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Calorie in calorie out method is outdated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
-
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.
Read the entire thread (much of this BS has already been addressed repeatedly). Then study this chart and let us know your opinion on it:
http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html8 -
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.
Ahhh, so it's an intermittent fasting thing. That explains all the hoodoo. A lot of people have been suckered by pseudoscientific quacks like Jason Fung into thinking that intermittent fasting is magical and somehow defies the laws of energy balance.
It's not true.And, for all you people who keep saying "there are no scientific studies..." you should consider opening up your mind just a bit....
We've heard this one before. Most often, this is the roundabout way of saying "I don't have so much as a single shred of scientific evidence to support my beliefs, but I blindly believe them anyway - and if you don't blindly believe it without proof too, you're the closed-minded one!".
17 -
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »
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.
same here I gained weight doing IF because I ate too many calories. I dont lose any faster doing IF than if I dont do IF.8 -
Just a few friendly reminders:
1. Be nice to each other- attacking breaks guideline 1
if you have not found your way to the forum guidelines please read them:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
2. This is the debate section, it was created so posters could respectfully argue their position and explore new information. Please post thought out responses, prepare to support your opinion, and plan to respond to other posters. If you don't want to do that this is not the board for you.
Thanks,
4legs
MFP moderator
p.s. sorry if my "clean up" is a bit spotty, I am experiencing technical difficulties this morning.1 -
"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.
Wether you gain, lose or maintain, CICO is always "working"...2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I understand the points that you are making. The debate started with the following: "I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?"
I gave my thoughts as an agreement with the sentiment that not all calories have the same effect on your long-term weight loss. I agree that some food metobolizes differently than others. So, because of the way your body uses the energy, I believe that certain foods, even thought they may have the same number of calories, will not have the same long term effect on weight loss as others.
So maybe if you consume a lot of sugar, it could change how your body reacts to sugar when it is consumed. At first, your body handles sugar like any other calorie. But after a period of time your body would become sensative to sugar. Maybe your cells can only absorb a certain amount of sugar and when it reaches that tipping point it will push out the extra sugar as waste without metabolizing it. So, in that case, the calories in did not translate directly, so the equation does not work. It may work in the beginning, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar vs 1500 calories of kale you will have the same effect, but not in the long run.
Do you disagree with any of that?9 -
I understand the points that you are making. The debate started with the following: "I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?"
I gave my thoughts as an agreement with the sentiment that not all calories have the same effect on your long-term weight loss. I agree that some food metobolizes differently than others. So, because of the way your body uses the energy, I believe that certain foods, even thought they may have the same number of calories, will not have the same long term effect on weight loss as others.
So maybe if you consume a lot of sugar, it could change how your body reacts to sugar when it is consumed. At first, your body handles sugar like any other calorie. But after a period of time your body would become sensative to sugar. Maybe your cells can only absorb a certain amount of sugar and when it reaches that tipping point it will push out the extra sugar as waste without metabolizing it. So, in that case, the calories in did not translate directly, so the equation does not work. It may work in the beginning, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar vs 1500 calories of kale you will have the same effect, but not in the long run.
Do you disagree with any of that?
Did you go back and read the whole thread? I already know the answer because if you had you would have seen that straw man examples like yours have been discussed and refuted.
Read the thread please, then come back with your assertions.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Did you go back and read the whole thread? I already know the answer because if you had you would have seen that straw man examples like yours have been discussed and refuted.
Read the thread please, then come back with your assertions.
I did go back and read the whole thread. And as I waded through all of the responses, I did notice a pattern that made me a little sad. None the less, I didn't read anything that made be not believe that different types of food that you consume will have an effect on your weight loss long term.11 -
I understand the points that you are making. The debate started with the following: "I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?"
I gave my thoughts as an agreement with the sentiment that not all calories have the same effect on your long-term weight loss. I agree that some food metobolizes differently than others. So, because of the way your body uses the energy, I believe that certain foods, even thought they may have the same number of calories, will not have the same long term effect on weight loss as others.
So maybe if you consume a lot of sugar, it could change how your body reacts to sugar when it is consumed. At first, your body handles sugar like any other calorie. But after a period of time your body would become sensative to sugar. Maybe your cells can only absorb a certain amount of sugar and when it reaches that tipping point it will push out the extra sugar as waste without metabolizing it. So, in that case, the calories in did not translate directly, so the equation does not work. It may work in the beginning, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar vs 1500 calories of kale you will have the same effect, but not in the long run.
Do you disagree with any of that?
In a concept called Calories In, Calories Out, what do you think the italicized and bolded would fall under?
5 -
I understand the points that you are making. The debate started with the following: "I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?"
I gave my thoughts as an agreement with the sentiment that not all calories have the same effect on your long-term weight loss. I agree that some food metobolizes differently than others. So, because of the way your body uses the energy, I believe that certain foods, even thought they may have the same number of calories, will not have the same long term effect on weight loss as others.
So maybe if you consume a lot of sugar, it could change how your body reacts to sugar when it is consumed. At first, your body handles sugar like any other calorie. But after a period of time your body would become sensative to sugar. Maybe your cells can only absorb a certain amount of sugar and when it reaches that tipping point it will push out the extra sugar as waste without metabolizing it. So, in that case, the calories in did not translate directly, so the equation does not work. It may work in the beginning, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar vs 1500 calories of kale you will have the same effect, but not in the long run.
Do you disagree with any of that?
In either case you would be malnourished...5 -
stevencloser wrote: »
In a concept called Calories In, Calories Out, what do you think the italicized and bolded would fall under?
That it would go into the "calories out" side of the equation. So you're saying when you apply the CICO equation you must factor in your waste?2 -
That it would go into the "calories out" side of the equation. So you're saying when you apply the CICO equation you must factor in your waste?
If the only focus was "calories in," we'd just call it CI instead of CICO. That's what people were getting at with your initial example of someone eating 10,000 calories of wood. Since our bodies can't process a lot of what is in the wood, CICO already accounts for this (and so do food labels -- the calories that aren't available to our bodies are already subtracted from the count).4 -
I did go back and read the whole thread. And as I waded through all of the responses, I did notice a pattern that made me a little sad. None the less, I didn't read anything that made be not believe that different types of food that you consume will have an effect on your weight loss long term.
If you read the thread, you didn't understand it.
The assumption that you seem to be making is that the body somehow knows (magically I suppose?) what kind of food you are eating and treats the foods differently depending on whether they fall into your definition of healthy or not. The problem with that argument is that once food gets thru the digestive process and enters the bloodstream for distribution to the various cells it is impossible to tell where the food came from or what it was made of. There is sugar in the kale (not a lot but there is) and that would be treated exactly the same as sugar that came from a potato or from ice cream/candy bars. By the time digestion is finished with the food, it has been broken down into the component products (sugars, amino acids, fats, vitamins, etc) that the body will use as building blocks to sustain itself and it DOES NOT MATTER what the original composition of the food was.
Maybe you are confusing nutrition with weight loss (which has also been covered ad nauseum in this thread)? Yes, in terms of nutrition, there is no doubt that eating a well balanced diet will make you feel better and probably have you end up being healthier in the long run, but strictly in terms of WEIGHT LOSS - calories are the only thing that matter, PERIOD.
At it's very simplest definition, food is fuel and that is what your body uses the food for. In terms of that fuel, your body does not know and does not CARE where the fuel comes from or what it is made of.9 -
I understand the points that you are making. The debate started with the following: "I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?"
I gave my thoughts as an agreement with the sentiment that not all calories have the same effect on your long-term weight loss. I agree that some food metobolizes differently than others. So, because of the way your body uses the energy, I believe that certain foods, even thought they may have the same number of calories, will not have the same long term effect on weight loss as others.
On the bold -- I think you are assuming "calories" is a synonym for food, and that not all foods are the same (which is obviously true, and again you'd know this had been discussed if you'd read the thread) means that not all calories are the same, but it does not. A calorie is a calorie, but yes food choice can make weight loss and sustaining weight loss easier or harder. The thing is that what food choice works best is NOT because somehow CICO is wrong or can be avoided. It's about individual things like what is satisfying, why you tend to overeat, how much you want to watch calories, so on.
With respect to CICO "not being efficient in the long run," that makes no sense and seems to me to be based on a misunderstanding of what CICO. As discussed (again) at great length earlier in the thread, it doesn't mean calorie counting (which in fact IS efficient, but may not be the right choice for everyone). How do you think one even loses weight without having CI<CO?So maybe if you consume a lot of sugar, it could change how your body reacts to sugar when it is consumed. At first, your body handles sugar like any other calorie. But after a period of time your body would become sensative to sugar. Maybe your cells can only absorb a certain amount of sugar and when it reaches that tipping point it will push out the extra sugar as waste without metabolizing it. So, in that case, the calories in did not translate directly, so the equation does not work. It may work in the beginning, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar vs 1500 calories of kale you will have the same effect, but not in the long run.
If your body pushed out sugar without metabolising it, you wouldn't gain weight from consuming sugar, even if presumed calories were in excess. It would be a food/calories your body could not use for energy (and fat is stored energy). You see why that wouldn't support the argument you are trying to make?
Also, I responded to the silliness of the 1500 cal of kale vs. sugar example upthread, so would love your thoughts on that post if you want to keep using the example.
You also seem to think that there's something about how the food is metabolized (how fast) that affects longterm weight loss. What would this be? There's one idea that if you eat only quickly metabolized foods you will be hungrier, but what if you acted like a rational, sensible person and if hungry you ate foods that made you less hungry and learned from experience. Why assume that people won't use that degree of common sense?
My personal belief is that actual hunger has little to do with why people are obese now, in part because it's not actually that difficult -- IF you are trying to lose or maintain -- to figure out how not to be hungry. None of that is contrary to CICO.6 -
I did go back and read the whole thread....I didn't read anything that made be not believe that different types of food that you consume will have an effect on your weight loss long term.
Probably because no one is saying that. That isn't what CICO means. CICO isn't about what an appropriate diet is, it is simply an energy balance equation.
I don't think CICO is "outdated" because it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I do however, of course, believe that what you choose to eat is very important with regards to whether or not you will be long term successful in your weight management goals. Those two beliefs aren't somehow mutually exclusive and yet you are acting like they are....which is why you are getting push-back.8 -
To wrap up my thoughts on this debate, I do still believe that the types of calories matter and that the CICO equation is outdated. I know, I know..."It's math!! It can't be outdated!!". If that is your rebuttal to the debate, then I don't think your understood the question. She wasn't asking a math question, she was asking about the effects of what you eat long term. The majority of the rebuttals to the initial ascertion seem to be along the lines of "that's included in the calculation". So if some calories burn faster, that's in the calculation, if some calories don't get metabolized, that's in the calculation, if the way your body metabolizes calories changes over time, that's included in the calculation. If certain foods trigger hormones and other reactions, that's in the calculation. Even if all these things are included in the calculation, they matter and updating and expanding the equation to include them will help in the long term.14
-
To wrap up my thoughts on this debate, I do still believe that the types of calories matter and that the CICO equation is outdated. I know, I know..."It's math!! It can't be outdated!!". If that is your rebuttal to the debate, then I don't think your understood the question. She wasn't asking a math question, she was asking about the effects of what you eat long term. The majority of the rebuttals to the initial ascertion seem to be along the lines of "that's included in the calculation". So if some calories burn faster, that's in the calculation, if some calories don't get metabolized, that's in the calculation, if the way your body metabolizes calories changes over time, that's included in the calculation. If certain foods trigger hormones and other reactions, that's in the calculation. Even if all these things are included in the calculation, they matter and updating and expanding the equation to include them will help in the long term.
Why would calories burning faster need to be included in the equation? Again, I'm not sure you fully understand what is being debated here.
If I eat 100 calories and they're fully metabolized in one hour as opposed to being metabolized over six hours, that's still just 100 calories.
7 -
To wrap up my thoughts on this debate, I do still believe that the types of calories matter and that the CICO equation is outdated. I know, I know..."It's math!! It can't be outdated!!". If that is your rebuttal to the debate, then I don't think your understood the question. She wasn't asking a math question, she was asking about the effects of what you eat long term. The majority of the rebuttals to the initial ascertion seem to be along the lines of "that's included in the calculation". So if some calories burn faster, that's in the calculation, if some calories don't get metabolized, that's in the calculation, if the way your body metabolizes calories changes over time, that's included in the calculation. If certain foods trigger hormones and other reactions, that's in the calculation. Even if all these things are included in the calculation, they matter and updating and expanding the equation to include them will help in the long term.
That is because it is included in the calculation. The recommended daily calorie intakes and the calculators that predict your calorie requirements and suggest how much you should eat take that into account because they are statistical models based on large studies of actual people eating actual food. Therefore they take into account what people derive from that food. Your examples of well what if someone eats nothing but kale or nothing but sugar or they eat wood are just irrelevant because that isn't a thing...no one does that. For people who eat normal food the calorie values are very close approximations and if you track your calories in terms of your intake and use the calculators to predict your calorie requirements you will find it is a fairly close approximation. It will be off, it will not be exact...but you can find that out only if you measure the calories and track them over time and then adjust accordingly.
Crossing your arms and saying I don't believe it I think its inaccurate offers no alternative or no improvement to a model. Saying it is "outdated" suggests we should throw it out or change it. Okay, so you don't believe tracking calories is useful for weight management....what is your suggested alternative?7 -
To wrap up my thoughts on this debate, I do still believe that the types of calories matter and that the CICO equation is outdated. I know, I know..."It's math!! It can't be outdated!!". If that is your rebuttal to the debate, then I don't think your understood the question. She wasn't asking a math question, she was asking about the effects of what you eat long term. The majority of the rebuttals to the initial ascertion seem to be along the lines of "that's included in the calculation". So if some calories burn faster, that's in the calculation, if some calories don't get metabolized, that's in the calculation, if the way your body metabolizes calories changes over time, that's included in the calculation. If certain foods trigger hormones and other reactions, that's in the calculation. Even if all these things are included in the calculation, they matter and updating and expanding the equation to include them will help in the long term.
I’m not sure if you don’t understand math, or the equation.
CI< CO (for weight loss) is the whole equation
It’s the equation of energy balance.
If you are asking to expand the equation, that’s something else entirely.
In other words:
CO= RMR + NEAT + etc
Hormones would be in the NEAT part of the equation,
I.e.
NEAT= X(ghrelin) + estrogen-levels etc. etc
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
On the bold -- I think you are assuming "calories" is a synonym for food, and that not all foods are the same (which is obviously true, and again you'd know this had been discussed if you'd read the thread) means that not all calories are the same, but it does not. A calorie is a calorie, but yes food choice can make weight loss and sustaining weight loss easier or harder. The thing is that what food choice works best is NOT because somehow CICO is wrong or can be avoided. It's about individual things like what is satisfying, why you tend to overeat, how much you want to watch calories, so on.
With respect to CICO "not being efficient in the long run," that makes no sense and seems to me to be based on a misunderstanding of what CICO. As discussed (again) at great length earlier in the thread, it doesn't mean calorie counting (which in fact IS efficient, but may not be the right choice for everyone). How do you think one even loses weight without having CI<CO?
If your body pushed out sugar without metabolising it, you wouldn't gain weight from consuming sugar, even if presumed calories were in excess. It would be a food/calories your body could not use for energy (and fat is stored energy). You see why that wouldn't support the argument you are trying to make?
Also, I responded to the silliness of the 1500 cal of kale vs. sugar example upthread, so would love your thoughts on that post if you want to keep using the example.
You also seem to think that there's something about how the food is metabolized (how fast) that affects longterm weight loss. What would this be? There's one idea that if you eat only quickly metabolized foods you will be hungrier, but what if you acted like a rational, sensible person and if hungry you ate foods that made you less hungry and learned from experience. Why assume that people won't use that degree of common sense?
My personal belief is that actual hunger has little to do with why people are obese now, in part because it's not actually that difficult -- IF you are trying to lose or maintain -- to figure out how not to be hungry. None of that is contrary to CICO.
Okay LemurCat12, I'm going to go back and respond to your response to my 1500 cal kale vs. sugar example only because something about your writing reminds me of my sister so imaging you really enjoying this. Give me a minute to find it.......2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.
Right off, I don't know what "TBH" means....to be helpful?....to be healthy?..to be happy?...to be hangry? Yesterday was a fast day so I wasn't at my best thought wise. Also, I under estimated how personally people would take my thoughts. There is a reason people don't have the ability to read minds.
That's true, the cookies are a complex food, so it really isn't a fair comparison. My wood example has already be disallowed. So how about this: 1500 calories of vodka vs. 1500 calories of kale? I think if we made it a 1 month challenge and offered compensation we could probably actually get some volunteers to try it. I still think there would be a difference in weight loss or gain, all other things being equal.8 -
@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?5 -
Right off, I don't know what "TBH" means....to be helpful?....to be healthy?..to be happy?...to be hangry? Yesterday was a fast day so I wasn't at my best thought wise. Also, I under estimated how personally people would take my thoughts. There is a reason people don't have the ability to read minds.
That's true, the cookies are a complex food, so it really isn't a fair comparison. My wood example has already be disallowed. So how about this: 1500 calories of vodka vs. 1500 calories of kale? I think if we made it a 1 month challenge and offered compensation we could probably actually get some volunteers to try it. I still think there would be a difference in weight loss or gain, all other things being equal.
You don't think the impact of having around 23 and a half ounces of vodka per day (assuming you're using 80 proof vodka) would completely confound whatever it is you think you're proving about calories?
8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
That is because it is included in the calculation. The recommended daily calorie intakes and the calculators that predict your calorie requirements and suggest how much you should eat take that into account because they are statistical models based on large studies of actual people eating actual food. Therefore they take into account what people derive from that food. Your examples of well what if someone eats nothing but kale or nothing but sugar or they eat wood are just irrelevant because that isn't a thing...no one does that. For people who eat normal food the calorie values are very close approximations and if you track your calories in terms of your intake and use the calculators to predict your calorie requirements you will find it is a fairly close approximation. It will be off, it will not be exact...but you can find that out only if you measure the calories and track them over time and then adjust accordingly.
Crossing your arms and saying I don't believe it I think its inaccurate offers no alternative or no improvement to a model. Saying it is "outdated" suggests we should throw it out or change it. Okay, so you don't believe tracking calories is useful for weight management....what is your suggested alternative?
Oh, quite the contrary, I count calories. I just think it matters if it's a 100 cal oreo or a 100 cal salad.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You don't think the impact of having around 23 and a half ounces of vodka per day (assuming you're using 80 proof vodka) would completely confound whatever it is you think you're proving about calories?
Exactly! The type of calories matter.....6 -
Oh, quite the contrary, I count calories. I just think it matters if it's a 100 cal oreo or a 100 cal salad.
But you haven't answered the question I asked earlier.
Do you believe a person can gain weight in a calorie deficit if they eat a less nutrient-dense ("junk" food) diet?
Do you believe that a person can maintain or lose weight in a calorie surplus if they eat a more nutrient-dense diet (salad, veg, fruit, lean protein)?
If you believe this is true, how do you believe this would work?4 -
Exactly! The type of calories matter.....
NO!!!! Alcohol poisoning is a real thing.
Plus being drunk all day isn't conducive to adulting.8 -
Exactly! The type of calories matter.....
And herein lies the problem - there is no such thing as a 'type' of calorie! There are types of food, there are types of macros, etc, but a calorie is simply a measure of the energy that is contained in a particular object. Saying that there are types of calories makes as much sense as saying there are types of minutes or types of inches.11 -
Exactly! The type of calories matter.....
What are the different types of calories? I thought there was only one type, like there is only one type of inch, since it's a unit of energy. But if you think there are different kinds then what are they and who's studying them? Is there a list of the different types somewhere?
I think this goes back to the oft repeated point that calories are not synonymous with food. There are different kinds of foods but not different kinds of calories.8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.1K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 446 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions