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Calorie in calorie out method is outdated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
-
Have you ever noticed those who argue CICO doesn’t work are usually overweight and refuse to actually use a food scale?
To be fair, no. Some, sure. But I can think of several vociferous "CICO isn't the story" advocates (I won't name names) who post regularly in these threads who are reportedly at a healthy weight (with photo evidence), often having lost a material amount of weight via some specialized formula (often low carb/keto or whole foods/plant based sorts of things, or "find your macro").
For clarity, for other readers: I'm not saying that people who prefer those ways of eating routinely deny CICO. I'm saying that some people who don't think CICO is the key underlying principle have in fact lost weight successfully, using some method that they're somehow able to think of as "not CICO".8 -
mdbradley85 wrote: »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!!
Will you be my doctor?
8 -
mdbradley85 wrote: »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!!
Will you be my doctor?
i saw him/her first
5 -
Have you ever noticed those who argue CICO doesn’t work are usually overweight and refuse to actually use a food scale?
To be fair, no. Some, sure. But I can think of several vociferous "CICO isn't the story" advocates (I won't name names) who post regularly in these threads who are reportedly at a healthy weight (with photo evidence), often having lost a material amount of weight via some specialized formula (often low carb/keto or whole foods/plant based sorts of things, or "find your macro").
For clarity, for other readers: I'm not saying that people who prefer those ways of eating routinely deny CICO. I'm saying that some people who don't think CICO is the key underlying principle have in fact lost weight successfully, using some method that they're somehow able to think of as "not CICO".
On this topic I had a somewhat bizarre encounter with a co-worker a while back who fits this description. I ran into him (I'll call him 'Bob') in the mail room one day a couple of years ago. Bob looks to be at a pretty healthy weight, and after our conversation I'd peg him as a Taubes disciple, though at the time I'd never heard of Taubes and didn't know that sugar was 'poison' and carbs were from the Devil. Silly me.
By way of background, I joined MFP just about 4 years ago, and over about an 8 month period lost 50 pounds and got myself to my goal weight. I've successfully maintained since, but for some people who only see me periodically, it's still quite a shock when they see the 'new' me.
Bob: "Bill you look fantastic! You must have cut carbs out of your diet."
Me: "Er, no, I started tracking calories using this website called myfitnesspal. For me, knowledge is power and once I got a handle on how much I was consuming vs burning it was easy to lose the weight"
Bob: "But there's an easier way! Just eliminate carbs from your diet"
Me: "Um, well, I like carbs"
Bob: "Of course you do - you're addicted to them! But I can tell you your body doesn't like them very much"
Me (backing away and wondering how I get away from this loon): "Look this has worked for me, my last medical exam came back with great results and..."
Bob: "I'm telling you those carbs are your enemy..."
Me: "Gotta run Bob, I'm late for a meeting!"
20 -
so true @williamg63
when i originally lost my weight people thought i cut sugar or carbs. and now they think i should do it.
when all you need is thermodynamics in action.
friend asked me how i lost weight. i told her. and her response was, "that's too hard. I'll just do keto instead"
8 -
annaskiski wrote: »Can't keep up with all these CICO hate threads.....
You wouldnt have to if someone made CICO a diet and told ppl not to eat certain foods.
Maybe for every “keto!” “Anyone trying keto?!” “3 Days keto anyone else?” “New to Keto!” Thread in the recent discussions we should start one about CICO...14 -
WinoGelato wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Can't keep up with all these CICO hate threads.....
You wouldnt have to if someone made CICO a diet and told ppl not to eat certain foods.
Maybe for every “keto!” “Anyone trying keto?!” “3 Days keto anyone else?” “New to Keto!” Thread in the recent discussions we should start one about CICO...
Might as well.
Could get overwhelming if you did it for every vegan, vegetarian, paleo, IIFYM, clean eating, military, grapefruit, and IF thread though....4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Can't keep up with all these CICO hate threads.....
You wouldnt have to if someone made CICO a diet and told ppl not to eat certain foods.
Maybe for every “keto!” “Anyone trying keto?!” “3 Days keto anyone else?” “New to Keto!” Thread in the recent discussions we should start one about CICO...
Might as well.
Could get overwhelming if you did it for every vegan, vegetarian, paleo, IIFYM, clean eating, military, grapefruit, and IF thread though....
Not really.... there are currently three threads about keto on the recent discussions front page. There are zero right now asking about any of the other things you mentioned.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Can't keep up with all these CICO hate threads.....
