Calories in/Calories out-what do we replace it with? page 2

[DFH]

Interesting. I'm curious to hear how others will respond.

My 2 cents is that CICO is not a useless or discredited way of thinking. I feel like the concept of CICO is still important in understanding weight loss/gain. What may need to change however, is thinking that CICO is what it's all about.

There are many factors that influence whether restricting calories will lead to weightloss or not. Sometimes it will (I have always been very successful in dropping a few bodyfat percentages simply by cutting back on calories a bit). Then again, sometimes it will not. A screwed up metabolism can prevent you from losing any fat no matter how much you restrict calories. So can imbalances of various hormones. For many people, healing these underlying causes is necessary in order to lose weight. These people can't focus on CICO, they need to focus on eating foods that will fix their metabolic/hormonal issues.

My overall view is this:
Eat healthy/natural foods that allow your body to function properly. When this is the case, and your metabolism works like it should, and leptin/insulin/glucagon/etc do thier jobs without fuss, and your adrenals/thyroid/etc work properly, then a CICO-based approach to weightloss will probably work for you.

I certainly could be wrong, but this is the way I interpret things.

I don't think "fix your problems so CICO can work" is the right answer. If the math doesn't work for everyone, it doesn't work. You can't get everyone to fix their problems just so a simple equation can be applied.

[DFH]

Thankfully no, I haven’t, but there are worse things than thyroid disease, so consider me unimpressed with the self-pity. Regardless of any disease, nothing in the universe can gain mass without having mass added.

That is not the issue at all. The issue is that the math doesn't work. No one is saying that eating less makes you gain weight or anything. The math does not explain how weight really works.

Anyone can make generalizations, but that is not the topic.

[ciep]

If the math doesn't work for everyone, it doesn't work.

How do you know the math doesn't work? What math are you doing exactly? How do you measure "calories out"?

[AndreaReina]

Interesting. I'm curious to hear how others will respond.

My 2 cents is that CICO is not a useless or discredited way of thinking. I feel like the concept of CICO is still important in understanding weight loss/gain. What may need to change however, is thinking that CICO is what it's all about.

There are many factors that influence whether restricting calories will lead to weightloss or not. Sometimes it will (I have always been very successful in dropping a few bodyfat percentages simply by cutting back on calories a bit). Then again, sometimes it will not. A screwed up metabolism can prevent you from losing any fat no matter how much you restrict calories. So can imbalances of various hormones. For many people, healing these underlying causes is necessary in order to lose weight. These people can't focus on CICO, they need to focus on eating foods that will fix their metabolic/hormonal issues.

My overall view is this:
Eat healthy/natural foods that allow your body to function properly. When this is the case, and your metabolism works like it should, and leptin/insulin/glucagon/etc do thier jobs without fuss, and your adrenals/thyroid/etc work properly, then a CICO-based approach to weightloss will probably work for you.



I certainly could be wrong, but this is the way I interpret things.

Exactly.

I don't think "fix your problems so CICO can work" is the right answer. If the math doesn't work for everyone, it doesn't work. You can't get everyone to fix their problems just so a simple equation can be applied.

The math does work for everyone. Unless you are severely sick (on death's door) you will not excrete significant amounts of caloric matter (sugar, protein, fat) in urine, feces, any other waste product. The only other way for the mass to disappear is to use the energy, and excrete the waste products (carbon dioxide through exhalation, hydrogen and nitrogen through urine). I invite you to tell me where either my facts or my reasoning are incorrect.

The complication is that there are many factors that affect calories out. In a healthy metabolism the body isn't defending its fat stores therefore simply dropping calories will allow fat to be metabolized.... and usually if there is excess fat in this case the body will reduce appetite to facilitate this (see, same calories out, less in). In a deranged metabolism the body resists weight loss for any number of reasons (toxicity, malnutrition, pathogens, etc) and will actively reduce the metabolic rate. This is why sufferers of hypothyroid have a lower body temperature, feel sluggish, etc (same calories in, less calories out).

[marcadav]

Thankfully no, I haven’t, but there are worse things than thyroid disease, so consider me unimpressed with the self-pity. Regardless of any disease, nothing in the universe can gain mass without having mass added.

I'm well aware there are worse things than thyroid disease as I live with some of those things. And, because of the things I live with, I have never been into self pity.

I am someone who knows, from experience, that you can eat 1000 calories a day, put 5-10 miles a day on the treadmill, run after 3 kids (including twins) maintain 1/3 of an acre, etc and still gain weight. My proof-- after getting adequately treated, I now eat at least 1600 calories/day, put less time-at a slower pace-on the treadmill, no longer run after the kids, and the 1/3 acre yard was sold 3 years ago, yet I've lost 60+ pounds.

[barryman9000]

Yes…except that you can’t gain weight without calories. And, if you expend more calories over time than you taken in, your mass will be reduced. Therefore, calories have a lot to do with bodyweight.

I've been changing my tune on this whole issue recently as I'm seeing more evidence that calories have very little to do with weight gain in healthy people who have a properly functioning endocrine system. The n=1 answer is I'm eating about 500-700 more calories per day now that I'm eating Paleo/Primal, yet I've dropped 25Lbs of belly fat and kept it off for over a year and I actually exercise a lot less now (almost no exercise in the past 5 months because we just had a baby).

That shouldn't be humanly possible if cals in/cals out is the foundation for weight management.

Just because we need "more" calories to gain weight, doesn't mean we will automatically get fat by taking in more calories per day. I'm not one to point people to GCBC, say read it, and consider that the end of the discussion... however the chapter about paradoxes discusses this, and if nothing else its very interesting. Some sedentary people increase their intake to from 2,000 to 10,000 cals/day and only gain 1Lbs, while others gain 30Lbs.

[JKC]

Unless you are severely sick (on death's door) you will not excrete significant amounts of caloric matter (sugar, protein, fat) in urine, feces, any other waste product.

TMI WARNING

On death's door? I think not - I have a gluten intolerance and a lactose intolerance and I had chronic diarrhea for years, which led to vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and I was supporting a weight of 140 lbs on around 3000 calories a day, with very sedentary activity. Honestly, nearly half of my food value was going in the toilet, and you could see it was undigested.

I eat maybe half of that now. It is far easier than you think to eat food and not digest it. All I need to do is drink a glass of milk and I am right there again.

[MalPaz]

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

[MalPaz]

In a deranged metabolism the body resists weight loss for any number of reasons (toxicity, malnutrition, pathogens, etc) and will actively reduce the metabolic rate. This is why sufferers of hypothyroid have a lower body temperature, feel sluggish, etc (same calories in, less calories out).

if your suffering these ails you surely are not providing your body with the nutriton it needs, end of story

[dboxing]

To all those posting here who say they are eating more than they used to but not gaining and/or losing weight – YOU ARE STILL EXPENDING MORE ENERGY (or otherwise removing mass) THAN YOU TAKE IN. JUST AS YOU CANNOT GAIN MASS WITHOUT ADDING MASS, YOU CANNOT LOSE MASS WITHOUT TAKING AWAY MASS. Sorry for the shouting but this is silly. The logical conclusion of your position is that you could manipulate hormones and starvation wouldn’t happen.