When are people going to think it's a simple as calories in/calories out?

Saying it again again wrote:

Saying it again wrote:

I ate 3000 calories daily of a standard diet, and could not manage my weight.

I now eat 3000 calories daily with no more than 30 grams daily of carbohydrates, and I have both lost significant weight and manage to easily control my weight.

3000=3000, but one of these methods allows me to lose, and control weight, one does not.

CI/CO is false.

I absolutely agree. I eat can manage my weight better eating double the calories (good food) than I ever could restricting whilst eating fad diet/crap food.

Is this like Blood In / Blood Out?

Vatos Locos 4 Life

Yes, everyone is somewhat different, but ultimately if people don't eat enough they lose weight. If they lose too much weight, they die. Victims of famine, POW/concentration camps, and hunger strikers have proven this countless times. 60-70 days of not eating is all it takes.

Saying it again again wrote:

Saying it again wrote:

I ate 3000 calories daily of a standard diet, and could not manage my weight.

I now eat 3000 calories daily with no more than 30 grams daily of carbohydrates, and I have both lost significant weight and manage to easily control my weight.

3000=3000, but one of these methods allows me to lose, and control weight, one does not.

CI/CO is false.

People act like the thermic effect of food is some SHOCKING new idea. Digestion/adsorption varies so you can never go by the label alone.

A person can't gain more weight than equal to the calories they intake or they would be making fat/muscle/etc. out of nothing. This doesn't mean that all intake calories are turned to fat/muscle/bone etc. though.

You will lose as much fat/muscle/bone etc. equivalent to the energy burned by the body through work or you would have obtained energy from nothing. This doesn't mean you can't lose more than the energy burned through work though.

The amount of surplus calories in that is converted to fat is highly dependent on what you eat and when you eat.

The amount of calories out in addition to the work the body performs, is also depends on what you eat and when you eat.

We are all an experiment of one. I can say for myself between high fat low carb or high carb low fat or just plain eating whatever I want it’s really about the same. I really never noticed any different in weight other than I would say eating plant based was easiest to maintain a good weight. Mostly because I love sweets and beer and most plant based foods are low fat and therefor generally not as calorie dense. But in the end each way of eating was mostly the same in terms of calories in calories out. Plant based it just wasn’t even possible to come close in calories to eating junk, all that fiber just fills you up.

So I generally have a CICO viewpoint and am skeptical of people who say they eat more calories overall than another way of eating and weigh less. The only caveat is that one will generally be a few pounds lighter eating low carb since the body will retain less water weight on a low carb diet. But most people who eat low carb tend to eat a lot of meat so you end up with some extra weight sitting in your gut since it will not be very fast moving.

I always wonder how many different things people have actually tried when they say they’ve tried to lose weight. Like how long they tried and what they actually tried. I’ve fluctuated a lot through my life and always find it fairly easy to figure out. I just cut back on snacks and treats, eat smaller meals and increase my activity level and I lose weight. Idk seems pretty uncomplicated.

I have also found it really easy to go through life not being a nicotine, heroin, alcohol, and a zillion other things addict. Doesn't mean a lot of people don't struggle with those addictions. Different brain chemistries and all.

CICO sounds good but it ignores a lot of stuff. Certain type of CI are easier to maintain than others. It is easy to sit down with a piece of paper and write up some 1500/day scheme. A lot of people find maintaining that to be hard. Same thing where CO is affected a lot by what you eat. Some times it takes 150 caloiries to digest 1500. Other times 500.

That being said a basic sane diet tends to work for almost everyone. Most people don't have problems eating carbs. They have problems eating pure sugar. And if you are eating a lot of brocolli, lettuce, carrots and so on, you can get enough volume of food not to feel super hungry.

The problems come after getting to the really obese cases (i.e. the 50+ lbs overweight) and total lack of exercise where you start developing weird metabolic issues.

Yes. Sometimes just a brief change of environment, like a vacation, can cause me to lose like 3% of my weight and I'll keep it off after I return for months until late winter.

Different brain chemistries have nothing to do with digestion of calories. I am not discounting that it might be tough for people to actually reduce their eating. I don’t disbelieve that at all. But that is not the same as actually trying to lose weight by reducing calories and increasing activity level. People who actually do these things lose weight. What I am skeptical of is people who say they try these things and somehow cannot lose weight. This is not at all analogous to a drug addict saying they tried to stop doing crack but couldn’t because the crack addict obviously was still doing crack, that’s why they couldn’t stop. Or wait maybe that is analogous since the person trying to lose weight didn’t actually reduce their calories, they just say they did. Makes it easier to justify. “ I tried losing weight, it didn’t work. Oh well guess I’ll just stuff my face.”

Some people are just flat out lazy/undisciplined and don’t care enough about their health to make an effort to lose weight. They make all the usual excuses and try to make it much more complicated than it really is because they don’t want to admit they’re lazy.