You wouldnt have to if someone made CICO a diet and told ppl not to eat certain foods.
Maybe for every “keto!” “Anyone trying keto?!” “3 Days keto anyone else?” “New to Keto!” Thread in the recent discussions we should start one about CICO...
Might as well.
Could get overwhelming if you did it for every vegan, vegetarian, paleo, IIFYM, clean eating, military, grapefruit, and IF thread though....
Not really.... there are currently three threads about keto on the recent discussions front page. There are zero right now asking about any of the other things you mentioned.
I'll give her that sometimes IF threads come a distant second to the keto threads HOWEVER, since most of the IF zealots who come in and go nuts on them are also keto proponents, they also count as keto threads, so we're back to where we started.
Fung and all that.9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm going to jump in blind here being new to the debate and challege the hard-liners. Saying it's simply CICO is pretty narrow minded. There is nothing simple about bodies. A "calorie" is simply a unit of measure. I heard a doctor say that your body does not have calorie receptors and calories don't mean anything to your body. A calorie is a concept, not a fact. If you burn piece of word, it my read 10,000 calories on a meter. If you ate it, your body would not convert it to fat, it would simply pass through you. If you ate 10,000 calories of sugar, your body's insulin would spike and trigger all kinds of hormones to be released, some of which would signal your body to store some of that excess energy as fat. Then when your insulin level fell again, it would trigger your body to send hunger signals to your brain and your body would search for more calories and start the cycle of storing fat again. So I pose if your ate 10,000 calories of wood everyday, you would probably lose weight, as opposed to eating 10,000 of sugar every day, which would make you gain weight. So it is not just calories in and calories out. It's what you eat, when you eat it and your bodies reaction to what you eat.
This is the oddest false dichotomy ever presented on these forums.
I thought the example of diet coke vs avocado one time was a strange comparison, but I have to agree that this is the most unusual I've seen...9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm going to jump in blind here being new to the debate and challege the hard-liners. Saying it's simply CICO is pretty narrow minded. There is nothing simple about bodies. A "calorie" is simply a unit of measure. I heard a doctor say that your body does not have calorie receptors and calories don't mean anything to your body. A calorie is a concept, not a fact. If you burn piece of word, it my read 10,000 calories on a meter. If you ate it, your body would not convert it to fat, it would simply pass through you. If you ate 10,000 calories of sugar, your body's insulin would spike and trigger all kinds of hormones to be released, some of which would signal your body to store some of that excess energy as fat. Then when your insulin level fell again, it would trigger your body to send hunger signals to your brain and your body would search for more calories and start the cycle of storing fat again. So I pose if your ate 10,000 calories of wood everyday, you would probably lose weight, as opposed to eating 10,000 of sugar every day, which would make you gain weight. So it is not just calories in and calories out. It's what you eat, when you eat it and your bodies reaction to what you eat.
This is the oddest false dichotomy ever presented on these forums.
You say that now, but wait until the world gets a load of my new MIRACLE WOOD DIET. Eat whatever (wood) you want, the pounds just melt away!18 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm going to jump in blind here being new to the debate and challege the hard-liners. Saying it's simply CICO is pretty narrow minded. There is nothing simple about bodies. A "calorie" is simply a unit of measure. I heard a doctor say that your body does not have calorie receptors and calories don't mean anything to your body. A calorie is a concept, not a fact. If you burn piece of word, it my read 10,000 calories on a meter. If you ate it, your body would not convert it to fat, it would simply pass through you. If you ate 10,000 calories of sugar, your body's insulin would spike and trigger all kinds of hormones to be released, some of which would signal your body to store some of that excess energy as fat. Then when your insulin level fell again, it would trigger your body to send hunger signals to your brain and your body would search for more calories and start the cycle of storing fat again. So I pose if your ate 10,000 calories of wood everyday, you would probably lose weight, as opposed to eating 10,000 of sugar every day, which would make you gain weight. So it is not just calories in and calories out. It's what you eat, when you eat it and your bodies reaction to what you eat.
This is the oddest false dichotomy ever presented on these forums.
I thought the example of diet coke vs avocado one time was a strange comparison, but I have to agree that this is the most unusual I've seen...
Serve up some shredded bark mulch at your next book club. It's what all the cool kids are doing.10 -
"Oh, it's just calories in versus calories out" is so flippant. The brain controls the flow in and out of those calories. Emotions, hormones, environmental conditions, all sorts of things play into how and what we eat. So saying the model of simply looking at calories in versus calories out is outdated. It doesn't work. You have to consider how you eat, when you eat and what you eat. I'm sure everyone on this site knows how much more complicated it is. If you don't deal with the brain and all it's glory, you will not suceed.
