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Calorie in calorie out method is outdated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
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
if type 2 was about eating too much sugar then surely by now at almost 44 I would have diabetes by now. I dont. I used to consume a LOT of sugary drinks. some days a 12 pack a day. now add in the other junk I ate(and this was before I gained weight to be honest) and over the years I should have developed it. nope Im not even insulin resistant.
My daughter is obese due to a thyroid issue and she barely eats a lot of sugar. she doesnt even eat a lot of fruit. she also is not diabetic or insulin resistant. my aunt was obese all her life. she did not develop diabetes until she hit her early 70s. she had no issuse before then. shes is in her mid 70s. I have a sister who eats NOTHING but junk food. no diabetes for her either. so not its not about eating too much sugar. diabetes can also be hereditary or caused by a genetic defect. some end up with it due to being overweight,obese. some get it and are thin,6 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
9.5 lb of kale actually has a good amount of protein: 125 g. Also 64 g of fat, and 190 g of carbs. Not terrible macros. The whopping 176 g of fiber would be something of a problem, among other things (not least 9.5 lb of kale -- LOL!). Other issues include no B12, no D, no EPA/DHA, perhaps an inadequate amino acid profile (didn't check that), etc.
Monodiets are bad news, and you are right, of course, that the cookie diet is less of a monodiet.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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
I don't think the people who question the model, deny it, they are just open to the possibilty that there maybe more to it. But there may not be.
I'll try one more thing here. The part you missed from not reading the thread was that CICO refers to just the energy balance equation, not to calorie counting as a strategy for health and weight loss. There is certainly more to health and weightloss than just CICO and I have yet to meet a single person who thinks otherwise. What is so frustrating is when someone just comes in and acts like everyone who says that CICO (the energy balance equation) is accurate and a good basis for weight loss strategies believes that that is the only thing that matters at all ever or that there isn't more nuance to it. No, that isn't what anyone is saying and if you actually bothered to read what people are saying in here you would see that.
Who is this person that says a calorie is a calorie is all that matters for health and weight loss strategies. Can you point to them?11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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
I don't think the people who question the model, deny it, they are just open to the possibilty that there maybe more to it. But there may not be.
I'll try one more thing here. The part you missed from not reading the thread was that CICO refers to just the energy balance equation, not to calorie counting as a strategy for health and weight loss. There is certainly more to health and weightloss than just CICO and I have yet to meet a single person who thinks otherwise. What is so frustrating is when someone just comes in and acts like everyone who says that CICO (the energy balance equation) is accurate and a good basis for weight loss strategies believes that that is the only thing that matters at all ever or that there isn't more nuance to it. No, that isn't what anyone is saying and if you actually bothered to read what people are saying in here you would see that.
Who is this person that says a calorie is a calorie is all that matters for health and weight loss strategies. Can you point to them?
And there were in fact posters in this thread (or one of the other CICO threads) who said they lost weight in a surplus and/or gained weight in a deficit.7 -
diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?9 -
diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
The leading cause of type II diabetes is obesity. One becomes obese when they're taking in more calories than they need over time from any food source. The second leading cause is genetics and heredity.
My dad was type II...he didn't have a sweet tooth in the least and didn't eat much in the way of sugar...he liked to eat though...a lot...mostly high fat, calorie dense foods. He overate, simple as that. He was obese and mostly sedentary.15 -
diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
Genetics and obesity are the main ones. A high-fat low fiber diet can contribute. As can lack of exercise.
Here are the main risk factors. Note that falling into one or more of these categories doesn't mean you'll get it. Not falling into any of them doesn't mean you're safe: https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/type-2-diabetes-risk-factors9 -
diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
genetic defects,hereditary,for some being overweight or obese can cause it. many things can cause it. even some meds can cause diabetes.7 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Nope.
https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/type-2-diabetes-causesLifestyle choices that affect the development of type 2 diabetes include:
Lack of exercise: Physical activity has many benefits—one of them being that it can help you avoid type 2 diabetes, if you’re susceptible.
Unhealthy meal planning choices: A meal plan filled with high-fat foods and lacking in fiber (which you can get from grains, vegetables, and fruits) increases the likelihood of type 2.