These same people have the nerve to be surprised when they start having health problems as they get older as if it’s some mystery and totally out of their control.

There’s a few people like this in my family ( older siblings) and I’m tired of hearing them complain as they continue overeating and smoking cigarettes. Ridiculous.

Or they are like the smoker who tries to quit. They do good for 3 days and then relapse. You can blame lack of willpower if you want but you have no clue if it is 10x easier for you to resist the appeal of eating because you aren't getting the same amount of dopamine released when you get that sugar hit. I mean I can't understand why people don't run? Isn't it one of the more fun things you can do? The only reasonable explanation is that those people don't get the enjoyment that I do.

That does not dispute calories in calories out. Willpower has nothing to do with digestion and converting calories into energy. While it might be harder in terms of willpower does change reality, it simply just is a matter of reducing caloric intake.

i had my thyroid gland removed and gained 40lbs in the space of 3 months while eating the same as you always have.

I used to believe in CICO until this happened to me.

StillRunning1950 wrote:

i had my thyroid gland removed and gained 40lbs in the space of 3 months while eating the same as you always have.

I used to believe in CICO until this happened to me.

Thank you.

Because these CICO militants are nuts.

I've done this repeatedly for more than 10 years. I can do it right now, and prove it. ALL I have to do is eat a standard diet, and things like bread, beer, pretzels, pizza, cookies sometimes, cake now and then, and I'll gain 40 pounds.

Oh, but none of you eat those things, right? You get burgers without buns, you drink ice tea with nothing in it, never desserts, right?

I'm glad someone mentioned caloric burn from certain foods, and that those who avoid carbs can loose a bit of water weight. 40 pounds is 40 pounds, though. CI/CO is a lie. WHY so many of you are determined to deny this escapes me. You all work for the grain industry?

diseases interfere. just one person I'm thinking of should weigh 126 with all the training he does but weighs 170-176 with challenges including Hashimoto.

trustmeimadoctor wrote:

diseases interfere. just one person I'm thinking of should weigh 126 with all the training he does but weighs 170-176 with challenges including Hashimoto.

Hashimoto’s can also make you incredibly underweight despite eating a metric tonne.

Metabolic issue s are real (and are not limited to obese binge-eaters). People in this thread are truly delulu.

It’s funny how runners are always the first to swear by CICO but then when these same people hit the gym they are the first people complain that they can’t gain muscle due to their ectomorph genetics despite eating 7kcals a day.

Calories in / out is basically right.

You can't magically produce body weight out of thin air without eating, and you can't produce energy in the same way without burning either consumed food or stored body fat.

As long as you massively overeat you would always gain weight, as long as you starve yourself and/or exercise a lot you will always lose weight.

The equation is more difficult when you come to the level of just maintaining a healthy weight, now there are a lot of small factors involved.

But the main problem with calories in calories out is the following:

1000 calories of pizza is very much the same like 1000 calories of chicken breast.

However, you can easily ingest 1000 calories with a single medium sized pizza, whereas you have to consume almost 1 kg of chicken breast for the same amount of calories. So people who think CICO principle doesn't work are usually the ones who try to stay with their high caloric density foods like pizza, burgers, Coke and so on and try just to eat less of it. Of course that doesn't work or you have to be very disciplined, but most people are not that disciplined. Better change your diet to healthy foods with less saturated fat and processed carbohydrates.

Additionally many people rely too much on the calorie intake part of the equation. You can just restrict your diet to a certain healthy level in the long term. But the amount of calories burned can be multiplied easily with exercise. Of course it does not mean half an hour of walking every other day, that maybe even just increases your appetite afterwards. No it means being active all day long, every day.

This does not disprove CICO. Your calories in remained the same but your calories out decreased due to removal of your thyroid gland. It's still a basic math equation, it's just that while CI remained the same, CO changed due to hormonal change. I think where people are getting confused is that weight gain is ALWAYS CI>CO, but CO can vary greatly depending on what you eat, when your eat, hormones, exercise, etc, etc and for that matter CI is probably never what you actually think it is either because you can never truly know the exact calories in your foods. But bottom line is that to gain weight CI>CO 100% of the time. It's just that CO is dependent on way too many variables to ever measure exactly.

I eat tons of carbs without issue. When I was ate plant based that was the majority of my diet and actually because plant based meals are generally less calorie dense it left more room for me to indulge in treats and beer without overconsuming calories. That was the easiest it’s ever been to maintain a healthy weight for me, eating a high carb plant based diet. So yeah, carbs rule as far as I’m concerned.

Lately I’ve been eating very similar to the plant based diet I was eating for several years but now I eat meat and cheese but not with most meals. I gained some weight when I started bringing back animal products back into my diet but now am getting ready to lose some weight over the off season. To do that I will do some intermittent fasting along with just limiting my indulgences but that doesn’t mean I have to cut those things out entirely.