This is starting to sound eerily similar to how narcissists justify their positions. Your feelz are just that....yours. If you cannot effectively manage your emotions, then no diet is going to help you. That is only a symptom of a much deeper root cause.10 -
I'm going to jump in blind here being new to the debate and challege the hard-liners. Saying it's simply CICO is pretty narrow minded. There is nothing simple about bodies. A "calorie" is simply a unit of measure. I heard a doctor say that your body does not have calorie receptors and calories don't mean anything to your body. A calorie is a concept, not a fact. If you burn piece of word, it my read 10,000 calories on a meter. If you ate it, your body would not convert it to fat, it would simply pass through you. If you ate 10,000 calories of sugar, your body's insulin would spike and trigger all kinds of hormones to be released, some of which would signal your body to store some of that excess energy as fat. Then when your insulin level fell again, it would trigger your body to send hunger signals to your brain and your body would search for more calories and start the cycle of storing fat again. So I pose if your ate 10,000 calories of wood everyday, you would probably lose weight, as opposed to eating 10,000 of sugar every day, which would make you gain weight. So it is not just calories in and calories out. It's what you eat, when you eat it and your bodies reaction to what you eat.
I do understand what you are saying but as far as your analogy goes I am pretty sure wood would count as fiber and would not be listed as having a caloric value on food packaging. You will note that on food ingredients list the digestible and non-digestible elements are listed separately and only the digestible elements are given caloric value in the total. I mean any package that has fiber will show you that. Just from a random google image search:
Fat 3.5 grams, carbs 23 grams, protein 7 grams. If you just did the 9 cal for 1 gram fat, 4 for 1 gram carb/protein you would predict (3.5*9)+(23*4)+(7*4) = 151 calories. Yet the packaging says 110 calories. that is because 13 grams of the carbohydrate count are fiber (wood in your analogy) and although they are listed they are not used for the calorie total.
I agree with you in principle but I feel like you are putting up a bit of a strawman here. I'm not sure the type of person you are refering to here actually exists. Do you know someone who would actually claim that eating 10,000 calories of wood is dietarily equivalent to eating 10,000 calories of sugar?
11 -
And, for all you people who keep saying "there are no scientific studies..." you should consider opening up your mind just a bit. You realize that science is a system of ideas and concepts that help us understand our world. It is not ment to create our world. It is not infallable. Some people say "studies prove..." like an over zealous Christian would say "The Bible says.." Which I interpret as the quoter being out of arguements and responding strictly emotionally instead of logically.
I don't really think the laws of thermodynamics are particularly controversial...it's pretty well proven."Oh, it's just calories in versus calories out" is so flippant. The brain controls the flow in and out of those calories. Emotions, hormones, environmental conditions, all sorts of things play into how and what we eat. So saying the model of simply looking at calories in versus calories out is outdated. It doesn't work. You have to consider how you eat, when you eat and what you eat. I'm sure everyone on this site knows how much more complicated it is. If you don't deal with the brain and all it's glory, you will not suceed.
I succeeded losing 40 Lbs and keeping it off for over 5 years now...ya know how? Eating an appropriate amount of calories. I eat around 2800 - 3000 calories per day and I maintain my weight...when I was losing weight I was eating around 2300 - 2500...science.
When you eat, etc doesn't matter...I eat breakfast, lunch, a couple of afternoon/evening snacks, and dinner around 8:30 - 9:00 PM every night. Lost weight pretty easily...have maintained weight pretty easily.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm going to jump in blind here being new to the debate and challege the hard-liners. Saying it's simply CICO is pretty narrow minded. There is nothing simple about bodies. A "calorie" is simply a unit of measure. I heard a doctor say that your body does not have calorie receptors and calories don't mean anything to your body. A calorie is a concept, not a fact. If you burn piece of word, it my read 10,000 calories on a meter. If you ate it, your body would not convert it to fat, it would simply pass through you. If you ate 10,000 calories of sugar, your body's insulin would spike and trigger all kinds of hormones to be released, some of which would signal your body to store some of that excess energy as fat. Then when your insulin level fell again, it would trigger your body to send hunger signals to your brain and your body would search for more calories and start the cycle of storing fat again. So I pose if your ate 10,000 calories of wood everyday, you would probably lose weight, as opposed to eating 10,000 of sugar every day, which would make you gain weight. So it is not just calories in and calories out. It's what you eat, when you eat it and your bodies reaction to what you eat.
