Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calories in/Calories out-what do we replace it with?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sue View Post
    humans are not a closed system is old news most low carbers know about.
    Then this topic should have been a 2-pager.

    Comment


    • It is the people who say calories in/calories out as if it wasn't a truism that are to blame for so badly mangling the popular concept of calories out. It changes depending on how well the endocrine system works. And other factors of course.
      Last edited by Stabby; 05-28-2011, 05:45 PM.
      Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

      Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stabby View Post
        It is the people who say calories in/calories out as if it wasn't a truism that are to blame for so badly mangling the popular concept of calories out. It changes depending on how well the endocrine system works. And other factors of course.
        I agree the concept is badly mangled. Based on what I can track down on what I think CICO is supposed to mean, at this point I'm changing from the OP. Instead of "what do we replace it with?" at this point I'm going to say that it just needs to be scrapped. It's been abused, revised, re-defined, and it was wrong to start with. People have just been trying to put whipped cream on dog poop to make it work.

        Here's the wrap up I blogged a few hrs ago-

        What’s the Deal with Calories In/Calories Out?



        Since I think the above is what CICO was meant to mean, all this talk of patching up the concept at the C-out part is not the issue. CICO in the above graphic is what dietitians have been saying, and what critics like Taubes have been addressing. To reduce weight, use the simple formula to find the number of calories to reduce to get the specified reduction in weight.

        I know that this has gone all over the place in these last dozen+ pages. I think people are trying too hard to salvage a big mistake and change it's meaning.

        I see it like a bad theory of gravity. I could write a bad theory of gravity and defend it passionately. The rest of you could shoot the theory down, but at the end of the day, we all still know that if you jump out the window, you are going to fall. I could say "So what if my theory is bad, you are still going to fall, so I am right anyway." Then you would be right to say it doesn't matter, the theory still sucks.

        We all know that if you eat too much, you will gain. That still does not mean that the formula in the graphic above is a good one. Bad theory.

        Comment


        • My only issue with the article is that you say that they expended the same amount of energy but weighed different amounts. If they weighed different amounts the one who weighs less would have expended more energy. Where I think we're getting confused is what energy expenditure means. The dietician fools will say that you will be able to get a calculation based upon your body weight and be able to know your calories out, except for exercise. But in my mind everything we do is a kind of exercise. My foot-tapping, that's exercise. Thermogenesis? That's exercise of enzymes in the body, using energy. The dieticians don't think that hormones influence the general amount of "exercise" (by my definition) we are predisposed to do in a day. Basal metabolic rate isn't the same thing as total energy expenditure and they don't acknowledge this, well they do because they think that only running on a treadmill alters this and it can all be tracked with simple addition but if instead of sitting in my chair and being lethargic if I was at the balls of my feet all into my typing and expending metal energy more I would burn more energy in that time, and a healthy endocrine system enables these behaviors. I suspect that even feeling good sitting perfectly still and not moving vs. feeling lethargic with equal amount of movement is a difference in energy expenditure.

          So I think that their basic formula is correct (except it doesn't account for water and such) but its implications are way over-simplified. Everything else we seem to agree on. There's a study that takes 3 groups of rats and puts them on isocaloric diets with the only variable being type of fat used. The ones who eat beef tallow gained the least weight whereas olive oil produced more adiposity and soy oil was off the charts. Perfectly consistent with the obvious, and yet nobody wants to fess up and say that maaaaybe just maybe quality matters as much or even more as quantity.
          Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

          Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

          Comment


          • I apologize in advance DHF, I can't watch the video you posted because my nieces are asleep next to me on the couch. I don't want to wake them and I don't have headphones. I'll check it out tomorrow though for sure!

            But anyway, I did want to respond to this...

            Originally posted by DFH View Post



            Since I think the above is what CICO was meant to mean...
            That formula is not CICO. The author of that website is confused about what CICO means.

            That formula, translated to english, basically states that "if you burn 3600 calories more than you take in, then you will lose 1 lb of fat". It is entirely incorrect (as you point out). It is based on the (accurate) fact that 1lb of fat contains 3600 calories.

            That (incredibly incorrect) formula is nothing more than the misapplication of an accurate fact.

            It is not CICO.

            Comment


            • ...continuation of post.

              Actually I think many mainstream people recognize that you can change caloric expenditure by going for a walk in the same time you would have been sitting. Or working a standing job vs. a desk job. It is just that to them nothing at all influences our energy levels during their day, certainly not quality of food. And of course they don't think that thermogenesis throughout the day changes or that there is such thing as internal exercise. Which is kind of ludicrous and any professional field that doesn't attempt to explain all related phenomenon fails miserably.
              Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

              Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ciep View Post
                I apologize in advance DHF, I can't watch the video you posted because my nieces are asleep next to me on the couch. I don't want to wake them and I don't have headphones. I'll check it out tomorrow though for sure!

                But anyway, I did want to respond to this...



                That formula is not CICO. The author of that website is confused about what CICO means.

                That formula, translated to english, basically states that "if you burn 3600 calories more than you take in, then you will lose 1 lb of fat". It is entirely incorrect (as you point out). It is based on the (accurate) fact that 1lb of fat contains 3600 calories.

                That (incredibly incorrect) formula is nothing more than the misapplication of an accurate fact.

                It is not CICO.
                Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Again, this is one of those things where everyone gets to say what they think it means.

                I did read WWGF and I know that Taubes invested some time in de-bunking what the above formula says as a refutation of CICO. Maybe he doesn't understand it either, or maybe everyone just makes up what they want it to mean, and we are back to the beginning. The woman in the video also wrote a book refuting CICO as that statement. It's her graphic. You want to tell that us the books that are published about CICO have the wrong formula?

