I think the whole calories in / calories out phrasing is very disrespectful towards people with genetic obesity, (EDIT:) because these people can eat the same, sport the same, etc. as other people and still gain more weight. Telling them "just follow this equation like I do" hides the real problem behind a variable and is disrespectful because things aren't so simple for these people.
I am one of those people. I appreciate you saying this. I have spent decades of my life trying to lose weight including following doctors orders word for word for 10 years. It only ended with gained weight despite their beliefs in “physics”.
I am now 3.5 years into carbohydrate recovery and I’ve lost 200 pounds eating way way way more than my “TDEE”.
I’m not saying this for any other reason than to express my gratitude.
I lean toward either butter or tallow as a cooking oil, but outside of directly eating a stick I can’t imagine using an entire one to cook a meal per person.
It’s the phrasing, not the idea per se. Like, yes, weight loss is energy consumed - energy burned, but it’s rather obvious, rather unhelpful, and simplifies things in a way that triggers shame, not determination for people who have to overcome more barriers.
It’s like you’re in the middle of a marathon and someone running a 5k goes “have you considered running faster?”
I lost 30kg in a year or so by following "calories in / calories out". For me it was very helpful for two reasons:
1. Unlike a fixed diet or meal plan, it freed me to keep eating the things I wanted to eat. Not exactly as before, but to a large degree. I really enjoy my food, so not being forced to eat stuff I didn't want or like was crucial. Instead I focused finding ways of keeping the calories per day roughly at a target value. This simplified things a lot for me, as it was a clear and very tangible goal.
2. If I failed one day, say maybe I went out with some friends or I just had to have some ice cream or whatever, it allowed me to not feel bad about it. I knew this process would take a year at least, so "calories in / calories out" meant whatever I do today doesn't matter much, it's what I do every day that matters.
Imagine the time before the formalization of dyslexia within medicine. It would have been very disrespectful and cruel to tell people who found learning very challenging something like “just try harder! It’s basic physics, the more you study, the more you learn!”
No. The food you eat affects both sides of the equation. Different people will also have different responses to the same food due to factors like genetics, gut microbiome, etc. Calories in calories out works for everyone. Saying eat X calories per day to lose weight does not.
I agree. Neither you nor I made a specific comment in difficulty. Your parent comment stated it was disrespectful. I agreed and tried to use an analogy that would be considered both disrespectful and cruel by most people.
In addition, I have successfully eaten the “correct” amount of calories for years and years and still gained weight. I admit, andcdata, but I am not the only person with this story nor am I the only one with this odd medical outcome.
I put correct in quotes because it was ineffective. I did not lose weight eating the amount of calories that the doctors calculated. Is that surprising?
If you eat exactly 100g of refined sugar then your body can extract at most 400 calories. If you then burn 500, that 100 calorie difference must come from your body. That's all it means.
Finding how many calories your body needs right now to maintain weight is another issue entirely, and one which involves estimation and uncertainties.
If you find you're not losing weight while hitting your target value, well then it's simple[1]: your target value is wrong and needs to be lowered.
[1]: Assuming your doc verified you're not gaining weight due to water retention or similar.
Technically it is true... the same way as "atoms in, atoms out" is technically true. So why do people prefer saying "calories in, calories out" instead of "atoms in, atoms out"?
That's because "calories in, calories out" implies that there is an easy solution to being fat... you simply need to "out" more calories, while you "in" less calories, duh!
Which conveniently ignores all possible problems with trying to "in" less calories and "out" more of them. For example, that your metabolism can make you feel extremely tired, even pass out, if you don't "in" enough calories. Similarly, to "out" more calories you sometimes need more than sheer willpower; your muscles have to cooperate, and sometimes they will only if you "in" enough calories.
I mean anyone trying to tell you that it doesn't work and they have some magic shortcut for how to lose weight is lying to you. Their method for weight loss might work for you but not because CICO is wrong.
I would argue that CICO does not imply easy. The rendering equation really just says light in == light out but that doesn't mean writing a renderer is easy. People who say CICO doesn't work are usually trying to sell you an "easy" way to lose weight. Take this proprietary fat burning pill. Don't eat carbs. Don't eat fats. Eat 6 small meals a day. Eat 1 meal a day. Don't feed your mogwai after midnight.
If one of these strategies works for you, great. You've found a way to get calories in less than calories out.
One of those easy methods might actually work by affecting the "calories in". I mean, not everything you eat is processed by your body; some potential calories may be simply excreted. I can imagine how a pill, composition of food, or even the timing of it, might influence the gut flora, which in turn would change how many calories are actually extracted from the food.
This is the danger I see in simple slogans, that they make people automatically dismiss potential solutions. Of course, if a successful solution is found, it will be obvious in hindsight that CICO didn't actually contradict it. But no one who is happy with CICO as an answer is looking in that direction now.
EDIT: Same objection applies to "calories out". How do you spend calories? Typically by exercise or sport. But that way you can only spend calories that are currently stored in your muscles. What about calories that are currently stored in your fat cells -- how do you move them from there, into your muscles? Again, I imagine that a pill, or a change of diet, could make this more easy or difficult.
No, all calories are not the same. The basic process for measurements is "burn it, measure the energy output". " Burning" as in "gas flame, high heat, oxygenated atmosphere". This is something your body doesn't do, even if you supposedly "burn" calories. Your body uses different reactions that are often less efficient, meaning the energy output will be different from the calories measured. Nowadays some of those errors are corrected for, but not all of them. And depending on your personal metabolism, from genetics, daily changes and nutrient status, your body will be less or more efficient with some foods.
Irrelevant. If your body extracts only 50Cal from a 100Cal cube of sugar, but you counted that 100Cal value against your daily limit, then you're still achieving your goal. The problem is often that people set too high a limit and overestimate how much they burn during exercise.
Saying "all calories are the same" ignores a few really important things.
1) It ignores the processes involved in burning fats, sugars, and proteins, which can heavily impact where your body prioritizes getting its energy (or storing it).
2) It ignores other health impacts of 'calories' such as blood glucose levels, which absolutely will depend on what it is you're eating and not just the calorie count. Sugars, fats, and carbs are also processed in different parts of your body - so you might be following a "calories in calories out" and giving yourself non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
3) It conflates calories, as measured via completely artificial process, with human digestion.
Calorie as a measure sets upper limit of maximum energy you can extract from a given food. If you want to gain 1lb of weight, you will need to eat at least 3500 calories. If you want lose 1lb, you have create deficits of at least 3500 cals.
Do you mean something like calories in calories out?
And doesn’t that disregard the fact that sugar calories are very different from non sugar ones in terms of metabolism?