This is the oddest false dichotomy ever presented on these forums.
I thought the example of diet coke vs avocado one time was a strange comparison, but I have to agree that this is the most unusual I've seen...
Serve up some shredded bark mulch at your next book club. It's what all the cool kids are doing.
It's better than snorting condoms or eating tide pods.
If anyone is looking for some mulch I have a pile in my backyard that I'm looking to get rid of. There's also a dead tree back there that needs to come down, if anyone is so inclined to come get it.7 -
To be fair to @BayouMoon I think I do understand what she is saying, the choice of analogy was just a bit extreme.
She is right that calories are just a unit of measurement of energy and that therefore wood has calories in those terms but clearly you would not want to eat wood. But really everyone knows that or at least should know that, and food packaging does not include fiber in calorie values so you should probably pick a different analogy. Can you give an example that someone would actually say because I'm pretty sure no one is advocating for eating wood.
When people say "a calorie is a calorie" with regards to diet I think it is fairly self-evident they mean digestible calories.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wait. Did I seriously just read an argument predicated on the assertion that scientifically backed reasoning is an appeal to emotion?
Alice just went down the rabbit hole. There is no discussion to be had with this kind of "reasoning".
To be fair, I think they're under the mistaken impression that those who are referencing studies are willing to accept any study and aren't using their own critical thinking skills and ability to evaluate the quality of individual studies. Which, you know, can happen when you don't bother to read a thread, you wind up being really mistaken about what is being discussed and how people are discussing it.
Oh, like the people who deny the CICO model
10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm going to jump in blind here being new to the debate and challege the hard-liners. Saying it's simply CICO is pretty narrow minded. There is nothing simple about bodies. A "calorie" is simply a unit of measure. I heard a doctor say that your body does not have calorie receptors and calories don't mean anything to your body. A calorie is a concept, not a fact. If you burn piece of word, it my read 10,000 calories on a meter. If you ate it, your body would not convert it to fat, it would simply pass through you. If you ate 10,000 calories of sugar, your body's insulin would spike and trigger all kinds of hormones to be released, some of which would signal your body to store some of that excess energy as fat. Then when your insulin level fell again, it would trigger your body to send hunger signals to your brain and your body would search for more calories and start the cycle of storing fat again. So I pose if your ate 10,000 calories of wood everyday, you would probably lose weight, as opposed to eating 10,000 of sugar every day, which would make you gain weight. So it is not just calories in and calories out. It's what you eat, when you eat it and your bodies reaction to what you eat.
This is the oddest false dichotomy ever presented on these forums.
You say that now, but wait until the world gets a load of my new MIRACLE WOOD DIET. Eat whatever (wood) you want, the pounds just melt away!
Apparently, this is a thing in Argentina: http://www.molecularrecipes.com/molecular-gastronomy/edible-wood-modern-delicacy-rustic-flair/
And some barks can make it onto a survivalist menu too: https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/survivalist/2011/11/survival-foods-can-you-really-eat-tree-bark7 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm going to jump in blind here being new to the debate and challege the hard-liners. Saying it's simply CICO is pretty narrow minded. There is nothing simple about bodies. A "calorie" is simply a unit of measure. I heard a doctor say that your body does not have calorie receptors and calories don't mean anything to your body. A calorie is a concept, not a fact. If you burn piece of word, it my read 10,000 calories on a meter. If you ate it, your body would not convert it to fat, it would simply pass through you. If you ate 10,000 calories of sugar, your body's insulin would spike and trigger all kinds of hormones to be released, some of which would signal your body to store some of that excess energy as fat. Then when your insulin level fell again, it would trigger your body to send hunger signals to your brain and your body would search for more calories and start the cycle of storing fat again. So I pose if your ate 10,000 calories of wood everyday, you would probably lose weight, as opposed to eating 10,000 of sugar every day, which would make you gain weight. So it is not just calories in and calories out. It's what you eat, when you eat it and your bodies reaction to what you eat.
This is the oddest false dichotomy ever presented on these forums.
You say that now, but wait until the world gets a load of my new MIRACLE WOOD DIET. Eat whatever (wood) you want, the pounds just melt away!
Apparently, this is a thing in Argentina: http://www.molecularrecipes.com/molecular-gastronomy/edible-wood-modern-delicacy-rustic-flair/
And some barks can make it onto a survivalist menu too: https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/survivalist/2011/11/survival-foods-can-you-really-eat-tree-bark
Wow, people really will try everything!8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 956 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions