Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness

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

  • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    You can eat a big steak for the same calories as a piece of cake, the calories will be mostly protein-based (superior for body composition) and you'll stay full for hours in the steak whereas the cake may make you hungrier. It's that simple.
    I thought it was as simple as eating less and moving around more? Are we pro-CICO or anti-CICO today?
    The Champagne of Beards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
      I thought it was as simple as eating less and moving around more? Are we pro-CICO or anti-CICO today?
      Are you serious?

      She isn't eating as much. Period. That's the only reason why she's losing weight. How about you quote the whole post?

      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      You are eating more food volume but less calories. Whole foods are far less calorically dense than processed foods. You can eat a big steak for the same calories as a piece of cake, the calories will be mostly protein-based (superior for body composition) and you'll stay full for hours in the steak whereas the cake may make you hungrier. It's that simple.
      Trollolol. You're adorable.
      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        You are eating more food volume but less calories. Whole foods are far less calorically dense than processed foods. You can eat a big steak for the same calories as a piece of cake, the calories will be mostly protein-based (superior for body composition) and you'll stay full for hours in the steak whereas the cake may make you hungrier. It's that simple.
        And why does the cake make you feel hungrier than the steak?

        Oh, it's that tricky bastard insulin coming in to confound the pure calories in, calories out theory!
        "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
          Are you serious?

          She isn't eating as much. Period. That's the only reason why she's losing weight. How about you quote the whole post?


          Trollolol. You're adorable.
          I'm serious about the fact that you misunderstand the very CICO argument you claim to support.

          Your post is an excellent re-statement of (at least part of) the alternative hypothesis.

          That being said, I kind of think you come off as an a-hole when you tell people to eat less and move around more. Because you know it's not so simple (as demonstrated above).
          The Champagne of Beards

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
            And why does the cake make you feel hungrier than the steak?

            Oh, it's that tricky bastard insulin coming in to confound the pure calories in, calories out theory!
            Even if it's not the insulin, but the fact that cake is a processed food, (like cream or butter?), he's arguing against the very CICO principles that he claims to support.
            The Champagne of Beards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
              Even if it's not the insulin, but the fact that cake is a processed food, (like cream or butter?), he's arguing against the very CICO principles that he claims to support.
              Hey, I agree that calories matter a lot. But the human body is definitely more complex than the pure "it's 100% calories all the time" arguement.
              "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                Hey, I agree that calories matter a lot. But the human body is definitely more complex than the pure "it's 100% calories all the time" arguement.
                Gain or loss of mass is defined as the calorie surplus or deficit consumed. But they're dependent variables. The type of calories you eat affects the amount of calories you expend. And the type of expenditure affects the amount you eat. And the type of calories you eat affects the amount you eat (as Choco noted above). They're complex, interrelated figures that are regulated by mechanisms beyond our control and precise understanding.

                So the prescription for weight loss isn't so simple as "eat less, move more." It's eat smarter, move smarter.
                The Champagne of Beards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                  Even if it's not the insulin, but the fact that cake is a processed food, (like cream or butter?), he's arguing against the very CICO principles that he claims to support.
                  No he is not, many people will feel more satisfied by eating the steak instead of the piece of cake, but they will lose or gain exactly the same if they eat the same amount of calories. Your strawman that eating the piece of cake may lead some people to eat more calories, and then breaking their diet, is irrelevant here...
                  "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                  - Schopenhauer

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                    No he is not, many people will feel more satisfied by eating the steak instead of the piece of cake, but they will lose or gain exactly the same if they eat the same amount of calories. Your strawman that eating the piece of cake may lead some people to eat more calories, and then breaking their diet, is irrelevant here...
                    And my arch nemesis is back in full force!

                    It's really not irrelevant nor a strawman. If it were possible to hold both intake and expenditure constant, CICO would work perfectly. The fact is decades of studies have shown that people make terrible bomb calorimeters.

                    If your food makes you hungrier, you'll have a harder time losing weight. Because you'll eat more and move less. But CICO dogma confuses the cause and the effect.

                    When an adolescent grows taller, he's obviously eating more than he expends. But we don't tell parents to force-feed their growing children to make them taller, (or starve them to keep them from growing too tall) because we recognize that hormonal signals are driving the extra calorie intake.

                    It's the same when a middle-aged woman grows fatter. Telling her to eat less and get more exercise (CICO dogma) is putting more blame on her than she likely deserves.
                    The Champagne of Beards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                      And why does the cake make you feel hungrier than the steak?

                      Oh, it's that tricky bastard insulin coming in to confound the pure calories in, calories out theory!
                      Nope. Insulin doesn't increase hunger, it decreases it.

                      Cake increases hunger for one reason - it is a mix of sugar, starch and fat. These things make you want to eat more when in combination. Take a tablespoon to a bag of flour, a bag of sugar and a bucket of oil separately. You won't get very far. Mix them together and what do you get? Addiction.

                      Of course, if you can control your intake, you won't gain weight...but most can't control and overeat. There is nothing inherently fattening about cake. It is just more likely to be overconsumed than plain meat.

                      CICO is not a theory, it is a law. If you disagree, you are wrong. Steak releases more insulin than pasta.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                        I'm serious about the fact that you misunderstand the very CICO argument you claim to support.

                        Your post is an excellent re-statement of (at least part of) the alternative hypothesis.

                        That being said, I kind of think you come off as an a-hole when you tell people to eat less and move around more. Because you know it's not so simple (as demonstrated above).
                        You are wrong. My post clearly says CICO = fact. You keep trying to bring hunger into it. What does hunger have to do with calories?

                        Nothing.

                        Every one of your posts is a straw man.
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                          Gain or loss of mass is defined as the calorie surplus or deficit consumed. But they're dependent variables. The type of calories you eat affects the amount of calories you expend. And the type of expenditure affects the amount you eat. And the type of calories you eat affects the amount you eat (as Choco noted above). They're complex, interrelated figures that are regulated by mechanisms beyond our control and precise understanding.

                          So the prescription for weight loss isn't so simple as "eat less, move more." It's eat smarter, move smarter.
                          The inability to measure your calories properly does not discount CICO.

                          The inability for you to control your consumption does not discount CICO.

                          A variable TDEE does not discount CICO.

                          They are entirely different arguments. CICO is always law. Enough with the straw men. You may be able to control your hunger better eating nothing but steak and eggs. So what? If you consume more than you expend you will gain weight regardless of food source. CICO every time.

                          Eat less, move more. Every time. Your definition of "eat smarter" is to eat more satiating foods so you eat less. You're contradicting yourself over and over.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • Gwammas palms are twitching.............
                            "never let the truth get in the way of a good story "

                            ...small steps....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                              It's the same when a middle-aged woman grows fatter. Telling her to eat less and get more exercise (CICO dogma) is putting more blame on her than she likely deserves.
                              Huh? How's telling someone to eat less is "putting more blame on her"?

                              If she wants to stop growing fatter she'll have to do something, change something in her life. Eating less and moving more sounds like an excellent start.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                                CICO is not a theory, it is a law. If you disagree, you are wrong. [/I][/U][/B]
                                CICO as a description is perfectly accurate. It's like saying a room full of people is that way because more people entered it than left. It doesn't tell you why the people want to be in the room. Is there a free buffet? Concert? Are they chained to the walls by an evildoer? (analogy stolen from Peter Attia and bastardized by me)

                                CICO dogma, however, says that it's simple to lose weight. Just do the math. Buy a food scale. Calculate your BMR, look at the calorie output meter on the treadmill, and eat a little less than you expend, and you'll lose weight.

                                But people aren't bomb calorimeters, and CICO dogma is fail.

                                In other words, CICO is a description, not a prescription. This is another issue (like the butter thing) where you continually talk out both sides of your mouth.

                                You can't defend CICO dogma by using the laws of Thermodynamics because nobody (with half a brain) is denying the laws of Thermodynamics.

                                In other words, you're the one with the straw man. Mis-stating and then disputing the alternative hypothesis = straw man.
                                The Champagne of Beards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X