Anonymous
09/05/2023 09:30
Subject: Re:Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Well how about this?
CICO is true for most people. However, there are some individuals who don't metabolize their food intake as efficiently as most of us. They can input more food than average and still not gain weight. I happen to have known someone like that. She could eat, say, 4000 Cs or so every day and still keep her trim figure, even without spending much time exercising. She said she didn't know why this was so, but she had always been like that. Of course, she was the envy of every other woman in the office.
But most of us aren't like that. That's why people who succeed at losing weight and KEEPING IT OFF are much more likely to be those who accept the fact that they must keep track of calories, no matter what their source.
What about that? Your example is still CICO, it just shows that people have different caloric needs. Lots of things impact metabolism and caloric needs, for example, muscle mass, activity, and hormones. However, the function is still the same- eat more calories then you need and than your body can use and you will store the excess energy in the form of fat. Consumer fewer calories than your body needs to function and your body will take from your energy stores, that is, burn fat. People also have varying degrees of hunger. Some people are naturally more or less hungry than others.
This is why reducing calories for fat loss requires some trial and error to figure out individual needs.
Anonymous
09/04/2023 19:41
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It IS calories in calories out. It’s just that some people seem to have a harder time controlling calories in
And they don’t understand that just because Larla’s calories out = x doesn’t mean Larly’s calories out might = y despite a similar lifestyle.
This really captures the stupidity of CICO. Every body is different, and responds differently to a host of factors - including diet. There is no one size fits all.
+1
The problem with most discussions claiming "it's just CICO" is that they assume that individual people have identical metabolic processing. A "calorie" is the amount of energy that is theoretically available for your body to absorb. How much is actually absorbed depends on many physical, chemical, and metabolic factors related to both the person and food consumed. The amount of energy a person expends as part of their base metabolic rate and as part of exercising also varies. It's very aggravating to listen to people who are insistent that their exact meal plan and exercise routine will work for someone else "because CICO!" when those of us on the BTDT side of things know it doesn't work for them personally.
The other annoying thing is that people love to toss various scientific studies or personal anecdotes around as proof of various claims. But really when you examine a lot of studies, they have confounding variables that combine both calorie restriction and some other change. Until there are very large population studies that also account for body composition, microbiomes, genetics, hormonal variations (daily & over time), in addition to food types consumed and exercise, we won't have the information to provide individuals with personalized guidance around how to maintain a healthy weight.
+1000
^^This is it.
Anonymous
09/04/2023 19:11
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It IS calories in calories out. It’s just that some people seem to have a harder time controlling calories in
And they don’t understand that just because Larla’s calories out = x doesn’t mean Larly’s calories out might = y despite a similar lifestyle.
This really captures the stupidity of CICO. Every body is different, and responds differently to a host of factors - including diet. There is no one size fits all.
+1
The problem with most discussions claiming "it's just CICO" is that they assume that individual people have identical metabolic processing. A "calorie" is the amount of energy that is theoretically available for your body to absorb. How much is actually absorbed depends on many physical, chemical, and metabolic factors related to both the person and food consumed. The amount of energy a person expends as part of their base metabolic rate and as part of exercising also varies. It's very aggravating to listen to people who are insistent that their exact meal plan and exercise routine will work for someone else "because CICO!" when those of us on the BTDT side of things know it doesn't work for them personally.
The other annoying thing is that people love to toss various scientific studies or personal anecdotes around as proof of various claims. But really when you examine a lot of studies, they have confounding variables that combine both calorie restriction and some other change. Until there are very large population studies that also account for body composition, microbiomes, genetics, hormonal variations (daily & over time), in addition to food types consumed and exercise, we won't have the information to provide individuals with personalized guidance around how to maintain a healthy weight.
This is somewhat fair. But the calorie as a unit of energy measure and its impact on weight is not orders of magnitude off in the way people want it to be. All of what you write above would explain carrying 10 pounds of extra weight. Not 50.
Anonymous
09/04/2023 18:27
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:People want this to be as complicated as possible to abdicate their own personal responsibility and excuse the end result. It’s the same as everything else in modern life. It’s all somebody else’s fault and an elaborate conspiracy against them.
+1 this is it.
Anonymous
09/04/2023 18:02
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It IS calories in calories out. It’s just that some people seem to have a harder time controlling calories in
And they don’t understand that just because Larla’s calories out = x doesn’t mean Larly’s calories out might = y despite a similar lifestyle.
This really captures the stupidity of CICO. Every body is different, and responds differently to a host of factors - including diet. There is no one size fits all.
+1
The problem with most discussions claiming "it's just CICO" is that they assume that individual people have identical metabolic processing. A "calorie" is the amount of energy that is theoretically available for your body to absorb. How much is actually absorbed depends on many physical, chemical, and metabolic factors related to both the person and food consumed. The amount of energy a person expends as part of their base metabolic rate and as part of exercising also varies. It's very aggravating to listen to people who are insistent that their exact meal plan and exercise routine will work for someone else "because CICO!" when those of us on the BTDT side of things know it doesn't work for them personally.
The other annoying thing is that people love to toss various scientific studies or personal anecdotes around as proof of various claims. But really when you examine a lot of studies, they have confounding variables that combine both calorie restriction and some other change. Until there are very large population studies that also account for body composition, microbiomes, genetics, hormonal variations (daily & over time), in addition to food types consumed and exercise, we won't have the information to provide individuals with personalized guidance around how to maintain a healthy weight.
Anonymous
09/04/2023 17:19
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It IS calories in calories out. It’s just that some people seem to have a harder time controlling calories in
And they don’t understand that just because Larla’s calories out = x doesn’t mean Larly’s calories out might = y despite a similar lifestyle.
This really captures the stupidity of CICO. Every body is different, and responds differently to a host of factors - including diet. There is no one size fits all.
Anonymous
09/04/2023 16:46
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:CICO is just fact. No one is sedentary eating thousands of calories each day (3,000+) and skinny.
No one is running 10 miles a day eating 1,500 calories a day, and obese.
Yes, there may be some slight variation from person to person depending on their lifestyle habits and muscle mass, but CICO works. Maybe you take 2 identical people- same age, gender, activity levels, and weights. One person needs 1,750 calories to maintain, and the other needs 1,730 calories to maintain. Minute differences happen, but aren't going to cause big swings in weight.
The fact remains is that people generally aren't accurately counting their calories all day every day of the week, and are underestimating how much they consume, and over estimating how active they are.
First, except for people who really eat many sticks of butter, a low-carb diet is a low- or moderate-calorie diet.
Second, the biggest obstacle to weight loss is probably related to the messages the microbes in our guts send our brains and endocrine system.
A low-carb diet or other weird diet is a way to try to re-set faulty gut microbes. It might help by reducing calories, but it might also help, for some people, by changing endocrine system and brain factors that decrease hunger, increase happiness and increase focus and willpower.
So, for people who click with a low-carb diet, the endocrine and brain changes may be more important than the reduction in calories, even though the reduction in calories is the direct cause of the weight loss, because the endocrine and brain changes are what make sticking with the diet possible.
+1
Anonymous
09/04/2023 16:40
Subject: Re:Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Well how about this?
CICO is true for most people. However, there are some individuals who don't metabolize their food intake as efficiently as most of us. They can input more food than average and still not gain weight. I happen to have known someone like that. She could eat, say, 4000 Cs or so every day and still keep her trim figure, even without spending much time exercising. She said she didn't know why this was so, but she had always been like that. Of course, she was the envy of every other woman in the office.
But most of us aren't like that. That's why people who succeed at losing weight and KEEPING IT OFF are much more likely to be those who accept the fact that they must keep track of calories, no matter what their source.
CICO is true for most people. However, there are some individuals who don't metabolize their food intake as efficiently as most of us. They can input more food than average and still not gain weight. I happen to have known someone like that. She could eat, say, 4000 Cs or so every day and still keep her trim figure, even without spending much time exercising. She said she didn't know why this was so, but she had always been like that. Of course, she was the envy of every other woman in the office.
But most of us aren't like that. That's why people who succeed at losing weight and KEEPING IT OFF are much more likely to be those who accept the fact that they must keep track of calories, no matter what their source.
Anonymous
09/04/2023 15:17
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:CICO is just fact. No one is sedentary eating thousands of calories each day (3,000+) and skinny.
No one is running 10 miles a day eating 1,500 calories a day, and obese.
Yes, there may be some slight variation from person to person depending on their lifestyle habits and muscle mass, but CICO works. Maybe you take 2 identical people- same age, gender, activity levels, and weights. One person needs 1,750 calories to maintain, and the other needs 1,730 calories to maintain. Minute differences happen, but aren't going to cause big swings in weight.
The fact remains is that people generally aren't accurately counting their calories all day every day of the week, and are underestimating how much they consume, and over estimating how active they are.
First, except for people who really eat many sticks of butter, a low-carb diet is a low- or moderate-calorie diet.
Second, the biggest obstacle to weight loss is probably related to the messages the microbes in our guts send our brains and endocrine system.
A low-carb diet or other weird diet is a way to try to re-set faulty gut microbes. It might help by reducing calories, but it might also help, for some people, by changing endocrine system and brain factors that decrease hunger, increase happiness and increase focus and willpower.
So, for people who click with a low-carb diet, the endocrine and brain changes may be more important than the reduction in calories, even though the reduction in calories is the direct cause of the weight loss, because the endocrine and brain changes are what make sticking with the diet possible.
Anonymous
09/04/2023 15:05
Subject: Re:Economist article: Death of the Calorie
I think CICO has some merit. The real point though is that calories in is much easier to control with some diets than others. I switched a few years ago to a whole food plant exclusive diet (fine to call it vegan, but the distinction is that I avoid vegan junk foods). My experience is that the massive amount of fiber I take in fills me up before I can consume an excessive # of calories.
Anonymous
09/04/2023 15:04
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
I’d like to agree with you, but then we would both be wrong. Here’s a fact: fat cells are created by insulin when the insulin removes glucose from blood. The triggers for this insulin vary from person to person, but are related to glucose levels and changes to those levels. If you want to measure something, get a Keto Mojo glucose and ketosis monitor.Anonymous wrote:CICO is just fact. No one is sedentary eating thousands of calories each day (3,000+) and skinny.
No one is running 10 miles a day eating 1,500 calories a day, and obese.
Yes, there may be some slight variation from person to person depending on their lifestyle habits and muscle mass, but CICO works. Maybe you take 2 identical people- same age, gender, activity levels, and weights. One person needs 1,750 calories to maintain, and the other needs 1,730 calories to maintain. Minute differences happen, but aren't going to cause big swings in weight.
The fact remains is that people generally aren't accurately counting their calories all day every day of the week, and are underestimating how much they consume, and over estimating how active they are.
Anonymous
09/04/2023 13:53
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
CICO is just fact. No one is sedentary eating thousands of calories each day (3,000+) and skinny.
No one is running 10 miles a day eating 1,500 calories a day, and obese.
Yes, there may be some slight variation from person to person depending on their lifestyle habits and muscle mass, but CICO works. Maybe you take 2 identical people- same age, gender, activity levels, and weights. One person needs 1,750 calories to maintain, and the other needs 1,730 calories to maintain. Minute differences happen, but aren't going to cause big swings in weight.
The fact remains is that people generally aren't accurately counting their calories all day every day of the week, and are underestimating how much they consume, and over estimating how active they are.
No one is running 10 miles a day eating 1,500 calories a day, and obese.
Yes, there may be some slight variation from person to person depending on their lifestyle habits and muscle mass, but CICO works. Maybe you take 2 identical people- same age, gender, activity levels, and weights. One person needs 1,750 calories to maintain, and the other needs 1,730 calories to maintain. Minute differences happen, but aren't going to cause big swings in weight.
The fact remains is that people generally aren't accurately counting their calories all day every day of the week, and are underestimating how much they consume, and over estimating how active they are.
Anonymous
09/03/2023 23:26
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:https://web.archive.org/web/20230827150018/https://www.economist.com/1843/2019/02/28/death-of-the-calorie
Very interested to hear folks’ thoughts on this article. The “calories in, calories out” mantra has always frustrated me. I’m a keto adherent, and I have found that eating a low carb diet is the best (only?) way for me to maintain a healthy weight. I never count calories because I find it difficult - and I suspect that that method of weight control really pushes people away from home cooked meals (which are difficult to weigh/estimate calories) and towards simple, prepackaged foods.
The article raises an interesting question: is the calorie a necessary/useful concept for human nutrition?
It’s not possible for most people to keep carbs under 30 grams per day and have calories go over 2,000 calories without a lot of artificial sweetener carbs, and most will have a hard time going over 1,500 calories. So, anyone who’s sticking honestly to a low-carb diet without eating many sticks of butter has a fairly low-calorie diet.
Even the people eating sticks of butter are probably eating fewer calories than they would on a regular diet.
Anonymous
09/03/2023 22:11
Subject: Re:Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Some people’s bodies are more efficient than others and as a result they need to eat fewer calories.
Anonymous
09/03/2023 20:45
Subject: Economist article: Death of the Calorie
Anonymous wrote:The most weight I’ve lost in my life—the last year—I did not count a single thing. (Well, low to zero sugar, I did count that. But that’s not really counting.)
If the trick is “calories in calories out” that doesn’t mean you have to succeed by counting it
It’s like, the earth still goes around the sun. We count it, day by day, but the counting isn’t how it works.