Overweight/Obesity: Lack of exercise and unhealthy meal planning choices can lead to obesity, or make it worse. Being overweight makes it more likely that you’ll become insulin resistant and can also lead to many other health conditions.
Can overeating sugar lead to obesity which can lead to type 2 diabetes? Absolutely. But so can overeating anything else. Because it's eating in a calorie surplus that leads to obesity. Period.
Also: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/sugar/
Your quote doesn't mention the number of calories, it says the types of foods. So what I get from your quote is that a 1000 calories of high-fat foods are worse than a 1000 calories of vegetables. Am I missing something?17 -
diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
Genetics, being overweight, and a sedentary lifestyle, mostly.8 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Nope.
https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/type-2-diabetes-causesLifestyle choices that affect the development of type 2 diabetes include:
Lack of exercise: Physical activity has many benefits—one of them being that it can help you avoid type 2 diabetes, if you’re susceptible.
Unhealthy meal planning choices: A meal plan filled with high-fat foods and lacking in fiber (which you can get from grains, vegetables, and fruits) increases the likelihood of type 2.
Overweight/Obesity: Lack of exercise and unhealthy meal planning choices can lead to obesity, or make it worse. Being overweight makes it more likely that you’ll become insulin resistant and can also lead to many other health conditions.
Can overeating sugar lead to obesity which can lead to type 2 diabetes? Absolutely. But so can overeating anything else. Because it's eating in a calorie surplus that leads to obesity. Period.
Also: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/sugar/
Your quote doesn't mention the number of calories, it says the types of foods. So what I get from your quote is that a 1000 calories of high-fat foods are worse than a 1000 calories of vegetables. Am I missing something?
Yeah, you're missing the point completely.14 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Nope.
https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/type-2-diabetes-causesLifestyle choices that affect the development of type 2 diabetes include:
Lack of exercise: Physical activity has many benefits—one of them being that it can help you avoid type 2 diabetes, if you’re susceptible.
Unhealthy meal planning choices: A meal plan filled with high-fat foods and lacking in fiber (which you can get from grains, vegetables, and fruits) increases the likelihood of type 2.
Overweight/Obesity: Lack of exercise and unhealthy meal planning choices can lead to obesity, or make it worse. Being overweight makes it more likely that you’ll become insulin resistant and can also lead to many other health conditions.
Can overeating sugar lead to obesity which can lead to type 2 diabetes? Absolutely. But so can overeating anything else. Because it's eating in a calorie surplus that leads to obesity. Period.
Also: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/sugar/
Your quote doesn't mention the number of calories, it says the types of foods. So what I get from your quote is that a 1000 calories of high-fat foods are worse than a 1000 calories of vegetables. Am I missing something?
the number of calories in which a person becomes overweight/obese is going to be different for everyone. I dont think 1000 calories of either foods are better or worse than the other.6 -
For T2D, a high-fat low-fiber diet can be a factor. But most of us don't just focus on one macro. People who are eating keto don't only eat avocados and oil. They also get (or should aim for) a decent amount of protein.
Calories are all that matter for weight-loss.
Macros and nutrition are important for health.
And for most people, balance and moderation are the key to a sustainable diet.
ETA: Also, keep in mind that virtually every food/way of eating seems to have some reason why it's beneficial AND often some reason why it wouldn't be. If you've got a genetic tendency to heart disease, you may choose to increase certain foods and decrease others based on how they impact heart health. Same with diabetes, high cholesterol, hbp etc.
I'm dealing with bladder cancer. I've been told to up my broccoli (and other cruciferous veggie) intake. If I were allergic/intolerant of crucifers, then despite the anti-cancer properties, it'd probably be worse for me if I did eat it.9 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Nope.
https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/type-2-diabetes-causesLifestyle choices that affect the development of type 2 diabetes include:
Lack of exercise: Physical activity has many benefits—one of them being that it can help you avoid type 2 diabetes, if you’re susceptible.
Unhealthy meal planning choices: A meal plan filled with high-fat foods and lacking in fiber (which you can get from grains, vegetables, and fruits) increases the likelihood of type 2.
Overweight/Obesity: Lack of exercise and unhealthy meal planning choices can lead to obesity, or make it worse. Being overweight makes it more likely that you’ll become insulin resistant and can also lead to many other health conditions.
Can overeating sugar lead to obesity which can lead to type 2 diabetes? Absolutely. But so can overeating anything else. Because it's eating in a calorie surplus that leads to obesity. Period.
Also: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/sugar/
Your quote doesn't mention the number of calories, it says the types of foods. So what I get from your quote is that a 1000 calories of high-fat foods are worse than a 1000 calories of vegetables. Am I missing something?
The number of calories is individual, largely based on height, weight, age, gender, and activity levels, and often influenced to a lesser extent by some medical conditions.6 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Nope.
https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/type-2-diabetes-causesLifestyle choices that affect the development of type 2 diabetes include:
Lack of exercise: Physical activity has many benefits—one of them being that it can help you avoid type 2 diabetes, if you’re susceptible.
Unhealthy meal planning choices: A meal plan filled with high-fat foods and lacking in fiber (which you can get from grains, vegetables, and fruits) increases the likelihood of type 2.
Overweight/Obesity: Lack of exercise and unhealthy meal planning choices can lead to obesity, or make it worse. Being overweight makes it more likely that you’ll become insulin resistant and can also lead to many other health conditions.
Can overeating sugar lead to obesity which can lead to type 2 diabetes? Absolutely. But so can overeating anything else. Because it's eating in a calorie surplus that leads to obesity. Period.
Also: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/sugar/
Your quote doesn't mention the number of calories, it says the types of foods. So what I get from your quote is that a 1000 calories of high-fat foods are worse than a 1000 calories of vegetables. Am I missing something?
The article mentions unhealthy meal planning because, as it goes on to say, "unhealthy meal planning choices can lead to obesity, or make it worse."
6 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Nope.
https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/type-2-diabetes-causesLifestyle choices that affect the development of type 2 diabetes include:
Lack of exercise: Physical activity has many benefits—one of them being that it can help you avoid type 2 diabetes, if you’re susceptible.
Unhealthy meal planning choices: A meal plan filled with high-fat foods and lacking in fiber (which you can get from grains, vegetables, and fruits) increases the likelihood of type 2.
Overweight/Obesity: Lack of exercise and unhealthy meal planning choices can lead to obesity, or make it worse. Being overweight makes it more likely that you’ll become insulin resistant and can also lead to many other health conditions.
Can overeating sugar lead to obesity which can lead to type 2 diabetes? Absolutely. But so can overeating anything else. Because it's eating in a calorie surplus that leads to obesity. Period.
Also: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/sugar/
Your quote doesn't mention the number of calories, it says the types of foods. So what I get from your quote is that a 1000 calories of high-fat foods are worse than a 1000 calories of vegetables. Am I missing something?
A lot.
Regardless of hormones, feelz, your brain, etc. your metabolic pathways are only able to process molecules that are recognized, so the most you will ever gain from an 100 kcal food is 100 kcals (far less from wood). If you do have some form of metabolic deficiency then you may get into a situation where you are only uptaking 80 kcals, but it is impossible to process more than 100 kcals.6 -
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.
Might as well go for it then.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
I am the special snowflake who developed insulin resistance while active, not overweight, without any strong family history of T2D, while eating a low fat diet.
I think diet has something to do with developing T2D too. I have never heard of a case of T2D developing in someone who followed a chronically low carb diet (and didn't switch to it to treat obesity or IR). Ever.
But that's off topic.
CICO refers to, according to many (sometimes vociferous) debaters, an energy balance. If you consume fewer calories than you use, you will lose weight. If you eat more calories than you use, you will gain weight. It has little to do with the fact that calories are not created equal, or that some people lose better eating or avoiding certain foods, or that the foods we eat may affect our CO (calorie output) or hormones, or even our CI (calories in or how much we eat).
It also does not mean calorie counting, or it did not used to, but I think that definition is gaining acceptance.11 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
18 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Are you saying that you believe someone will lose weight doing intermittent fasting *even if they consume more calories than their body is using*?
Or are you saying that someone doing intermittent fasting will be losing weight faster than the amount of calories consumed/used would lead one to believe?
It would help if you would specify exactly what you're claiming IF is doing that isn't accounted for in CICO.