                One can not apply a theory if no one can even identify what it is and state it clearly.

                This is why I'm saying just scrap it. No one is going to get an agreed upon statement at this point.

                Comment


                • +1 to everything Stabby has said over his last couple posts except this...

                  Originally posted by Stabby View Post
                  So I think that their basic formula is correct...
                  It's not correct in any way.

                  Here is the formula again:

                  Originally posted by DFH View Post

                  And here is what's wrong with it:

                  It is a misapplication/confusion of the CICO concept in that CICO says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about fat loss. CICO tells us when a person will have more energy or less energy. It says nothing about what form the energy will be in. This energy gain/loss can be in the form of fat, but it could also be in the form of muscle, bone tissue, heat, etc (usually it's a combination of all of these). According to CICO, a calorie deficit is a loss of energy, a calorie surplus is a gain of energy. CICO is NOTHING MORE than a DEFINITION of energy gain/loss in terms of calories in/out. That's it. As Taubes points out, it is obvious, vacuous, and useless -- because it tells us NOTHING about HOW the energy is gained/lost or even what the result will be.

                  I agree... the misunderstanding of the truism that is CICO has resulted in some seriously flawed ways to think about fatloss. Stabby described the overall problem very well in his last post.

                  Comment


                  • Ooh, I gotcha. yeah I wonder how much of fat we eat exists in hormones and tissue, probably a good deal. Glucose goes to glycogen, that's not fat. When you build muscle i

                    I agree with scrapping it. I know exactly what it means but it is trash because it says absolutely nothing. What are we supposed to try to use fitday to get our calories in number and then magically pull a calories out from our asses? Nobody knows calories out. Basal met rate + time on a treadmill isn't necessarily even close to calories out, so why does this equation exist in the first place? Best to just work on health and getting some activity in and check the scale once a week.
                    Last edited by Stabby; 05-28-2011, 07:55 PM.
                    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DFH View Post
                      Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Again, this is one of those things where everyone gets to say what they think it means.

                      I did read WWGF and I know that Taubes invested some time in de-bunking what the above formula says as a refutation of CICO. Maybe he doesn't understand it either, or maybe everyone just makes up what they want it to mean, and we are back to the beginning. The woman in the video also wrote a book refuting CICO as that statement. It's her graphic. You want to tell that us the books that are published about CICO have the wrong formula?

                      One can not apply a theory if no one can even identify what it is and state it clearly.

                      This is why I'm saying just scrap it. No one is going to get an agreed upon statement at this point.
                      - Yes, Taubes did invest time de-bunking that formula, and he did everyone a great service by doing so. As I've said, and you clearly agree: that formula is nonsense.

                      - You can't "make up what you want it to mean". It is a precise mathematical formula, and it is wrong.

                      - Taubes did understand the formula. He understood that it is a formula for how to lose fat and it is wrong. The woman who authored the website you linked also understands that it is an inaccurate formula for fatloss. Unfortunately, she does make the mistake of assuming it represents CICO -- an incorrect assumption on her part, but hardly of consequence because all she's interested in doing is explaining why the formula fails as a strategy for weightloss (and I'm sure her book does a great job of making this point).

                      - I agree, one cannot apply a theory if they can't even identify what it is and means. However, I CAN identify what CICO is and means. I did it in my last post. If you'd like I can clarify it even further. BUT...

                      - ...it would be pointless. CICO is useless in figuring out HOW to create fatloss (we all know this and agree on it).

                      - We need not scrap CICO, we just need to stop focusing on it. It's useless. We need to scrap all of the CW "wisdom" about how to lose weight* that is based on misunderstandings of how CICO works (examples of this CW wisdom: "eat less, move more", the "fat lazy slob theory").

                      *I believe this is what your OP is all about, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
                      Last edited by ciep; 05-28-2011, 08:38 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stabby View Post
                        Nobody knows calories out. Basal met rate + time on a treadmill isn't necessarily even close to calories out, so why does this equation exist in the first place? Best to just work on health and getting some activity in and check the scale once a week.
                        This.

                        At the exact same weight, walking the exact same distance at the exact same pace on the exact same path, I will have completely different CO. The variables are just too numerous to fathom.

                        So I don't think, in my life, CI or CO are concepts that are something I even want to worry about, and I have trouble understanding why it's such a sticking point.
                        Durp.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stabby View Post
                          Ooh, I gotcha...

                          ...I agree with scrapping it. I know exactly what it means but it is trash because it says absolutely nothing. What are we supposed to try to use fitday to get our calories in number and then magically pull a calories out from our asses? Nobody knows calories out.
                          Exactly.

                          DFH, we have the answer to your OP at long last:

                          What do we replace the current garbage CW weightloss strategies with? This...

                          Originally posted by Stabby View Post
                          Best to just work on health and getting some activity in and check the scale once a week.
                          Works for me if it works for you.

                          Comment


                          • I think we are on the same page!

                            Stop jiggling the handle and just flush that turd...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DFH View Post
                              I think we are on the same page!

                              Stop jiggling the handle and just flush that turd...
                              Hahaha! Well put.

                              I'm heading to bed, goodnight.

                              Comment


                              • Hold it. No one further should post until they've read and fully understood these two posts:

                                The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. Is a calorie always a calorie?

                                AND

                                http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/w...nd-calories-2/
                                Last edited by Bushrat; 05-28-2011, 10:31 PM.
                                A steak a day keeps the doctor away

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X