Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #31
    Of course calories matter. I don't think anyone questions that. The issue is that CICO just does not work. See above. It's more complicated than CICO.

    Comment


    • #32
      CICO works for a lot of people not all.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by MalPaz View Post
        replace CICO with nutrition in nutrition used.... meaning, it is DIFFERENT for everyone. some people have different needs, diseases, different everything. some people are pale with white eyes and albino....some people tan like a mother f*cker....some people need more vita d, more zinc, more omega 3....

        when you figure out your nutrition needs in your body starts trusting and realizing your nutrition uses within your body...metabolism speeds up, stuff regulates

        the problem is when people think of CICO they are on an adventure to see how much they can possibly eat, or how much changing they can do to be 'able' to eat more...this misses the ENTIRE point of nutrition. thinking this way is...sick, wrong, unhealthy...and as stephen put recently, your using food as an automatic reward stimulant, again totally wrong.3


        this concept annoys me to no end its so flippin ridiculous
        NINU i love it
        Optimum Health powered by Actualized Self-Knowledge.

        Predator not Prey
        Paleo Ketogenic Lifestyle

        CW 315 | SW 506
        Current Jeans 46 | Starting Jeans 66


        Contact me: quelsen@gmail.com

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by otzi View Post
          It's easy to measure the 'calories in', almost impossible to measure the 'calories out'. Your Basal Metabolic Rate can change from day to day, and everyone is different, so no one will ever come up with a definitive weightloss method that will work for everybody. I would love to have a meter that measured the exact number of calories I burn through the day. I think the whole deal is that one day you can eat 2500 calories and burn 2500 calories but the next day eat the exact same thing, do the exact same physical exertion, and only burn 2000 calories (or 3000).
          There is a device called a BodyBugg that measures your expended calories. You wear it around your arm. Can't guarantee that it's 100% accurate, but it should give you a pretty good idea.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by marcadav View Post
            You, obviously, have had no experience with thyroid disease.
            Dboxing is referring to to controlled laboratory studies (both metabolic ward experiments on humans and mammals). You can't gain weight if you don't intake anything, its that simple, theres only so much heat (ie. energy, law of thermodynamics) in a calorie that can sustain movement\cell activity in you're body, you lower it too a point, even extremely low (400 cal) then it doesn't matter who you are.

            Plus, you don't discredit an energy expenditure model based on a few outliers (like the very few who have thyroid problems).

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sue View Post
              CICO works for a lot of people not all.
              That is impossible. Based on the twins example, it can't work. Either the math is valid or it isn't. If I have a rocket equation that only works for 90% of the launches, there is a problem with the equation and it must be replaced with one that works.

              I think this is a case of CICO means different things to different people.

              If your definition is that if you eat more calories, you will weigh more, then it always works and the whole discussion is pointless.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JenCat View Post
                There is a device called a BodyBugg that measures your expended calories. You wear it around your arm. Can't guarantee that it's 100% accurate, but it should give you a pretty good idea.
                I've been wearing a Bodybugg (owned by Bodymedia), for 4 months, just as a neat way of tracking caloric expenditure, its pretty accurate, including the online software's ability to estimate you're caloric intake based on the weight you lose\maintain\gain on a weekly average. I've compared the numbers I've been losing compared to a sample week's diary food log (I don't track daily now, as I only eat about 50 different food items), its very accurate.

                For activity (including the increased heart rate, pressure, and heat that continues after you stop exercising) it gives an estimate (apparently within 10%) of you're real effort.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Ideal Peace View Post
                  Dboxing is referring to to controlled laboratory studies (both metabolic ward experiments on humans and mammals). You can't gain weight if you don't intake anything, its that simple, theres only so much heat (ie. energy, law of thermodynamics) in a calorie that can sustain movement\cell activity in you're body, you lower it too a point, even extremely low (400 cal) then it doesn't matter who you are.

                  Plus, you don't discredit an energy expenditure model based on a few outliers (like the very few who have thyroid problems).
                  27 million people is not an outlier, and the model is proven false anyway. See twins example earlier in the thread.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by DFH View Post
                    It occurred to me before I made the OP that calories in/calories out lacks a specific definition. This is pretty clear already because it means different things to different people.

                    I'm not going to suggest a definition yet, but I would say that my understanding of it is that weight is directly calculated based on energy in (calories) minus energy expended (basal metabolism to keep you alive + energy used in activity).

                    Here's why I know that is false-

                    Let's do a thought experiment, like the E=MCsquared relativity guy used to do.

                    Say you have a large number of identical twins, and they are selected because their weight matches, and their health is pretty much the same.

                    Now for each of the identical twins, one eats Primal, and the other eats crap every day, but they eat the same number of calories. The one that eats crap drinks a lot of sugar soda, twinkies, pasta, bread, and stops at McDonald's every day. They do exactly the same amount of activity as pairs, running, sports, whatever.

                    Continue this for years.

                    At the end, will they weigh the same?

                    Of course not! They ate the same number of calories, expended the same energy, but no way in hell will their weight be identical. It's impossible.

                    That to me proves calories in/calories out is false.
                    Here’s where your experiment breaks down. What if they eat exactly the same foods, but one eats more and one eats less? The one taking in more calories than his BMR will (most likely) gain weight, and the one taking in fewer calories than his BMR will (absolutely) lose weight. I don’t think that the people on here trying to communicate that calories do in fact matter are saying that nutritional composition is irrelevant. They are not mutually exclusive. No matter how much time you spend tweaking a carburetor to make a car more efficient, the car still uses gas. If you add gas at the same rate or at a faster rate than what the car is burning, the tank will never go down. If your goal is to empty the tank, you need to pay attention to how much gas you are putting in, regardless of anything else you do.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      CICO works! The problem is that people seem to want to decide their calorie level from online calculators and/or advice from the internet boards, BUT CICO only works if people understand that everyone is an individual and the calorie level that might mean a loss for one person can result in a gain for another.

                      My story--I was morbidly obese my entire life, and I was 60 before I began seriously losing weight--thus post-menopausal and also undiagnosed hypothyroid (i.e., I had severe symptoms but my primary kept telling me that it was all 'aging').

                      Even at 300+, I could not lose unless I ate about 1400 cal. One nutritionist told me that was absurd, that a woman my size 'needed' at least 1800 cal daily. I thought that was great because I'd love to eat more, but within 2 weeks at 'her' recommended calorie level, I was rapidly gaining! I went back to my 1400 cal and began losing again. I initially lost 60 lbs before my Hashi's was finally diagnosed, and I was medicated. So even low thyroid doesn't have to mean weight gain if calories are controlled.

                      However, even optimally medicated, when I got down to 250 lbs, I needed to restrict calories even lower in order to lose. My endo confirmed this and suggested that the reason I'd been obese my entire life is that I have a genetically slow metabolism (now slowed further by age and thyroid deficiency).
                      I lost my remaining weight averaging about 1000 cal a day, but I did that via calorie cycling to avoid 'burn out' at such a low level.

                      Today, I'm at 150, hoping to eventually get to 145 (although all my doctors tell me that I'm fine now). I still need to watch calories in order to maintain, but that doesn't bother me in the least. What I've realized is that my body actually requires less fuel, but it's 'head hunger' (enticing foods) that makes me want to eat more than I actually need.

                      Yes, insulin will 'store' fat, but only if there's excess to be stored. I need to eat low carb because I'm extremely sensitive to carbs. Anything above 50g will cause my appetite to soar, so it's more convenient for me to remain low carb--and I actually prefer eating this way.

                      I have read that anyone who gets to the high weight I did has some metabolic dysfunction, so we have to be careful on these boards advising others. There's a big difference between the calorie requirements of a young, healthy person who has never had a weight 'problem' and someone who is morbidly obese with a metabolic dysfunction.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by dboxing View Post
                        Here’s where your experiment breaks down. What if they eat exactly the same foods, but one eats more and one eats less? The one taking in more calories than his BMR will (most likely) gain weight, and the one taking in fewer calories than his BMR will (absolutely) lose weight. I don’t think that the people on here trying to communicate that calories do in fact matter are saying that nutritional composition is irrelevant. They are not mutually exclusive. No matter how much time you spend tweaking a carburetor to make a car more efficient, the car still uses gas. If you add gas at the same rate or at a faster rate than what the car is burning, the tank will never go down. If your goal is to empty the tank, you need to pay attention to how much gas you are putting in, regardless of anything else you do.
                        In my opinion your view is valid, but you are commenting on something besides CICO. You are just saying that eating more makes a difference. I don't know anyone that has a need to dispute that. It's trivial.

                        Again, the problem is that everyone has a different view of what is meant by CICO.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I think a more clear explanation of why people see this differently comes from this entry by Taubes-

                          (He's talking about his analogy of the crowded restaurant. It's crowded because more people went into it, but that does not explain "why" more people went in...)

                          ...It’s what logicians call “vacuously” true. It’s true, but meaningless. It tells us nothing. And the same is true of overeating as an explanation for why we get fat. If we got fat, we had to overeat. That’s always true; it’s obvious, and it tells us nothing about why we got fat, or why one person got fat and another didn’t.
                          The Inanity of Overeating | Gary Taubes | Gary Taubes

                          If CICO is "True, but meaningless," I refer back to the OP. CICO needs to be replaced.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DFH View Post
                            Not exactly. If the twins do not have the same weight at the end of the experiment, CICO is invalid. That is my point.

                            CICO says (my understanding anyway) is that calories are THE ONLY number you need. We can agree that this is impossible, because the content of the diet mattered to the different twins.

                            Weight Watchers held to CICO until just recently and they admitted it was a mistake!
                            You have only proved CICO invalid if you continue to insist on defining the calories out portion of the equation extremely narrowly. Most people here are talking about calories out in terms of actual calories burnt, not some hypothetical number gotten from running your stats though the Harris-Benedict equation and an activity modifier.
                            The Primal Holla! Eating fat. Getting lean. Being awesome.

                            You were sick, but now you're well, and there's work to do. - Kilgore Trout

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The original question was: Calories in/calories out - what do we replace it with?

                              I think you all have answered the question. CICO is only a part of the body composition formula. You are the missing co-efficient. We know that co-efficient as n=1. It is up to each person to find out all the things that make up their uniqueness and what works for them. Finding out things like; You have a screw up organ (thyroid, adrenals, reproductive system), what fuel composition works best for you ( fats to carb ratio), how your digestive tract processes nutrients, etc...I could really throw this into a tail spin by adding your psychological issues around food, but we will just say the is part of the n=1 uniqueness.

                              My CICO replacement is: CICO (-+*/) n=1 = your body composition
                              ...how do you look, feel, and perform? -- Robb Wolf

                              My Blog.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by DFH View Post
                                In my opinion your view is valid, but you are commenting on something besides CICO. You are just saying that eating more makes a difference. I don't know anyone that has a need to dispute that. It's trivial.

                                Again, the problem is that everyone has a different view of what is meant by CICO.
                                You problem with CICO is that you understanding of the equation is oversimplified and incomplete.

                                The Energy Balance Equation | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

                                The link has been posted earlier. Please read it. It is long, I know, but it will help keep everybody on the same page. Your twins example does not disprove CICO it only shows that your understanding is incomplete.

                                I would even suggest nobody post to this thread until reading the link so we are all talking about the same thing. Which at the moment we are not.

                                If you don't know what BMR, TEF, NEAT are and how they adjust the CICO equation, any contribution to this thread will only serve to confuse the issue and be less than useful.
                                Don't be a paleotard...

                                http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...oxidation.html

                                http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...torage-qa.html

                                http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...rn-fat-qa.html

                                http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...-you-need.html

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X