Given your disdain for studies, I'm assuming that the claims you're making for IF are based on something other than studies and facts that can be tested via the scientific method. Are we talking personal observations? Intuition? What is the basis of your beliefs about IF?14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
9.5 lb of kale actually has a good amount of protein: 125 g. Also 64 g of fat, and 190 g of carbs. Not terrible macros. The whopping 176 g of fiber would be something of a problem, among other things (not least 9.5 lb of kale -- LOL!). Other issues include no B12, no D, no EPA/DHA, perhaps an inadequate amino acid profile (didn't check that), etc.
Monodiets are bad news, and you are right, of course, that the cookie diet is less of a monodiet.
That's what I get for not running the nutrition on green leafies, lol! Though I don't think I could consume that much kale without 'cheating' and adding stuff to it...
Just the thought of 9.5 lb of kale, wow.
and dont they say too much kale can cause issues with your thyroid and other things? or is that just woo?
Kale *can* be high in thalium and lead to heavy metal poisoning when people eat a LOT of it (like 9.5 pounds a day maybe?). Not all kale will have a lot of it, it depends on the soil that it is grown in.
Kale like all green leafies is also high in K. Which can promote clotting5 -
diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
I am the special snowflake who developed insulin resistance while active, not overweight, without any strong family history of T2D, while eating a low fat diet.
Obesity and genetics are the primary risk factors, not necessarily the only ones.
There are non smokers who get lung cancer. Your argument is akin to one of them claiming that smoking doesn't cause cancerI think diet has something to do with developing T2D too. I have never heard of a case of T2D developing in someone who followed a chronically low carb diet (and didn't switch to it to treat obesity or IR). Ever.
Argumentum ad ignorantum
13 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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
I don't think the people who question the model, deny it, they are just open to the possibilty that there maybe more to it. But there may not be.
The thing is that there are a lot of factors involved in weight management, but they are separate and distinct from each other.
By you saying there's more to it, you're acknowledging the fact that there are more factors to weight management, but confusing calorie management with the whole of it.
Weight management also involves elements of satiety and compliance, and of course nutrition. While all the elements are entwined and somewhat inter-related, they are still distinct and need individual consideration.
For example: I can comply perfectly well to a nutrient dense diet, not feel full, and not lose weight.
How? But not eating foods that satiate me, white knuckling it through some meal plan thought of by someone else, and not eating the appropriate number of calories needed to achieve weight loss.
So, yes, more is involved in weight management. You're right about that, but weight management is a broader topic than just CICO. CICO is just one factor and the main driver of it. The other factors enable CICO to be implemented.9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Lol...I gained 40 Lbs doing 16:8 IF. It's how I naturally used to eat. I gained 40 Lbs because I was overeating.
And nobody is saying that hormones don't have an impact on the equation...it's just that it's relatively small in most cases. For someone who is insulin resistant, a lower carb diet is probably going to be beneficial, but they're still going to have to follow the math.
Conversely, a diabetic could have major issues doing IF due to very low blood sugar.10 -
johnslater461 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
I am the special snowflake who developed insulin resistance while active, not overweight, without any strong family history of T2D, while eating a low fat diet.
Obesity and genetics are the primary risk factors, not necessarily the only ones.
There are non smokers who get lung cancer. Your argument is akin to one of them claiming that smoking doesn't cause cancerI think diet has something to do with developing T2D too. I have never heard of a case of T2D developing in someone who followed a chronically low carb diet (and didn't switch to it to treat obesity or IR). Ever.
Argumentum ad ignorantum
Nah. I've looked. There's nothing I can find.
And I DID call myself the special snowflake. 8 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
This is a strawman, hence no need to part ways.
CICO is the underlying principle of energy conservation - in this case weight management.
Nutrition is a higher level concept. Intermittent fasting is a means of implementing calorie restriction and is still CICO.
Hormonal impact is a different topic and plays almost no part in weight management. Hormones impact metabolism by ~5% from clinical observation. That amounts to ~80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day calorie budget. The only population which has the potential to see impact is the elite bodybuilders with an extremely low body fat %.
7 -
johnslater461 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
What about insulin? Some people become insulin resistant because of what they consume, not necessarily the number of calories. Type II diabetes is about eating too much sugar, I think.
Type II diabetes is not caused by sugar. Type II diabetics have to manage their sugars once they've developed the disease, but don't confuse the cure with the cause.
What is the cause of Type II diabetes?
I am the special snowflake who developed insulin resistance while active, not overweight, without any strong family history of T2D, while eating a low fat diet.
Obesity and genetics are the primary risk factors, not necessarily the only ones.
There are non smokers who get lung cancer. Your argument is akin to one of them claiming that smoking doesn't cause cancerI think diet has something to do with developing T2D too. I have never heard of a case of T2D developing in someone who followed a chronically low carb diet (and didn't switch to it to treat obesity or IR). Ever.
Argumentum ad ignorantum
Nah. I've looked. There's nothing I can find.
And I DID call myself the special snowflake.
Look harder
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/1/43
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-pdf/93/4/844/23871245/844.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_-qnj9fvaAhWiUt8KHQE4C0kQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2c9A8v2eY1g0vMNtN87xWl12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Again if you read the thread or other threads like it I think you would better understand what is actually meant when people say CICO is the underlying principle behind all weight loss and gain.
Underlying it is a simple math equation. The calories you intake compared to the calories that you expend is going to be what determines if you gain, lose or maintain weight. That is all CICO says and that is absolutely true.
What CICO does not say is how one accurately judges CI and CO and yes, of course, that is VERY complicated....so complicated it is impossible to actually just straight up calculate so we have to rely on studies of populations and statistics and averages. That your CO doing an activity may be extremely different than my CO doing the exact same activity. People understand that.
When I say the reason you lose weight is because of CICO I don't mean that it is because you employed the strategy of calorie counting or because you didn't care whether you ate vegetables or twinkies, I am simply saying that if you lose weight that through whatever method you employed to do so the underlying principle behind your weight loss was that you took in less calories than your body used. I am not saying what the source of those calories were, I am not saying whether the calories printed on the side of the box is an accurate representation of how many calories your body can actually get from that. I am not saying that factors like microbiome, hormones, cooking etc don't all influence how many calories you derive from a meal. I am just saying that if you knew exactly how many calories your body was getting in usable energy and exactly how many calories your body was using up, then you would know whether or not you were gaining or losing weight. That is it...it literally is that simple.
Saying it is simple though does not at ALL mean that weight loss is simple or strategies are clear or how you get an accurate CI or CO value is easy. But again...who is saying that? Who are you even talking to when you are complaining that people say that? I mean it certainly seems like you are directing that towards people in this forum but to what I have seen and read no one has actually said anything like that.
Do you disagree with any of that? Does anyone actually disagree with any of that? That is what is so frustrating about this "debate" as you put it, I'm pretty sure everyone actually thinks the same thing they are just getting tangled up in the semantics and minutia of it.14 -
Just as a quick summary of my previous post.
Just because accurately determining CI or CO values is difficult and complicated by many different factors does not mean that the concept that CI>CO = weight gain, CI=CO = maintenance and CI<CO = weight loss is somehow "outdated" or wrong. If you were to somehow be able to accurately determine your actual CI (meaning the calories your body actually derives from food, not just what is listed on a box) and were able to accuarelty determine your actual CO (meaning the amount of calories your body actually expends, not what is stated on your fitbit) then you would most certainly be able to use the fundamental principle that is CICO to determine if you were in the process of losing or gaining weight. The fact that that is really hard to do does not somehow disprove the underlying physics of energy conservation.9 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't think this is a debate.
IS that because you're just arguing with no support or substance to your opinions?
TBH, it's not a debate, it's settled fact.
A debate can only happen when there are alternative interpretations of an established set of facts.
There is no such thing as a settled fact. We can debate that.
Sigh.
The problem is that people believe that their 'feelings' are just as relevant as established facts.
Anything they don't like to hear is 'fake news'.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Fact:
People lose, gain, and maintain their weight Intermittent Fasting. (Which I am a big fan of).
Fact:
Hormones affect the numbers involved in energy balance. (energy_in vs energy_out CICO), but they do not change the equation in any way. (i.e. they can depress or increase your energy_out CO, they can also make you hungrier than usual, causing you to eat more CI) At the end of the day though, gaining/losing/maintaining weight is still about that energy balance (CICO). No one is saying that hormone issues do not make it challenging to find the right balance of food intake vs. energy expenditure.
12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions