things are often misconstrued or read as offensive, snarky and sometimes mean spirited. Brace yourself, was a comment directed at the onslaught of many varying passionate answers and feed back related to the OP. Discussions get heated and the repitious nature of the original post has been answered so many times. It does get tiresome. I love helping and trying to answer to MY ability and knowledge but unfortunately people dont take time to browse and jump right in.
*edited for spelling errors*12 -
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?
Because it does a disservice to the people reading along and looking for help to let worthless, silly woo go unchallenged.
The weight loss industry as a whole is full of hype, half-truths and outright lies. Their multi-billion dollar yearly profits are built upon people failing and coming back for more, and their only true goal is to wring as much money out of people as they can. IMO, it's nice to see at least one place where all that garbage gets challenged and debunked.
Triggered! Sigh *slaps forehead* Brace yourself OP...
This comment above doesn't suggets this.
But it reply to you, that is great. I just never understood the need to mock people who maybe slightly ignorant on a subject.
As i said, there is no context in text. I would never mock someone trying to learn. I answered above4 -
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:
Late to this thread but I just wanted to respond to the last point - because while it may not invalidate the concept, yes playing with numbers IS hard!! Especially when you don't have much to lose and hence have a much smaller projected loss and smaller deficit to work with. Its commonly said on here that you need to give any deficit time to work, at least a few weeks, and if you work out and are a woman in her childbearing years, you'll be prone to a lot of possible water retention which can mask weight loss or gain. So you're looking at something like 6-8 weeks just to see whether the intake is working for you. If at the end you find you your estimated TDEE was too large and you haven't lost, or even gained over that time, you then need to start all over again with a smaller deficit.
Quite frustrating and a pain in the butt, not to mention very demotivating.17 -
nettiklive wrote: »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:
Late to this thread but I just wanted to respond to the last point - because while it may not invalidate the concept, yes playing with numbers IS hard!! Especially when you don't have much to lose and hence have a much smaller projected loss and smaller deficit to work with. Its commonly said on here that you need to give any deficit time to work, at least a few weeks, and if you work out and are a woman in her childbearing years, you'll be prone to a lot of possible water retention which can mask weight loss or gain. So you're looking at something like 6-8 weeks just to see whether the intake is working for you. If at the end you find you your estimated TDEE was too large and you haven't lost, or even gained over that time, you then need to start all over again with a smaller deficit.
Quite frustrating and a pain in the butt, not to mention very demotivating.
Yep. I had 20 lbs to lose. It took me almost 2 years. A lot of that time upfront was first learning how to log correctly, then nailing down my numbers. But now that I took that time, I'm golden.
And when I was going through the learning and playing with the numbers, I never had to "start over". It was all one long learning experience. I'm still learning. I really think a big part of it is mindset, I never looked at this as something I was doing to lose weight and then it will be over. I wanted to figure out how to eat so that I'd never need to lose those 20 lbs again. I know not everyone can look at it that way or wants to look at it that way, maybe that's the difference?18 -
skinnyjingbb wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinnyjingbb wrote: »CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by how we're measuring CICO incorrectly? How can a method to achieve a calorie deficit be outdated?
One example I can think about is type of food. 100 calorie of broccoli vs 100 calorie of sugar, both have same CI, but the type of food can affect CO which is much harder to calculate, that's why it is recommended to not only focus on total calorie intake but also the type of food you eat. What I mean out-dated is some weight loss program is still pushing for LFHC diet, I don't mean to say everyone should eat keto, but eating high processed food with loads of sugar to replace fat can negatively affect weight loss.
I'm confused -- are you saying that a LFHC diet is the same thing as a a diet that is high in processed foods with loads of sugar? Because there are many options for LFHC beyond processed foods and foods with "loads" of sugar.
This is like saying that keto requires you to eat bacon and processed meats all day. Sure, some people on ketogenic diets *choose* these foods, but you can be keto without ever having bacon or processed meat if you choose to do so.
14 -
I just don't understand this "replace fat with sugar" argument. There may or may not be a couple of grams increase in processed foods for lower fat varieties of things that already have sugar (and even then it's not always), but just because I personally eat low-ish fat I don't feel compelled to fry my eggs in syrup. I just opt for a small teaspoon of oil in order to be able to eat more vegetables (which includes broccoli, more than 100 calories of it sometimes) because they're great for volume and more starches because they're great for satiety. Broccoli is not LCHF exclusive and is in fact low fat and relatively high in carbs for some diets.8
-
-
Fake news5
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »I just don't understand this "replace fat with sugar" argument. There may or may not be a couple of grams increase in processed foods for lower fat varieties of things that already have sugar (and even then it's not always), but just because I personally eat low-ish fat I don't feel compelled to fry my eggs in syrup. I just opt for a small teaspoon of oil in order to be able to eat more vegetables (which includes broccoli, more than 100 calories of it sometimes) because they're great for volume and more starches because they're great for satiety. Broccoli is not LCHF exclusive and is in fact low fat and relatively high in carbs for some diets.
I think people believe that lower fat foods have had sugar added because they've read it on advocacy sites.
I've actually had argu-, um, disagreements here with people who insisted that skim milk and nonfat yogurt always have added sugar.
In one case, the other person posted a label from a highly-sugared sweet yogurt as "proof" (from captions & such, it was evident it came from an advocacy site). I posted my nonfat yogurt, which has . . . milk, and good bugs, that's it.
In another case, the other person said that skim milk had to have added sugar because there were more sugar grams per cup than in whole milk. I had to go through a whole example about how that came about because the fat had been removed, so the remaining liquid had to have more of all the "other stuff" unless it was diluted with water.
A lot of bad stuff comes from believing what one reads, in cases where it's plenty easy to check it out oneself, or . . . think.
8 -
skinnyjingbb wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »skinnyjingbb wrote: »CICO is the truth. What is out-dated or inaccurate is the way we measure CICO and the method we can achieve a calorie deficit. There are lots of new study regarding what kind of diet is best for weight lost, it maybe true they are helpful in achieving the calorie deficit, and some people can lose weight without tracking, but they don't mean CICO is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by how we're measuring CICO incorrectly? How can a method to achieve a calorie deficit be outdated?
One example I can think about is type of food. 100 calorie of broccoli vs 100 calorie of sugar, both have same CI, but the type of food can affect CO which is much harder to calculate, that's why it is recommended to not only focus on total calorie intake but also the type of food you eat. What I mean out-dated is some weight loss program is still pushing for LFHC diet, I don't mean to say everyone should eat keto, but eating high processed food with loads of sugar to replace fat can negatively affect weight loss.
I eat lowish to moderate fat...basically enough for proper nutrition. I don't eat much in the way of added sugars. Just because one is higher carb doesn't mean they're just eating a bunch of processed food and sugar. There are numerous sources of high quality, nutritious carbohydrates.
Also, I rarely actually see low fat food items adding tons of sugar...I pretty much think that's a myth. Low fat dairy for instances doesn't have more added sugar...it has higher levels of naturally occurring lactose...by a whopping couple of grams. Many other foods that I see people complain about as being low or no fat with added sugar are actually looking at foods marketed as low fat...but they were never high fat to begin with...think various cereals...there's no sugar replacing the fat...there was no fat to begin with.10 -
I think it is very important to separate the idea of a concept from application of that concept in a real world situation.
CICO is a concept. It states, quite simply, that food contains energy measured in the form of calories and that your body requires energy to operate and function. If you eat more food then you take in more calories and if you are more active or larger then you utilize more calories to function. That if the calories you take in balance with the calories you expend you will maintain your weight. If the calories you take in are more than the calories you expend then you will gain weight. If the calories you take in are less that the calories you expend then you will lose weight. That is it, that is all that CICO is. It says nothing at all about how accurate we are in measuring either CI or CO.
Now comes this application to trying to lose weight and what strategies one employs and if foods are rapidly metabolized or slowly metabolized or how efficient your digestive system is relative to someone elses and whether with your specific microbiome you get 80% of the calories out of carbs but only simple carbs, complex carbs your body only gets 60% of the calories even though Joe over there with his microbiome gets 70% from complex carbs. Or that packaging might not be entirely accurate or that not everything that has caloric value can be digested and that digestion can vary and that it can be almost impossible to accurately measure expended calories and that one person running on a treadmill for an hour can burn 700 calories where the next person with a similiar body type burns 500 and blah blah blah.
Does any of that complexity somehow negate the concept that the balance of calories in to calories out is what underpins weightloss and weightgain? That we should therefore assume that the very concept of conservation of energy that CICO represents if somehow flawed? No...no it doesn't.
If I say that the force of gravity attracts things towards the center of mass and then someone says they don't believe that because airplanes have mass and yet they can move away from the surface of the earth then they are just kind of missing the point. If you think CICO is "outdated" because certain foods are more rapidly metabolized than others then frankly I think you are just sort of missing the point as well.23 -
Have you ever noticed those who argue CICO doesn’t work are usually overweight and refuse to actually use a food scale?12
-
It is simple math....burn more than you consume. It is not as bloody complex as people want to make it. I mean should you eat a bunch of trash *kitten* food so long as it is within your calories? No....you shouldn't but you can and still lose weight however how it will make you feel will change your choices quite fast.4
-
-
Can't keep up with all these CICO hate threads.....5
-
TEF is a given when it comes to CICO. Consequently it takes more energy to walk an hour than to sit on a couch an hour. That is something that matters more.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.
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
0 -
I lost 15 lbs in 4 weeks living on Taco Bell and Culver’s ice cream. I didn’t intend to lose that fast but was cycling 80 miles or so a week and not eating enough. My point however is I was eating almost 100% junk and lost a ton of weight quickly just because I was burning more than I was taking in. I’ve been at goal weight since then, my diet is more balanced now but instilll eat more junk than I should and don’t follow any particular diet and I’ve managed to maintain for almost 2 years just by making sure caloric intake and energy expenditure match.
As a physician I can’t hardly recommend a diet of fast food and ice cream because there is more to consider than just weight but as far as gaining and losing weight if you burn more than you take in you will lose and vice versa. It’s simple physics. Remember energy is neither created or destroyed.
Physics 101. First Law of conservation of energy.
Now can different diets impact your overall health and energy levels? Can they impact your food cravings and satiety? Can they impact your rate of metabolism and how energy from food is stored. Of course!! So different diets may work better than others, and different diets may work better for some people than others. But the bottom line stays the same. No matter what your eating. If you take in more calories/energy than your body burns your body has to do something with the extra energy so it stores it. ie youbgain weight. And vice versa. You burn more than you eat your body will have to take the extra energy from your fat stores and you lose weight.
From my own personal experience and my experience with patients the more straight forward and simple the approach the better. Crash diets tend to lead to increased weight gain in the long run, mostly because they are hard to stick to. It’s best to find a diet approach that you can stick to, small permanent changes!!18
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions