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Calorie in calorie out method is outdated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
-
janejellyroll 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.
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?
Exactly! The type of calories matter.....
No. The foods are very different, but the calories are the same. What you're saying is that additional factors besides calories in a food can impact our health and nobody is disagreeing with that. It has nothing to do with CICO being "outdated."
The reason why someone might struggle to maintain health and life on a monodiet of vodka is because of the vast quantities of *alcohol*, way beyond what we can safely tolerate (assuming one could survive the vodka, the fact that such a diet would be have no protein or fat and no micronutrients would also become important). It has nothing to do with the *calories*.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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?
Oh, quite the contrary, I count calories. I just think it matters if it's a 100 cal oreo or a 100 cal salad.
It matters to nutrition. It matters to satiation. Therefore, it matters to a human being who's trying to be healthy and lose (or maintain, or gain) weight.
It doesn't matter to energy balance.
It doesn't matter to weight loss, unless the sugar in the oreo makes the person feel energetic so they dance in the living room instead of flopping on the couch (their CO goes up via activity), or somehow the salad is less digestible (more fiber?) for the particular person beyond the population norms for the person (CO goes up via excretion) or something like that.10 -
Fewer calories in than expended will lead to weight loss. That is true and not debatable, however that does not necessarily correlate to a loss of fat. Bodybuilders eat mostly lean meats and minimally processed foods. This ensures they have enough protein to support muscle growth and promote fat loss. If you’re consuming low amounts of protein, you could be actually losing muscle mass instead of fat. So in essence, what you eat determines your physique but how much you eat determines your weight.5
-
janejellyroll 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.
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?
Exactly! The type of calories matter.....
All you're demonstrating there is that if you drink 1500 calories worth of poison (which is what alcohol is in that dosage), you will not lose weight. Because you'll die. Very quickly. Possibly that very day.
The kale might kill you fairly quickly too (vitamin K?), but the alcohol would kill you quicker. Not a great weight loss experiment.
How about we compare 1400 calories of a well balanced diet (but no kale) every day plus 100 calories of pure cane sugar, to 1400 calories of a well balanced diet (but no sugar) plus 100 calories of kale? There will not be a material difference in the body weight effect. Or, if you want to stick to pretty-pure macronutrients, 100 calories of olive oil ("healthy", right?) vs. 100 calories of sugar? I'd put money on no material difference in either body weight or health.10 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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?
Oh, quite the contrary, I count calories. I just think it matters if it's a 100 cal oreo or a 100 cal salad.
Why always either or? Why not a little bit of both...?6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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?
Oh, quite the contrary, I count calories. I just think it matters if it's a 100 cal oreo or a 100 cal salad.
Why always either or? Why not a little bit of both...?
Makes a great point0 -
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.
Again, calories don't have "types." What do you think these types of calories are? Red ones and blue ones?
I (again) believe you are mixing up calories and the source of the calories (foods). Calories are not different, but foods are different because they have many properties besides calories.
Do you grasp this distinction?
6 -
janejellyroll 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.
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?
This has to be the best (which means worse) comparison yet.4 -
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.
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.
estherdragonbat said "TBH," not me, but I think it means "to be honest."
That's not the response I was talking about, so I'll quote it for your convenience and because I would be interested in a response.0 -
Correct. To Be Honest.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Again, calories don't have "types." What do you think these types of calories are? Red ones and blue ones?
I (again) believe you are mixing up calories and the source of the calories (foods). Calories are not different, but foods are different because they have many properties besides calories.
Do you grasp this distinction?
It's sad, because I see where she might be going, but I'm not even sure that's where she's actually going or trying to go.
If you could have calories of pure macros
Fat
Carbs
Protein
Alcohol
You can get close with oil, sugar/karo, and Alcohol. but I'm not sure for protein. Is there actually a readily available protein concentrate/isolate that's actually purified/concentrated/isolated?0 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.
estherdragonbat said "TBH," not me, but I think it means "to be honest."
That's not the response I was talking about, so I'll quote it for your convenience and because I would be interested in a response.
Oh, it appears it may have been deleted (I will assume accidentally, as it wasn't mean or inappropriate at all, and was on topic) in the clean up. Sigh, I'll re-do it.0 -
Oreo vs salad..
I can run with an oreo in my stomach - can't say that works out so well with a salad. I can also easily eat said oreo in the minute before or during the group runs/rides after work I can barely make. --> oreo totally wins in my book. (in actuality, the even more easily digestible fruit snacks I keep in my car for said purpose usually get that task). ---> with time as a factor, the quickly eaten and digested oreo could mean higher TDEE.
(By default, both options are pretty much protein-less. constant fat content in oreo while tailor-able in the salad. Extra volume and fiber in the salad is a boon sometimes, but a negative in other times).2 -
..and thank you for reminding me to put fruit snacks on my grocery list...the supply in my car is almost out.0
-
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.
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.
One would be dead and the other would be suffering from malnutrition. So neither of them are even a viable scenario. And how does such an extreme monodiet even relate to what people in real life actually do? This is the problem with CICO deniers - having to go through such extreme, ridiculous contortions in an attempt to justify the position, because any reasonably normal conditions won't do it.
Ethyl alcohol is a poor example to use, and further shows that your knowledge of physiology is lacking. Alcohol is a separate macro from carbs, fats or protein, with properties all its own. There is zero storage of alcohol in the body, it is the only macro with a 100% oxidation and zero storage rate. There are also different metabolic pathways involved in its oxidation than protein, fats or carbs.
One of the wonders of the internet is that there is a lot of factual information freely available (mixed, unfortunately, with a lot of garbage and propaganda). It doesn't take that much time and effort to put all the charlatans and woo peddlers aside and learn a little bit about physiology. And when you have a basic understanding of how the body really works, you learn that although "CICO" is a vastly simplified acronym for what is actually a very complex process, it has been scientifically proven, over and over and over again, to be the one governing factor. It's an established physical law, not a theory or suggestion.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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?
Oh, quite the contrary, I count calories. I just think it matters if it's a 100 cal oreo or a 100 cal salad.
One I can digest (oreo)and one will send me to the ER in excruciating pain (salad).4 -
Fewer calories in than expended will lead to weight loss. That is true and not debatable, however that does not necessarily correlate to a loss of fat. Bodybuilders eat mostly lean meats and minimally processed foods. This ensures they have enough protein to support muscle growth and promote fat loss. If you’re consuming low amounts of protein, you could be actually losing muscle mass instead of fat. So in essence, what you eat determines your physique but how much you eat determines your weight.
Protein does help to maintain muscle mass, but again, maybe not as much as many would like to believe.
The thread below needs daily bumping.....
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p13 -
I wish these debates weren't always forced to circle around the drain of "compare two diets no one would ever eat and tell me which is better". To insist the debate go back there hints that debating in more realistic terms wouldn't support your conclusion.
No one eats wood. No one here suggests eating a 1500 cal monodiet of kale or Twinkies or alcohol. No one says that what you eat has no effect on your health or your satiety or your state of mind.
All CICO says is that if your body needs 2000 calories to get through the day, and you eat 1500 calories, you will lose weight; if you eat 2500 calories, you will gain weight. That's it.
A calorie deficit causes weight loss. Full stop.
What you eat, when you eat it, how fast you eat, what you think about what you're eating, what exercise you do, how long you sleep, and many more variables will affect your ability to get into a calorie deficit. It may affect your NEAT or your energy level or your satiety or your willpower. And each of these variables will be highly personal. Some people will have a harder time figuring out what calorie level gives them a deficit because of these variables, will require more trial and error, may even require medical intervention.
No one says that acknowledging and leveraging the fact of CICO requires ignoring all these factors. Just that these factors don't ever make CICO untrue. I'm still not sure why that is such a complicated thing to understand
19 -
What I said before about 1500 cal of kale vs. 1500 cal of cookies is that neither is a diet that anyone would willingly choose or find sustainable, so why is it being discussed? (The vodka switch for the cookies makes this point even stronger.)
I further said that if you tried to do both for a month (a year is not possible given lack of sustainability and health issues with both diets), I do think it's likely results will be different, but NOT because calories from different sources are different.
Instead, factors I'd expect to make a difference are:
You would likely more easily overeat (underestimate calories) from the cookies, and undereat (be unable to complete your calories) from the kale, although not being able to eat all planned calories is something that happens with any monodiet, I imagine.
The kale is more likely to have fewer cals than we estimate (due to the fiber content) and is also harder for some to digest, so there will be more variability in how many calories you get from it. This has nothing to do with CICO, it's a counting issue.
You would likely feel worse on one vs. the other so the amount of energy expended would differ (I think the cookies would result in more activity, actually).
In real life if you weren't strictly monitored for an experiment, you would also no doubt cheat on both "diets," because they are ridiculous.
Both would be terrible for your health (although not as bad as the all vodka diet -- I suspect you might lose weight on that, though, as extreme alcoholism can have that side effect, as you stop being able to process calories properly, but in any case you'd be dead on a vodka only diet before the month was out).
So setting aside the absurd examples and going to more realistic ones, would you lose more weight (assuming activity was equal) on a diet of 1500 cal of food made up of a list of your 10 most self-indulgent favors or some WFPB diet that was carefully designed for you by a nutritionist to meet nutritional needs? Answer: it depends. Are the calories carefully monitored and do we make sure they are counted correctly based on what you actually can absorb from the sources and are you in a ward study where you cannot cheat? Then yes, you'd likely lose about the same amount. In real life, are you more likely to overestimate one and underestimate the other or accidentally eat more on one? Yes, I think that's a difference, but it has 0 to do with CICO. In real life, are you more likely to cheat on your 1500 cal goal on one or the other? Again, perhaps, but which one is going to depend on the person and again has nothing to do with CICO.
Curious if that makes sense.5 -
No one says that acknowledging and leveraging the fact of CICO requires ignoring all these factors. Just that these factors don't ever make CICO untrue. I'm still not sure why that is such a complicated thing to understand
From participating in a number of these threads, I'm not sure that it comes down to it being a complicated thing to understand. It's been explained so many times in so many ways, mountains of links to peer-reviewed studies have been posted over and over, etc.
I think it's more of a thing that people actively don't want to believe it.8 -
No one says that acknowledging and leveraging the fact of CICO requires ignoring all these factors. Just that these factors don't ever make CICO untrue. I'm still not sure why that is such a complicated thing to understand
From participating in a number of these threads, I'm not sure that it comes down to it being a complicated thing to understand. It's been explained so many times in so many ways, mountains of links to peer-reviewed studies have been posted over and over, etc.
I think it's more of a thing that people actively don't want to believe it.
Is it a tribal thing?
"I eat only cabbage/doritos/kale, and everyone else is stupid and doing it wrong"1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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?
Oh, quite the contrary, I count calories. I just think it matters if it's a 100 cal oreo or a 100 cal salad.
One I can digest (oreo)and one will send me to the ER in excruciating pain (salad).
IBS? I'm the opposite, Oreos would spike my blood glucose and salad would be fine. But good post, pointing out that diet depends on individual needs. For another example, simple, quick digesting sugars such as candies increase my blood sugar quickly, which is why I carry a roll of smarties to eat on my long runs. Almost every food, except maybe trans fats, has a time and place when it's beneficial and when it's harmful. People die from drinking too much water at a time.2 -
Honestly, I think a lot of these nonsense arguments have to do with people not understanding, at root, how symbols work, and that words are symbols; and not understanding what abstractions are and how to use them conceptually. They deeply confuse "things" with characteristics of those things, measurements of those things, impacts of those things, and more. They think in "states" (snapshots) not processes (where things influence other things but they're not all the same thing, and they don't grasp that, in reality, "things" and processes never hold still). And that's just the tip of the cognitive iceberg.17
-
Honestly, I think a lot of these nonsense arguments have to do with people not understanding, at root, how symbols work, and that words are symbols; and not understanding what abstractions are and how to use them conceptually. They deeply confuse "things" with characteristics of those things, measurements of those things, impacts of those things, and more. They think in "states" (snapshots) not processes (where things influence other things but they're not all the same thing, and they don't grasp that, in reality, "things" and processes never hold still). And that's just the tip of the cognitive iceberg.
Like Shouty Guy insisting that calories have nothing to do with weight loss, because he can't accept that an abstraction such as a measurement is a thing!4 -
I wish these debates weren't always forced to circle around the drain of "compare two diets no one would ever eat and tell me which is better". To insist the debate go back there hints that debating in more realistic terms wouldn't support your conclusion.
No one eats wood. No one here suggests eating a 1500 cal monodiet of kale or Twinkies or alcohol. No one says that what you eat has no effect on your health or your satiety or your state of mind.
All CICO says is that if your body needs 2000 calories to get through the day, and you eat 1500 calories, you will lose weight; if you eat 2500 calories, you will gain weight. That's it.
A calorie deficit causes weight loss. Full stop.
What you eat, when you eat it, how fast you eat, what you think about what you're eating, what exercise you do, how long you sleep, and many more variables will affect your ability to get into a calorie deficit. It may affect your NEAT or your energy level or your satiety or your willpower. And each of these variables will be highly personal. Some people will have a harder time figuring out what calorie level gives them a deficit because of these variables, will require more trial and error, may even require medical intervention.
No one says that acknowledging and leveraging the fact of CICO requires ignoring all these factors. Just that these factors don't ever make CICO untrue. I'm still not sure why that is such a complicated thing to understand
Well said. When I first started trying to lose weight about a year and a half ago, one of the first things I did was start reading up on how the body uses energy and what I could do to best ensure my long term success.
As soon I saw "CICO" and an accompanying explanation, it make perfect sense. It was almost stupidly simple and I was thrilled to finally "get it". I didn't have to make this process complicated. I just had to focus on eating less than I burned over time. I chose to do this by learning to moderate foods (and drinks) I really enjoy instead of cutting them out and getting more active to burn more than I had been at my previously fairly sedentary state.
I also chose to start focusing on adding in or increasing lower calorie/higher nutrient foods so I could also be healthier and not just thinner.
So far so good.7 -
I don't think I've ever seen anyone in any of these threads directly support on a point by point basis the logic of how a person could gain weight eating in a deficit. It's always about how eating oreos in a deficit will cause you not to lose weight. Never about how eating a "healthy" diet will prevent weight gain, unless its presented as a "you can't eat enough salad to gain weight".2
-
Do what makes you happy and what you can stick to2
-
rheddmobile wrote: »Honestly, I think a lot of these nonsense arguments have to do with people not understanding, at root, how symbols work, and that words are symbols; and not understanding what abstractions are and how to use them conceptually. They deeply confuse "things" with characteristics of those things, measurements of those things, impacts of those things, and more. They think in "states" (snapshots) not processes (where things influence other things but they're not all the same thing, and they don't grasp that, in reality, "things" and processes never hold still). And that's just the tip of the cognitive iceberg.
Like Shouty Guy insisting that calories have nothing to do with weight loss, because he can't accept that an abstraction such as a measurement is a thing!
Honestly, Shouty’s arguments make just as much sense (or lack thereof) as some I’ve seen in these CICO threads.1 -
annaskiski wrote: »No one says that acknowledging and leveraging the fact of CICO requires ignoring all these factors. Just that these factors don't ever make CICO untrue. I'm still not sure why that is such a complicated thing to understand
From participating in a number of these threads, I'm not sure that it comes down to it being a complicated thing to understand. It's been explained so many times in so many ways, mountains of links to peer-reviewed studies have been posted over and over, etc.
I think it's more of a thing that people actively don't want to believe it.
Is it a tribal thing?
"I eat only cabbage/doritos/kale, and everyone else is stupid and doing it wrong"
It's odd. There seems to be a deep-seated desire to believe that people who say that CICO is what matters for weight loss don't care about nutrition, and that SAYING CICO is "outdated" or whatever means you care more about nutrition than the hoi polloi, no matter how you eat (kind of how people like to claim they don't eat "processed foods" when they eat lots of Taco Bell and protein powder and what not). I get the sense there's a fear for some that if they don't tell themselves that "bad foods" will make them fat, not calories, that they will eat poorly. It's a point janejellyroll made well on another thread and it fits here too.
What I no longer really believe is that it's a genuine misunderstanding, as it's been explained so often and so clearly and people completely refuse to engage at the point where they must understand. Again, very odd.4 -
I don't think I've ever seen anyone in any of these threads directly support on a point by point basis the logic of how a person could gain weight eating in a deficit. It's always about how eating oreos in a deficit will cause you not to lose weight. Never about how eating a "healthy" diet will prevent weight gain, unless its presented as a "you can't eat enough salad to gain weight".
I always wonder about this too.
It's kind of like how people keep going in the '70s thread and saying that people weren't fat because no GMOs. There's a strong desire to believe that they aren't really overweight because of overeating, but that food makes them get fat despite them having a dainty appetite and not really enjoying eating. (Indeed, I think for some the idea that they overeat feels like a stigma, so they want to cling to other explanations.)
I think there's also this idea that one must suffer to lose weight. If you can eat Oreos, it must not be sufficient suffering, so it just can't work -- I think it's a form of magical thinking.9
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions